The only reason why Kazakhstan is being considered either as a complement or an alternative to Mongolia as a transit state to China is for political reasons.
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak confirmed in mid-November that “We are now potentially considering with our Chinese friends a new route through Kazakhstan, which could also amount to around 35 billion cubic meters of gas.” This builds upon what the Kazakh Ambassador to Russia disclosed in May and would almost equal the maximum capacity of the Power of Siberia I pipeline at 38 billion cubic meters of gas per year, but would be less than the proposed Power of Siberia II’s 50 billion.
About the last-mentioned pipeline, this analysis here covered the reported Chinese-Russian pricing dispute that appears in hindsight to have been why Putin didn’t sign an agreement on this megaproject during his last trip to Beijing in May. It was then followed up a few months later with this one here about how Russia might instead redirect its pipeline plans towards Iran and India. In brief, China wants bargain-basement prices while Russia wants something better, hence why no deal has been reached.
This dilemma hasn’t yet been resolved, thus raising questions about the feasibility of a Russia gas pipeline to China through Kazakhstan. After all, the problem isn’t the Power of Siberia II’s capacity, which could always be reduced upon an agreement on pricing. The persistent problem has precisely been that they can’t resolve their pricing dispute. The only reason why Kazakhstan is being considered either as a complement or an alternative to Mongolia as a transit state to China is for political reasons.
To explain, even though Kazakhstan was just invited to partner with BRICS, this analysis here from mid-October right before that happened enumerated three analyses over the past 15 months highlighting Russia’s concerns about that country’s reliability in the face of Western pressure since February 2022. There’s accordingly a chance that Russia might agree to China’s reportedly requested bargain-basement gas prices if this is deemed required to keep Kazakhstan from drifting further into its rivals’ camp.
Of course, Russia would still prefer to receive better terms, but a much smaller profit margin might be considered an acceptable cost to pay for the aforesaid political dividend. If concerns over Kazakhstan’s reliability are alleviated in the coming year, such as if a ceasefire enters into effect in Ukraine and the West consequently reduces some of its pressure upon that Central Asian country, then Russia might be less interested in this sort of financial-political compromise.
Instead, it might be emboldened to continue refusing China’s reported terms, with the expectation being that the US’ accelerated “Pivot (back) to Asia” under Trump in that scenario could place more stress on China’s energy supply chains and thus coerce it into agreeing to more of Moscow’s terms. This could in turn possibly lead to an eventual breakthrough on the Power of Siberia II pipeline talks, in which case Russia might even be able to get a higher price than it initially bargained for if the circumstances change.
With all this insight in mind, it can therefore be concluded that the latest talk about a Russian gas pipeline to China through Kazakhstan is the Kremlin’s backup plan in case the Ukrainian Conflict continues into the indefinite future in parallel with more Western pressure on that transit country. This could thus help keep Kazakhstan from drifting further into its rivals’ camp while also resulting in more budgetary revenue for Russia from China. For now, however, it’s just a proposal and not a serious plan.
It would be beneficial to both countries to resolve this matter in a timely manner for monetary profit reasons. The longer this drags out, the more bad optics it brings to BRICS' credibility if the two main players can't make a basic agreement, right? I propose that Russia make China a 20% shareholder in all energy projects destined for its country and set an example for BRICS's future development in how deals are done. China gets fair value in shares, while Russia gets fair value or more on its gas price from China. It's a win-win for both countries and lays the foundation for how to get deals done between BRICS countries. It's a start. As long as this dispute exists, BRICS cannot advance running the risk of being a great idea that went nowhere.
I think Russia only needs to move a small step back in gas pricing. PRC was not that reliable a business partner in the past (ask Sukhoi), and China needs gas anyway. I also like commentator Denis idea (above) to invite China to become a minority shareholder in the project. The original Siberia pipeline was focused on the needs of China's northeast (Manchuria) to replace its depleted coal. However, the whole north China and Chinese northwest also can use some imported gas, especially when China is moving its MIC further west.
To push the same idea a little bit more: both the proposed pipeline through Kazakhstan and the previous pipeline through Mongolia can both invite Mongolia and Kazakhstan to take minority shares in the project in exchange for the land access fees/lease. Kazakhstan is well known to have large natural gas reserve looking for path to export to the west. But if there is a buyer from the east, I don't think Kazakhstan would take an issue there. The same can be said about gas/oil in Mongolia. Note the total business scope and profits available to Russia are reduced, maybe even more so than the gutted gas deal between China and Russia. However, each trade happening inside BRICS and the global south is a blow to USD hegemony. Due to China's own projects in developing oil/gas in China's northwest, pipelines entering Xinjiang from Kazakhstan can eventually link to China's own domestic pipeline between northern China and China's northwest.
Of course, the whole scope does not have to be this big in the beginning, but it is a strategic option Russia has to consider now due to its long term goals and effect.