What is next on the Kremlin's shopping list?

Mid-sized oil company Russneft will have a new president this week, as its head Mikhail Gutseriyev prepares to quit after months of pressure from the authorities. The new owner will be billionaire Oleg Deripaska, whose Basic Element holding company controls the world's largest aluminium producer United Company Rusal.

The Russneft deal is no ordinary business transaction, as all arrangements in strategically sensitive sectors take place with the Kremlin's knowledge and at least its tacit consent. Deripaska is known for his loyalty to the Kremlin and has declared that he would sell his business to the state if asked to do so.

What is the future of the company under its new chief?  It is tempting to make comparisons with Mikhail Khodorkovsky's Yukos: like Khodorkovsky, Gutseriyev is suspected of being disloyal to the Kremlin. Gutseriyev seemed to fall from grace when he tried to acquire Yukos Finance's 49% stake in Slovak state-controlled company Transpetrol -- an asset also coveted by Gazprom. Problems with the tax authorities started soon afterwards with eight lawsuits brought against eleven companies that are or have been shareholders in Russneft.

As with the Yukos affair, charges of illegal activities committed on a grand scale have been brought against Gutseriyev, who refused to go quietly. There was a touch of martyrdom in his valedictory letter: he said that he hoped his departure would save the company.

The state may be planning Russneft's reacquisition at a later stage by one of the national champions -- Gazprom or Rosneft. Two scenarios are possible:

• Deripaska, who is allowed to retain ownership of the company in the long run, buys Russneft. This would mean that the Kremlin is not intent on renationalising all energy assets, and there is scope for private ownership in the sector -- provided the assets are in a safe pair of hands.
• Russneft is re-acquired from Deripaska by Gazprom or Rosneft. This would advance the consolidation of assets in state hands.

The second scenario would send out a negative signal, since it would  weaken  property rights  in the country.