Gas Pipeline Drives Political Wedge Between Europe

[Laworkerbee]

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k141/laworkerbee/13pipes1-600.jpgGazprom employers prepared to weld a section of a gas pipeline near the town of Novy Urengoy in December 2007.


MOSCOW — With an ambitious new pipeline planned to run along the bed of the Baltic Sea, the Russian natural gas giant Gazprom is only a permit or two away from redrawing the energy map of Europe.

But it is not just the energy supply that is at stake. The pipeline is driving a political wedge between Eastern and Western European countries that, as members of the European Union, had vowed to act collectively to protect their security. While the Russian-German pipeline offers clear energy benefits to the West, Central and Eastern European leaders fear it could lead to a new era of gas-leveraged Russian domination of the former Soviet bloc.

Currently, Russian gas has to be piped through Eastern Europe to reach the West, so any reduction aimed at intimidating Russia’s neighbors is also felt in the West, touching off loud protests. By traveling more than 750 miles underwater, from Vyborg, Russia, to Greifswald, Germany, bypassing the former Soviet and satellite states, the Nord Stream pipeline will deliver gas directly to the West.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k141/laworkerbee/13pipesmap.jpg

But it will also allow Russia to play pipeline politics with its neighbors without disturbing the more powerful, wealthier countries to the west. Consequently, many security experts and Eastern European officials say, it will be more likely to play such politics.

“Yesterday tanks, today oil,” said Zbigniew Siemiatkowski, a former head of Poland’s security service.

That is not the way the Russians present it. Gazprom, which supplies Europe with 28 percent of its natural gas, says the $10.7 billion project is commercial, not strategic.

Matthias Warnig, Nord Stream’s chief executive and a former East German, said Eastern Europe’s fears are unfounded. “The wall broke down 20 years ago,” he said. Europe needs additional natural gas to compensate for declining output from the North Sea, he said, and Russia is the best place to get it.

European officials have portrayed the project as one that helps unite Europe and enhance its collective energy security. The European Commission and European Parliament endorsed the pipeline as early as 2000 and both reconfirmed their commitments as recently as 2006. “As far as common energy policy exists, we are part of it on the highest priority level,” said Sebastian Sass, Nord Stream’s main representative to the European Union.

But officials in Central and Eastern Europe fear that while profits from the pipeline, a joint venture between Gazprom and a trio of German and Dutch companies, will flow to Russian suppliers and German utilities, the long trod-upon countries once under the Soviet umbrella will become more vulnerable to energy blackmail.

Such tactics are hardly without precedent. A Swedish Defense Ministry-affiliated research organization has identified 55 politically linked disruptions in the energy supply of Eastern Europe since the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Until now, Russia’s use of natural gas as a foreign policy tool has been limited to short embargoes, at least in part, analysts say, because it is so blunt a club.

Last January, for example, Russia shut down a pipeline that crossed Ukraine, ostensibly over a dispute with Ukraine on pricing and tariff fees. The shutoff left hundreds of thousands of homes in southeastern Europe without heat and shuttered hundreds of factories for three weeks.

What had been a bilateral dispute spilled across the continent, angering influential Western governments and costing Russia money.

The new pipeline and a similar project in southern Europe called South Stream, to run under the Black Sea, will insulate western Europe from such actions and limit the political and financial costs to Russia.

The ability to shut off one pipeline or other “depending on whim” makes shutoffs to Eastern Europe more likely, said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration. He called the pipelines a grand Russian initiative to “separate Central Europe from Western Europe insofar as dependence on Russian energy is concerned.”

“The Central Europeans, the former coerced members of the Soviet bloc, are the more worried,” he said.

For Eastern Europeans, the pipeline evokes deep memories of a darker era of occupation and collaboration, and has become a proxy debate over Russia’s intentions toward the lands it ruled from the end of World War II to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In an open letter to President Obama last spring, 23 former Central European heads of state and intellectuals, including the former Czech president, Vaclav Havel, and the former Polish president, Lech Walesa, pointed out that after the war in Georgia last year Russia declared a “sphere of privileged interests” that could include their countries.

With the control of gas pipelines, they wrote, “Russia is back as a revisionist power pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics.”

Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, has compared the pipeline deal between Russia and Germany to the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that divided Central Europe into spheres of German and Soviet influence. “Taking the decision first and consulting us later is not our idea of solidarity,” he said.

The din of alarm rising in the East has hardly been heard in the West, however, where Russia has pursued an effective policy of divide and conquer.

“Russia is one of the issues that divides the E.U. the most,” said Angela E. Stent, director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University in Washington. “Russia and Gazprom go and deal very well with individual countries.”

A web of oil and gas interests in the West, as well as corporations and influential figures with ties to Russia, have greased the process of engagement with Russia.

Perhaps most visibly, Germany’s former chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, has embraced commerce as a means to integrate Russia with Europe. Mr. Schröder was the deal’s “power broker,” says Zeyno Baran, an authority on Eurasian energy at the conservative Hudson Institute in New York. “Without him, it never would have gotten off the ground.”

Mr. Schröder’s government sealed the pipeline deal, including a $1.46 billion German loan guarantee for the project, scant weeks before he lost the 2005 election.

A few weeks later, he took a job as the chairman of Nord Stream. He has said he decided to take the job after leaving office, and that he had not known of the loan guarantee.

Mr. Warnig, the project’s chief executive, served as a captain in the foreign intelligence directorate of the East German secret police, the Stasi, in the 1980s. At the time, Vladimir V. Putin, the future Russian president, was a K.G.B. agent in Dresden, East Germany.

While his background has fueled speculation of murky cold war-era ties underlying the project, Mr. Warnig said his spying career was irrelevant to the pipeline debate today.

Other links are more clear-cut. The former prime minister of Finland, Paavo Lipponen, was paid by Nord Stream to help secure permits. Mr. Sass, the Nord Stream liaison in Brussels, was an aide to Mr. Lipponen. In 2008, Gazprom offered Romano Prodi, then the prime minister of Italy, the chairman’s job at South Stream; Mr. Prodi declined.

Now, with the pipeline looking inevitable, the French have decided to jump on the bandwagon as well, seeking to join the consortium through Gaz de France. Otherwise, they might have to buy gas from a German broker.

The French-German competition, analysts say, illustrates how securing coveted business with Russia has accentuated their rivalry for economic and political preeminence in Europe. Ultimately considerations of European unity, like the fears of Eastern Europe, are secondary in the raw struggle over resources by national and corporate interests.

It is a free-market capitalism that post-Communist Russia has cannily exploited, says Pierre Noël, a professor at Cambridge University and a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“It is an open, competitive, capitalist economy,” he said. “People build the pipes they want to build.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/world/europe/13pipes.html?hp

[CaptMorgan68]

“It is an open, competitive, capitalist economy,” he said. “People build the pipes they want to build.”

That pretty much sums it up)

[void]

The purpose of the pipeline is to prevent Russia and Western Europe from being held hostage by countries such as Ukraine who have issues paying for their gas on time and in the correct amount. Additionally, this will reduce the amount of tariffs Russia has to pay when gas transits through intermediate countries (a fair bit).

The whole article stinks of sh.it Somehow it is Russia's fault that Ukraine was siphoning export gas when their own gas was shut off for not paying and for not concluding a contract on time.

So according to these people, Russia is bad for shutting off gas to Ukraine when Ukraine doesnt pay, and Russia is bad for building a pipeline which protects Western Europe from Ukranian shenanigans, the only option left is for Russia to pump the gas through Ukraine even if Ukraine doesnt pay? Brilliant.

[Jippo]

That pretty much sums it up)

It sums it up when Russian firms become "open, competitive, and capitalist". Problem is that many important firms are in the control of the Russian governement. Russia doesn't work as a free capitalism.

[void]

It sums it up when Russian firms become "open, competitive, and capitalist". Problem is that many important firms are in the control of the Russian governement. Russia doesn't work as a free capitalism.

How is that at all relevant to the question of pipelines bypassing transit states? Russia choses to keep strategic industries in the hands of the people, the same as many other countries. Maybe you should complain about Aramco, the Saudi oil company, or Singapore Airlines, or many many many other state owned companies.
At leas this way the profits of the state owned companies stay largely within Russia and dont flow out into the pockets of foreign investors.

[Jippo]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You agree with everything I said, and yet you want to argue with me about something, am I right?

[void]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You agree with everything I said, and yet you want to argue with me about something, am I right?

No, I dont agree. I dont agree that the control of certain companies by the government is at all relevant to the discussion about pipelines bypassing certain states. Also, I dont agree with your sentiment that government control of a company somehow precludes a venture being capitalistic or competitive.

[Twelve]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You agree with everything I said, and yet you want to argue with me about something, am I right?

Wrong, he didn't agree with you. stop pretending that he did. and you still didnt answered his question. :roll:

[Jippo]

Wrong, he didn't agree with you. stop pretending that he did. and you still didnt answered his question. :roll:

And who the **** are you?

[CaptMorgan68]

It sums it up when Russian firms become "open, competitive, and capitalist". Problem is that many important firms are in the control of the Russian government. Russia doesn't work as a free capitalism.


The larger and real 'problem' is the fact that the Nord Stream pipeline for example ties Germany even closer to Russia economically. The ability to poke your Eastern European neighbors is a positive side effect of the Nord Stream pipeline project. Europe seems deaf to U.S. voicing concerns about its dependence on Russia's gas. Russia has lured European firms into major projects up north and uses various tactics to ensure their cooperation and that any alternative pipeline projects remain a pipe dream. I even read it some place that the way European politicians respond to Russia's rise of influence over Europe reminds of game of cricket while Russia's moves were compared to those of a chess grandmaster.

[void]

Bah, just noticed this in the article:


It is a free-market capitalism that post-Communist Russia has cannily exploited, says Pierre Noël, a professor at Cambridge University and a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

Yep, when Russia does something capitalistic, its "canny exploitation", I guess when anybody else does it just normal though and doesnt warrant a second look. When Russia uses its resources for its own gain and advantage its "energy blackmail", when another country does it it would be "leveraging their assets"

[Jippo]

No, I dont agree. I dont agree that the control of certain companies by the government is at all relevant to the discussion about pipelines bypassing certain states. Also, I dont agree with your sentiment that government control of a company somehow precludes a venture being capitalistic or competitive.

I really don't care what you think is relevant about the pipeline.

My reply was directed to CaptMorgan here.

Russian energy sector isn't open, competitive nor capitalistic. Foreign ownership is limited (i.e. not open). Energy sector is solely governement controlled (i.e. not based on free competition)and governement owned (i.e. socialist not capitalist).

If you wan't to argue about that, feel free to do so, it would be just another retarded catfight.

[Jippo]

The larger and real 'problem'....

Agreed....

[void]

Russian energy sector isn't open, competitive nor capitalistic.

Ownership of Gazprom is restricted, but not completely. The government owns 50% +1 shares of the company, the rest is not. This is in line with any of the other strategic companies in Russia and is nothing special.
Gazprom IS capitalistic, in the sense that they seek to maximise profits. And it is also competitive, at least on the international stage, in that they are competing with other foreign companies to deliver gas to Europe. The fact that they dont have competition domestically is irrelevant to the concept of competition on the international stage.

Take the Norwegian Staoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statoil), they are 64% state owned and dont have any significant domestic competition, would you have any complaints regarding THEM building pipelines to Europe?

If Statoil said that they are just being capitalistic and competitive, trying to beat Gazprom to the punch, and building pipelines to Europe. Would you be complaining that "Norway is not competitive, open, or capitalistic".

[CaptMorgan68]

I really don't care what you think is relevant about the pipeline.

My reply was directed to CaptMorgan here.

Russian energy sector isn't open, competitive nor capitalistic. Foreign ownership is limited (i.e. not open). Energy sector is solely governement controlled (i.e. not based on free competition)and governement owned (i.e. socialist not capitalist).

If you wan't to argue about that, feel free to do so, it would be just another retarded catfight.

I agree with you that the Russian energy sector is not open. However in many other more open economies energy sector is also considered a strategic domain where foreign ownership is not welcomed at the very least. As far as state control is concerned, in today's globalized economy your competitors are other energy companies of the world. Some of them state owned as well. The area of energy competition is also a matter of state security for many including the U.S. If realistically export of energy resources contribues a significant portion of your country's GDP it makes sense to consolidate it and keep it under tabs. Especially if you do not have a long history of private ownership of such assets as is the case with China and Russia for example. So the problem here is not with the form of ownership but how are those assets being used or leveraged as void pointed out)) The energy resources and pipelines are being leveraged by Russia to further its economic and political interests around the world. Russia no longer pursues any one political ideology anymore. So the political inerests are now closely tied to economic ones. I think many among the European business elite especially in Germany have already realized this and are only welcoming further economic and political integration with Russia to a certain extent. It's the U.S. that is uneasy about this whole development since one of the postulates of its foreign policy has always been hat Eurasia has to be kept divided.

[Jippo]

So the political inerests are now closely tied to economic ones. I think many among the European business elite especially in Germany have already realized this and are only welcoming further economic and political integration with Russia to a certain extent. It's the U.S. that is uneasy about this whole development since one of the postulates of its foreign policy has always been hat Eurasia has to be kept divided.

I don't think limit between Russian international politics and international trade is clear enough. Close relationship of strategic business' and government has allowed Russia to gain advantages on both fields without allowing any leeway to foreign money in Russian strategic sectors.

Increased integration of EU and Russian structures can only be seen as a good thing, but the problem is in the "playing field" which is not even. I think many European leaders, both in politics and business, are having too optimistic view on how they can benefit from Russia and "integrate" Russia to Europe to play on the European rule-set.

US is naturally concerned about loosing influence, I'm concerned about EU loosing influence internally and internationally.

[CaptMorgan68]

I don't think limit between Russian international politics and international trade is clear enough. Close relationship of strategic business' and government has allowed Russia to gain advantages on both fields without allowing any leeway to foreign money in Russian strategic sectors.


That only depends on skillfulness of western negotiators and development of a common European approach to dealing with Russia. Possibility of some leeway in strategic areas has been recently voiced by Medvedev.

[CaptMorgan68]

I don't think limit between Russian international politics and international trade is clear enough.


Russia is not the only place where lines between state and business are not always so clear)

Business Wants Help to Compete
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB4211D5119E0D8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

[TR1]

Will be good news when the pipelines are finished. Every time Ukraine throws a hissy fit over paying what isn;t even close to market rates, supplies won't be threatened.

[gazell]

A good article, except for the last part, which people already discussed, it brings up good points.

Everybody would like diversification as far as energy supplies are concerned.

Eastern European countries interests here are rather different to that of the West. More Russian pipelines shall not do much for them. One can only see nuclear energy as a fast relief, this is opposed by the West, even if Eastern Europe managed to co-operate better as a region - still having pissing wars with each other instead - I do not know how much they could succeed on this issue after the Lisbon treaty.

With the added value of the gas monopoly being mostly a comrades mafia, there were a lot of scandals around gas business deals in Hungary too, it does look rather gloomy for the region, not to mention Ukranian-Russian tensions.

However, it's in Russia's interest to make sales with decreasing reserves. Analysts were seeing - this is prior recent Ukrainian developments - the bad state of the existing pipework and difficulties of production a bigger threat to supplies.

[tea drinker]

It sums it up when Russian firms become "open, competitive, and capitalist". Problem is that many important firms are in the control of the Russian governement. Russia doesn't work as a free capitalism.
You really think tht the big old firms don't lobby the hell out of the Goverments to get what they want in the west? That kickbacks don't exist?

Are "too big to fail" companies not holding us to ransom? Why is company law not reformed to address this GAPING FUNKIN HOLE IN REGULATION?
Because the big biz says so. They also rolled back depression era safeguards to get more money.

Today we have serious problems in the west caused by corruption. I actually feel it in my pocket. I only have your word about the Russian "Problem". Anyway I agree they need major reform - but lets not get on our high horse here.



Russia is not the only place where lines between state and business are not always so clear)

Business Wants Help to Compete
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CSTB&p_theme=cstb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB4211D5119E0D8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
Exactly. Didn't we just get done pouring billions into banks, car and aircraft manufacturers, around the Western world?
Taxpayer money => Bank => ? => No profit for taxpayer!

[Jippo]

Anyway I agree they need major reform - but lets not get on our high horse here.

Yes please, let's not.

Lobbying and corruption have nothing to do with the things I mentioned. But since you bring them up: Biggest lobbyer I know in my country in this time is the former prime minister who is working for, guess what, Nord Stream. While I agree corruption is a problem, we are also doing rather well (at least according to this statistic (http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm)) being world's least corrupt country, while Russia is holding the place 115.

But as I said, I was talking about rather different matter. And if we wanted to talk about subsidising of French shipyards, etc. we could, but that wouldn't be the point of the article, or would it? I'm just commenting on the wording of the article, which I do indeed find incorrect.

[ilmakas]

Why not build this pipeline on land? Through Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, these countries dont have problems paying for gas (so no troubles as in Belarus and Ukraine), and land pipeline is much cheaper to build and maintain. As I see it, Nord Stream is built in the Baltic only for political reasons, just as this article states - to separate Eastern Europe from Western and Russia is doing good job at it.

[void]

Why not build this pipeline on land? Through Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, these countries dont have problems paying for gas (so no troubles as in Belarus and Ukraine), and land pipeline is much cheaper to build and maintain. As I see it, Nord Stream is built in the Baltic only for political reasons, just as this article states - to separate Eastern Europe from Western and Russia is doing good job at it.

Russia has to pay fees to every transit country for every cubic meter of gas and for every km the pipeline passes through their country. Also, you never know but in the future maybe Poland or the Baltics will try the same crap Ukraine has. You cant predict the future, better safe than sorry.

[void]

I don't think limit between Russian international politics and international trade is clear enough. Close relationship of strategic business' and government has allowed Russia to gain advantages on both fields without allowing any leeway to foreign money in Russian strategic sectors.

Strategic sectors by definition cant have excessive foreign money/interest, otherwise they wouldnt be strategic. Secondly, Russia allows up to 49% foreign investment in strategic companies such as Gazprom. Others such as Sukhoi Civil Aviation its even higher.

Now, what if I was to tell you that China recently wanted to buy/invest in a whole HEAP of US companies with the massive USD reserves China had accumulated, and the US government basically told them to bugger off. Maybe you shouldnt actually judge Russia on these issues until you have an iota of a clue of what youre actually talking about, and some perspective to boot.

[Jippo]

Maybe you shouldnt actually judge Russia on these issues until you have an iota of a clue of what youre actually talking about, and some perspective to boot.

Nice going into personalities again.

And if you get your head out of your ass you will actually maybe find that I was judging the article, and not Russia.

[Laworkerbee]

Why is it that the finger is pointed solely at the Russians and not the West as well? surely the Germans are overjoyed at a direct pipeline linking them to Russian gas.

[gazell]

Why is it that the finger is pointed solely at the Russians and not the West as well? surely the Germans are overjoyed at a direct pipeline linking them to Russian gas.


I do not know, they also sit on Gasprom board and their companies were also involved in these scandalous deals. A lot do not have illusions on this in Hungary and Poland, AFAIK.

[Afro-European]

Ukraine cannot guarantee Russian gas transit to Europe next year

KIEV, October 13 (RIA Novosti) - Under the existing contracts with Gazprom, Ukraine will be unable to guarantee gas supplies from Russia to Europe during the 2010-11 winter season, the Ukrainian president's point man on energy security said Tuesday.
Bohdan Sokolovskiy said, however, that Ukraine was fully prepared to ensure Russian gas transits during the upcoming winter period.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has repeatedly said that the gas deal agreed by the Russian and Ukrainian prime ministers in January should be renegotiated.
In particular, he is unhappy with the current transit fee, which he says means Ukraine's state-controlled energy company Naftogaz receives at least $2.5 billion a year less than it should.
Sokolovskiy warned that unless the deal was reviewed, "2010 and 2011 will be unpredictable in terms of gas transit."
Ukraine is currently negotiating with Gazprom on a reduction in supplies to 33 billion cubic meters a year.
Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller has said that under the contract, Ukraine must buy at least 52 billion cubic meters of gas per year, but Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said on Thursday that "Ukraine has the right to order the volume that it needs."
She said the contract provides for 20% fluctuations in the level of consumption, and that "aggressive statements" on mandatory purchase levels should be ignored.

[Laworkerbee]

Afro,

Please post a link to the article.

[gazell]

Ukraine cannot guarantee Russian gas transit to Europe next year

KIEV, October 13 (RIA Novosti) - Under the existing contracts with Gazprom, Ukraine will be unable to guarantee gas supplies from Russia to Europe during the 2010-11 winter season, the Ukrainian president's point man on energy security said Tuesday.
Bohdan Sokolovskiy said, however, that Ukraine was fully prepared to ensure Russian gas transits during the upcoming winter period.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has repeatedly said that the gas deal agreed by the Russian and Ukrainian prime ministers in January should be renegotiated.
In particular, he is unhappy with the current transit fee, which he says means Ukraine's state-controlled energy company Naftogaz receives at least $2.5 billion a year less than it should.
Sokolovskiy warned that unless the deal was reviewed, "2010 and 2011 will be unpredictable in terms of gas transit."
Ukraine is currently negotiating with Gazprom on a reduction in supplies to 33 billion cubic meters a year.
Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller has said that under the contract, Ukraine must buy at least 52 billion cubic meters of gas per year, but Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said on Thursday that "Ukraine has the right to order the volume that it needs."
She said the contract provides for 20% fluctuations in the level of consumption, and that "aggressive statements" on mandatory purchase levels should be ignored.

It's going on as usual then. We did not have much other expectations, really. Some economical damage, we know now we can manage for quite a while without. Hungary is storing gas for Serbia this winter. We should be all right, especially if the Germans help out again. Bulgaria needs Turkey or Greece or something like that. The Slovaks can contemplate their language law...

[JPBaz]

Interesting developments considering the upcoming Ukrainian election and threats of uncertain supply in 2011. I have to agree that it is difficult to separate Gazprom from the Russian government. What systems are in place for EU nations to support each other the case of Russian pressure on a Eastern European nation? Can Germany support gas supplies to Poland?

I saw this article in this week's Times regarding potential new sources of gas for Europe. It sounds like this technology should be a strategic priority for EU nations.

OKLAHOMA CITY — A new technique that tapped previously inaccessible supplies of natural gas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/natural_gas/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) in the United States is spreading to the rest of the world, raising hopes of a huge expansion in global reserves of the cleanest fossil fuel.
Italian and Norwegian oil engineers and geologists have arrived in Texas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania to learn how to extract gas from layers of a black rock called shale. Companies are leasing huge tracts of land across Europe for exploration. And oil executives are gathering rocks and scrutinizing Asian and North African geological maps in search of other fields.
The global drilling rush is still in its early stages. But energy analysts are already predicting that shale could reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas. They said they believed that gas reserves in many countries could increase over the next two decades, comparable with the 40 percent increase in the United States in recent years.
“It’s a breakout play that is going to identify gigantic resources around the world,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy expert at Rice University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/rice_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org). “That will change the geopolitics of natural gas.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/energy-environment/10gas.html?scp=6&sq=natural%20gas&st=cse

[Difool]

Ukraine cannot guarantee the gas transit? Than ****ing work on it. And even as important: don't ruin the soccer EM!

[Unbekannt]

Ukraine cannot guarantee the gas transit? Than ****ing work on it. And even as important: don't ruin the soccer EM!

Thats what North Stream is about, but apparently countries like Ukraine have a problem if they can't use gas as a political weapon anymore...

[GrLT]

and what about the AMBER pipeline?

short explanation on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#Land_based_alternatives)
it has all advantages of NORD STREAM and none of it's disadvantages...

[Jippo]

Why is it that the finger is pointed solely at the Russians and not the West as well? surely the Germans are overjoyed at a direct pipeline linking them to Russian gas.

Majority of small eastern European EU countries are not pleased with Germany doing this more or less bi-laterally with Russia. The loudest critics are comparing it to the German Russian division of Europe in 1939.

I guess they feel a bit left out in the cold.

[Difool]

Majority of small eastern European EU countries are not pleased with Germany doing this more or less bi-laterally with Russia. The loudest critics are comparing it to the German Russian division of Europe in 1939.

I guess they feel a bit left out in the cold.

They want to profit from the transit. Better the direct way. Energy is expensive enough in Germany.

[Jippo]

Better the direct way.

Or together as EU? That is the question.

[void]

Or together as EU? That is the question.

The problem with doing it together as the EU is that there is the chance that certain countries will push their own agenda due to their unhealthy relationship with Russia. These agendas may make it very difficult to reach an agreement with Russia.

Clearly countries such as Germany have decided that a bilateral agreement will be more suitable for the interests of their respective nations.

[Derbedeu]

Or together as EU? That is the question.

It will eventually get to that level. :)

[Jippo]

Clearly countries such as Germany have decided that a bilateral agreement will be more suitable for the interests of their respective nations.

And how will an union work if everytime every nation does what is more "suitable" for only itself? Is that an union at all then?

[void]

And how will an union work if everytime every nation does what is more "suitable" for only itself? Is that an union at all then?

There are obviously cases where the EU should do things together as a union, even if some countries are inconvenienced. But maybe in this case Germany and the other countries which have bilateral contracts with Russia dont see a feasible way to handle this issue as a union. In the end, EU countries are still sovereign and have every right to have bilateral relations with Russia.

Maybe Germany does not want Eastern European issues with Russia sabotaging energy contracts for supply to Germany? The hysterical reaction of Poland for example, equating the Nord Stream with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, is a perfect demonstration of why Germany doesnt want 3rd parties affecting any energy contracts.

[Derbedeu]

There are obviously cases where the EU should do things together as a union, even if some countries are inconvenienced. But maybe in this case Germany and the other countries which have bilateral contracts with Russia dont see a feasible way to handle this issue as a union. In the end, EU countries are still sovereign and have every right to have bilateral relations with Russia.

Maybe Germany does not want Eastern European issues with Russia sabotaging energy contracts for supply to Germany? The hysterical reaction of Poland for example, equating the Nord Stream with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, is a perfect demonstration of why Germany doesnt want 3rd parties affecting any energy contracts.

Energy security is a paramount issue to the Union, wouldn't you say?

[void]

Energy security is a paramount issue to the Union, wouldn't you say?

Sure, but I'm just saying that it is clear by the actions of certain countries that they view a bilateral contract as more attractive than a common EU contract. Obviously certain other countries have the opposite view, and clearly need to work on convincing the others to adopt a common EU policy. How do you think this can be done? (honest question)

[Derbedeu]

Honestly, I have no idea as of right now. I'm gonna have to take a rain-check on that and bone up on EU energy policy first. I've found several papers by the Commission on this issue, but it's gonna take me a while to digest them. I'll get back to you within 24 hours on this issue.

[Afro-European]

Russia, EU have difficult relations dominated by energy — Waldner

BRUSSELS, October 14 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and the European Union have complex relations that are dominated by energy issues, a high-ranking EU official said.
"We certainly have a complex and at times difficult relationship... On the economic front our relationship is dominated by energy," EU Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood Benita Ferrero Waldner said at American Chamber of Commerce's Plenary meeting in Brussels.
"Just under 40% of the EU's gas imports rely on one monopoly alone: Gazprom. But Russia is equally dependent on us: over 60% of Russian oil and gas exports flow to the EU and Russia's pipelines are largely directed towards us," she said.
The commissioner said there are still opportunities for the mutual benefit for both Russia and the EU.
"The Russian oil and gas sector badly needs more investment all the way along the production chain, and international investors are keen to invest," Waldner said.
However, he said Moscow's intention to join the World Trade Organization (http://en.beta.rian.ru/business/20090925/156255908.html) with Kazakhstan and Belarus at the same time and on equal terms as members of a customs union might cause a delay in Russia's future membership in the WTO.
"WTO membership would facilitate our relations, but the recent decision to seek membership as part of a customs union with Kazakhstan and Belarus could cause delay," she said.
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan agreed in early June to form a customs union and seek joint accession to the WTO. Unified Customs regulations are due to come into effect at the start of 2010.
Russia is the world's only major economy outside the WTO. President Dmitry Medvedev recently blamed Washington (http://en.beta.rian.ru/russia/20090918/156179671.html) for blocking its accession to the global trade body.

[Telmar]

It's going on as usual then. We did not have much other expectations, really. Some economical damage, we know now we can manage for quite a while without. Hungary is storing gas for Serbia this winter. We should be all right, especially if the Germans help out again. Bulgaria needs Turkey or Greece or something like that. The Slovaks can contemplate their language law...



According to the latest data, the Czech Republic has the second largest
capacity of the underground gas storages with regard to domestic
consumption within the EU countries.

Slovakia has the biggest capacity but owing to the current limitations in
the supplies of Russian gas, it has almost the biggest problems.
Source: http://praguemonitor.com/2009/01/16/gas-storage-tanks-cover-half-czech-consumption-2013


That article is from the beginning of the year, since then the pipeline can be reversed to the East, and we can pump out stocks from the Czech Republic and West Europe.

So we can speak Slovak AND be warm!:)

Cheers.

[gazell]

Source: http://praguemonitor.com/2009/01/16/gas-storage-tanks-cover-half-czech-consumption-2013


That article is from the beginning of the year, since then the pipeline can be reversed to the East, and we can pump out stocks from the Czech Republic and West Europe.

So we can speak Slovak AND be warm!:)

Cheers.

I know, the Czechs can supply them, also can get from Germany, I believe.

On the other hand, also building pipeline with Hungary, in the back of all this nonsense.p-)

[gazell]

And how will an union work if everytime every nation does what is more "suitable" for only itself? Is that an union at all then?

A poetic question in some respects, however, this can be a rather tricky balancing act, even with the best intentions, if the countries' needs are very different. On the energy supply, this is the case.

While fingers are pointed in this respect at Russia and now maybe Germany, just about everybody is faulty at the same, transit countries several times try to use their position for individual gains. In fact, regularly got a better individual price deal for being in such a position.

On the other hand, there was quite a bit of solidarity presented by some countries last winter, particularly by Germany, while some others were just sitting on their reserves.

Also, Russia only shut down supply through the Ukraine, who is not a Union member. Not so black and white.

[sarhat]

I can't understand this. Germany is the biggest donor of EU, why other countries want to put sticks in the wheels of this energy deal?
When economic in Germany will be ok, it will have positive effect on others.

[Difool]

I can't understand this. Germany is the biggest donor of EU, why other countries want to put sticks in the wheels of this energy deal?
When economic in Germany will be ok, it will have positive effect on others.

That's so true. But often little ones have the mouth wide open.

[joka]

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8369/competence.jpg
(Competence division under Lisbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Defined_policy_areas))

The solution is to move "energy" one column to the left (and trans-European networks for that matter) and bring decisions under parliamentary debate and scrutiny. What shared competence means in practice is that decisions will only be made at EU level when it suits all the national governments, which isn't exactly beneficial for anyone in the long run when we're talking about something as vital as energy.

[tea drinker]

That's so true. But often little ones have the mouth wide open.
lol .... and sometimes the cuckoo is the hungry one

I can't understand this. Germany is the biggest donor of EU, why other countries want to put sticks in the wheels of this energy deal?
When economic in Germany will be ok, it will have positive effect on others.
Because it's more important to have a quiet and consistent anti russian stance that isn't easily picked up by the mods as the racism it is.
I think anyone, Russki's included would say there are some major problems for Russia, and we could all post something regarding the establishment but if every single post by some individuals is predictably anti russian it can only be seen as racism.

The fvckin pipe helps European security, but it's bad? I don't understand this. I can only conclude that Anti russian approach is more important than our own security. The Saakashvilli effect.

[ilmakas]

I can't understand this. Germany is the biggest donor of EU, why other countries want to put sticks in the wheels of this energy deal?
When economic in Germany will be ok, it will have positive effect on others.

how many times this has to be said - pipeline is not the problem its route is. No one is trying to hinder economic process, in fact land route is cheaper.

[sarhat]

how many times this has to be said - pipeline is not the problem its route is. No one is trying to hinder economic process, in fact land route is cheaper.

as I understand, land route has more political risks - country on which land pipe can blackmail others. And operational companies of this project decided to invest more money, but make risks lower.

I think it is foresightedly, because transit problems can put a negative shadow on producer. In energy sphere it's prohibitive

[ilmakas]

country on which land pipe can blackmail others.

care to point out when have Latvia, Lithuania or Poland blackmailed other countries where energy is concerned. All these countries are part of EU and NATO how could they blackmail their allies or cripple their economies?

[sarhat]

care to point out when have Latvia, Lithuania or Poland blackmailed other countries where energy is concerned. All these countries are part of EU and NATO how could they blackmail their allies or cripple their economies?

in such expensive and uniqie projects no need to spawn not-necessary partners (specially if they will have veto - they operate pipe).

i am not speaking about that Latvia is on defolt line, Lithuania always have bright antirussian speech and Poland tried to obstruct in EU Parlament when it's about Russia.

blackmail can have a lot of variations: from technic to economic. And transit of gas can't wait long (how it was with Lisbon Treaty).

[Jippo]

lol .... and sometimes the cuckoo is the hungry one

Anti-Polish or anti-Baltic joke? Racism?


anti russian stance ... as the racism it is.

...
some individuals is predictably anti russian it can only be seen as racism.
...

I can only conclude that Anti russian....

Or percieved anti-Russian? I mean, you must mean me because nobody else in the thread has been labeled as anti-Russian, yet.

And I was labeled anti-Russian because I believe that:

a) limited business is not open business
b) government controlled business isn't free competition
c) state ownership is socialism

How on earth is that anti-Russian? Oh because the article was about Russia... ...guess what, those things apply globally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics



The Saakashvilli effect.

And finally slandering another nations persident. Racism?

You should take a deep look in the mirror before making such a post.

[tea drinker]

Anti-Polish or anti-Baltic joke? Racism?

Or percieved anti-Russian? I mean, you must mean me because nobody else in the thread has been labeled as anti-Russian, yet.

And I was labeled anti-Russian because I believe that:

a) limited business is not open business
b) government controlled business isn't free competition
c) state ownership is socialism

How on earth is that anti-Russian? Oh because the article was about Russia... ...guess what, those things apply globally:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics




And finally slandering another nations persident. Racism?

You should take a deep look in the mirror before making such a post.
shoorai! (It's allright)
You believe Saakashvilli cannot be criticsed? Are you working for the politburo?

Anyway, the Anti Russian thing, I am talking about the same group of guys having the same negative stance in every single russian thread - like clockwork. By definition it is anti Russian and by extension racist. If that is not you I apologise. But to be fair, you do know exactly what I am talking about.

I don't have this stance towards Baltics or Polaks, in fact the opposite.
I am not using this forum to project any such "anti" agenda, only perhaps anti extremism, especially Islamic but also my own religion Christianity.

Don't you see how many Western buisnesses are state owned, or private but have huge control of the media or government? In Europe the sell off of many state companies was only in the last 5-10 years, and in some cases was carried out in dubious circumstances with no perceivable benefit to the taxpayer. I am denying that system A works in all cases and system B fails in all. State owned sometimes works very well - you know this too. If you can take a look at many western states where the taxpayer is getting shafted bailing out banks and car companies insurance companies etc etc. It's plain that uncontrolled capitalism is negligent by the state, allowing the exploitation of taxpayer.
Privatise gains, socialise losses.
We have allowed the construction of companies which allegedly are too big too fail, yet company law has not been reformed in line with this, we have no say in their management or control. So we have something we are liable for, but no control. This is a blatantly corrupt system.

[Jippo]

I don't want to get in a five page argument because I think that Russian energy industry is run by the government (which it is) and European Union with its energy industry is at disadvantage because Russian energy industry is what it is.


And I'm sick and tired of the anti-Russian thing. Russians seem to think that if "Russia" and something remotely negative are included in the same sentence the person who wrote it exist to hunt down Russians and eat them alive. Just to make sure, that is not obviously the case. I'm truly sick of this.

[tea drinker]

Just to make sure, that is not obviously the case. I'm truly sick of this.
I refrained from writing it in my response, but I think think the Anti Russian thing is utterly boring and predictable. Useless bull**** repeated arguments over and over. The response is almost as bad.

If you aren't anti russian you have my permission to go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back.

Care to address my on topic argument regarding western reforms being a very recent affair? Why expect Russians to get from collapsed communism to where we are overnight? I'm not saying we can't use trade with them as a stick, in fact it's the best one.

[Wojtop]

Anyway, the Anti Russian thing, I am talking about the same group of guys having the same negative stance in every single russian thread - like clockwork. By definition it is anti Russian and by extension racist. If that is not you I apologise. But to be fair, you do know exactly what I am talking about.


Geez mate, I saw Ruskies of this forum writing "let's nuke Ukraine", "let's nuke Poland" "Let's hang Saakashvili by the balls" and many other statements falling in category of hate-crime. Strangely I never saw Poles, Balts, Fins or Ukrainians wishing death to Russian people. Which basicaly makes the difference between being racist/hatist and being opposed to something. We dispute policies of your government (like unwillingness to leave Crimea as contracted) , we dispute lies told by your state-controlled media (like "Poland was guilty of starting the II WW"), we dispute differences in interpretation of history (like Katyn murder was a crime against humanity vs Katyn was a rational act by Stalin) but we DON'T hate you as a nation, most of people you call "anti-russian" said it out loud many times.

As for the north stream - Poland has accepted the inevitable and undertaken several projects to secure it's energy sources so we should have some back door by the time Russia completes the project (already contracted deliveries of liquid gas from Persian Gulf, plans to construct few nuclear plants). And, just in case, we also develop underwater military robots. Poland can live with North Stream but Ukraine and Belarus are much more gas-dependant and will be the real victims of this project. RF government will be able to stir in their internal politics and economies without any effort for years using only "gas on/off" button. And you say it's not politically-relevant.... While it clearly gives Russia a leverage on countries you consider your "close abroad" or "zone of influence". Laughable, really.

[TR1]

Geez mate, I saw Ruskies of this forum writing "let's nuke Ukraine", "let's nuke Poland" "Let's hang Saakashvili by the balls" and many other statements falling in category of hate-crime.


WHat a load of garbage.

[Derbedeu]

WHat a load of garbage.



Russia is goign to nuke Ukraine.
Under our new nuclear policy.

http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4471825&postcount=195

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5320/ohmyb.gif (http://img17.imageshack.us/i/ohmyb.gif/)

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7297/nonono.gif (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/nonono.gif/)

[Robert.V]

You damn well know that was joke man.

[Derbedeu]

While true, TR1 repudiated that such things were said. The accusation was that such things were said, not in what manner they were said. Point still stands! :p

[TR1]

http://militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4471825&postcount=195

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/5320/ohmyb.gif (http://img17.imageshack.us/i/ohmyb.gif/)

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/7297/nonono.gif (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/nonono.gif/)
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z273/reb2007/smilies/iconyesyy7.gif
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z273/reb2007/smilies/iconyesyy7.gif)

[Robert.V]

While true, TR1 repudiated that such things were said. The accusation was that such things were said, not in what manner they were said. Point still stands! :p

True, I find it funny though that this guy said that I never saw Poles, Balts, Fins or Ukrainians wishing death to Russian people.


And yet forget some of the **** that kosse wrote for one.

Bah, why the hell am I even in this thread to begin with. :/

[Derbedeu]

:|

I never saw kosse wish death on Russians or anyone else for that matter. I'm pretty certain that if he did, he would banned immediately. Quite frankly that was an unfair statement to make about him.

[Robert.V]

:|

I never saw kosse wish death on Russians or anyone else for that matter. I'm pretty certain that if he did, he would banned immediately. Quite frankly that was an unfair statement to make about him.


I'll look into his post history, perhaps it wasn't him.

[TR1]

:|

I never saw kosse wish death on Russians or anyone else for that matter. I'm pretty certain that if he did, he would banned immediately. Quite frankly that was an unfair statement to make about him.
Kosse has done enough flaming to get himself banned 10 times over.

[Robert.V]

Dammit, you can't view the entire post history of a member.

[Derbedeu]

K, we've seem to gotten sidetracked here. Back on topic, what is the cost for Nord Stream, and what would be the savings if it were done overland instead of the Baltic? Also, who is financing the pipeline over the Baltic?

[Laworkerbee]

Dammit, you can't view the entire post history of a member.

Vee have our veys p-)

[tea drinker]

As for the north stream - Poland has accepted the inevitable and undertaken several projects to secure it's energy sources so we should have some back door by the time Russia completes the project (already contracted deliveries of liquid gas from Persian Gulf, plans to construct few nuclear plants).
This is prudent planning for your own stability - good behaviour on your part.


And, just in case, we also develop underwater military robots. Poland can live with North Stream but Ukraine and Belarus are much more gas-dependant and will be the real victims of this project. .
Why do you need underwater military robots?
Ukraine and Belarus need to have their own means of getting by.
Victims? No, not in the business world. So now the money and gas they got cheap is suddenly a bad thing? It's up to them what they use a good opportunity for. Depending solely on transit fees is not secure.

Expecting to get the commie buddie rate for gas (while acting against Russia) was utter insanity. Ukraine fvcked up here and pushed the issue too far, for Russia and Europe. It's not good business sense to keep messing with partners and neighbours. In any event prudent planning for Europe is to have diverse paths for gas (like Polands diversification of production etc), so the issue of Ukraine was ultimately a redundant one, and their fiscal issues are their own internal matters. Of course that is aside from any effects of the global downturn which badly affect a whole raft of countries, including Russia
Peculiarly, the redundant pipe may normalise relations between Ukraine and Russia.



RF government will be able to stir in their internal politics and economies without any effort for years using only "gas on/off" button. And you say it's not politically-relevant.... While it clearly gives Russia a leverage on countries you consider your "close abroad" or "zone of influence". Laughable, really.
Of course there is leverage - both ways! That's how trade works - give and take. But don't you agree with many paths the leverage is now reduced? Ukraine tried using their unique leverage with some success and more failure. If Russia starts playing games directly with a customer (especially an important one like Germany) they risk long term damage to the involved company and the Russian image and state. IMHO It's unlikely there will be any pressure beyond normal business practices.
Edit: Should have said having a powerful country like Germany act as your proxy in relations with Russia about gas is a good result for Europe. My opinion anyway.

Getting gas or energy from one supplier is stupid if it can be avoided. Through a long meandering pipe is even more so. Now there are 2 pipes, and probably more soon, and further diversification of suppliers coming. All good news for Europe. We still need to invest in greener power like wind/tidal/solar/geothermal/etc etc. But these are separate issues to managing your gas supply correctly. Just because Germany is getting a fat gas pipe it doesn't stop them engaging in other energy projects e.g. working on a huge solar farm in Algeria I believe. It's commonsense stuff.

[Derbedeu]

K, we've seem to gotten sidetracked here. Back on topic, what is the cost for Nord Stream, and what would be the savings if it were done overland instead of the Baltic? Also, who is financing the pipeline over the Baltic?

bump......

[sarhat]

bump......

as i know, there are group of companies - russian&german. And goverments have shares in this companies.

[sarhat]

As for the north stream - Poland has accepted the inevitable and undertaken several projects to secure it's energy sources so we should have some back door by the time Russia completes the project (already contracted deliveries of liquid gas from Persian Gulf, plans to construct few nuclear plants). And, just in case, we also develop underwater military robots. Poland can live with North Stream but Ukraine and Belarus are much more gas-dependant and will be the real victims of this project. RF government will be able to stir in their internal politics and economies without any effort for years using only "gas on/off" button. And you say it's not politically-relevant.... While it clearly gives Russia a leverage on countries you consider your "close abroad" or "zone of influence". Laughable, really.

Do this robots have plazma-stealth and can they reach New Sweden (Red planet)?
As for victims, for me it's like when fat boy file a lawsuit to McDonalds.

[Telmar]

...

Poland can live with North Stream but Ukraine and Belarus are much more gas-dependant and will be the real victims of this project. RF government will be able to stir in their internal politics and economies without any effort for years using only "gas on/off" button. And you say it's not politically-relevant.... While it clearly gives Russia a leverage on countries you consider your "close abroad" or "zone of influence". Laughable, really.

I can't speak for Belarus, but the Ukraine wastes enormous amounts of gas in old facilities and buildings that are not energy efficient. I think I saw a stat saying Ukraine uses as much gas as Germany which is outrageous. They could reduce dependency by wasting much less gas as well.

As for the rest, they will be dependent on Russia as a supplier just like we are dependent on oil from the Gulf. You can't beat the location of the ressources. You have to live with it and have a foreign policy that takes it into account. The West does it every day.

[Difool]

I can't speak for Belarus, but the Ukraine wastes enormous amounts of gas in old facilities and buildings that are not energy efficient. I think I saw a stat saying Ukraine uses as much gas as Germany which is outrageous. They could reduce dependency by wasting much less gas as well.

As for the rest, they will be dependent on Russia as a supplier just like we are dependent on oil from the Gulf. You can't beat the location of the ressources. You have to live with it and have a foreign policy that takes it into account. The West does it every day.
Some really interesting points. Thanks for sharing them.
The times of cheapest gas seem to be over. If the trading partners, especialy the Ukrainian goverment, act more professionaly it should work well.
I hope the Ukraine gets a strong government that it can speak with one voice.

[Wojtop]

Yeah, I heard about traditional large furnaces in Ukrainian countryside houses reengineered by inhabitants to use gas instead of wood. This is certainly not the most gas-saving way of doing things. But my purpose was only to point out that Nord Stream has a lot to do with politics it's not a "purely commercial" project.


Do this robots have plazma-stealth and can they reach New Sweden (Red planet)?
Yup, they can also sneak into your toilet and bite your balls off while you're taking a leak. No joke.

[serg123]

I don't want to get in a five page argument because I think that Russian energy industry is run by the government (which it is) and European Union with its energy industry is at disadvantage because Russian energy industry is what it is.

Energy industry is not something solid and situation is quite different in different areas. For example electricity generation area was recently devided by pieces and privatized then state owned monopoly was dismissed. Oil industry also is very diversified with big portion of private companies. Gas industry is more concentrated and 84% of gas production belongs to Gasprom. In the same time government has only 50%+1 share of that company. Internal price policy of Gaspromas is strongly regulated by government and Gasprom has to follow some kind of unprofitable investment programs dictated by government for gazification of some remote location in Russia. It is a back side of monopoly status of Gasprom. In addition Gasprom happens to be subject of antitrust government agency investigations in case it tries to use its pipeline monopoly to fight competitors.

Accasionally I was one of approximately 50 persons who attanded first presentation of North Stream project Putin made in Dusseldorf in 2000. So idea is quite old and it was caused by Ukraine behaviour as a transit country (steeling gas, dictating terms for internal consumption, etc.). Then situation in this area was improved, JV for operating pipeline was established and agreement between Ukraine, Russia and Germany was reached in 2004 to expand Ukrainian pipeline and invest there more than 10 bln dollars. That time North Stream project was dead. But after Yusenko came to power new Ukrainian leadership torpedoed all agreements and sparked first large scale gas conflict in 2005. After that and especially after second conflict this year it became clear that Ukraine as a transit country still has high political risks and it is better to have alternative pipelines. It is better both for European consumers and for Gasprom.

It has nothing political exept avoiding political risks of doing business.

[lauris71]

K, we've seem to gotten sidetracked here. Back on topic, what is the cost for Nord Stream, and what would be the savings if it were done overland instead of the Baltic? Also, who is financing the pipeline over the Baltic?
Overland route is unrealistic IMHO.
Instead of dealing with few governments and environmental organizations (and some Finnish businessmen) you will have more governments, more environmental groups plus thousands of landowners, who can delay the construction by years. Plus in current political climate (at least in Estonia), invoking eminent domain in behalf of Gazprom is political suicide for government.
The sea-route will be in international waters, so states can block it only, if they can demonstrate clear environmental hazards.
The land route would cross private property, which have to be bought by fair price. If landowner refuses, government has to use eminent domain, by proving that the pipeline is necessary for common good. I'd expect hundreds of court cases, dragging through all instances up to highest EU courts.
This is not so big problem for Germany, because gas is destined to there, and thus the common good is more clear. But for transit countries I am not sure the needs of German customers justify expropriating land and relocating people.

[Mousepad]

bump......

7,4 bln Euro.

[Jippo]

It has nothing political exept avoiding political risks of doing business.

In commercial terms the only complaint I have about Russian way of doing business (in the energy sector among others) is the competence. I find that Russians are doing very well working in the limits set by the law in western countries, but on the other hand western business still don't quite manage in Russia.

On the political side, from my own little perspective, everything that increases the importance of Gulf of Finland and Karelia area to Russia is bad in terms of international security. (In which Russia is not the threat, just a player). Especially since there isn't really anything to gain from economical point of view.

How important the whole issue of the pipe is to nations around the Baltic (counting out Germany and Russia)? Well not very important at all IMHO.

[gazell]

http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8369/competence.jpg
(Competence division under Lisbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon#Defined_policy_areas))

The solution is to move "energy" one column to the left (and trans-European networks for that matter) and bring decisions under parliamentary debate and scrutiny. What shared competence means in practice is that decisions will only be made at EU level when it suits all the national governments, which isn't exactly beneficial for anyone in the long run when we're talking about something as vital as energy.

Like veto to transferring rights to EU common policy, now I've not much in favour of veto rights, but on this, it is more than worrying. It's like waging war importance. Not that I favour simple majority on this either. This sucks, either ways.

[gazell]

bump......

http://www.nord-stream.com/en/faq/faq/faq-economic.html

[Derbedeu]

^^^ Thanks for that.

It seems that a land route over Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland would be half as cheap to construct. It would also be a lot easier to repair and maintain. The environmental impact will also not be as severe as it would doing it underwater. The only downside seems to be it's not as cheap to funnel the gas due to transit fees.

[Relict]

"Nord Stream" are economical nonsense. This is political project - to isolated East Europe. And are sponsored mostly by Germany. NATO member, and our "ally" in EU.

[my name again]

Thank you for your opinion !
Can you provide the essay you wrote about the "Nord-stream" in which you prove it is economical nonsense?
I would very much like to read it.

[Difool]

"Nord Stream" are economical nonsense. This is political project - to isolated East Europe. And are sponsored mostly by Germany. NATO member, and our "ally" in EU.
Some East European countries should learn to stick with their contracts first. Then we can speak about the transit of gas.
(You must know that I like it warm inside if it's cold outside.)

[Relict]

Common sense. You really think, that building, and renovation of gas pipe on the deep of sea are cheaper, then pay for transit?

[Relict]

Some East European countries should learn to stick with their contracts first. Then we can speak about the transit of gas.
(You must know that I like it warm inside if it's cold outside.)

What problerms with contracts hew Poland, Lithuania, Latwia, and Estonia (EU members)?

[Difool]

What problerms with contracts hew Poland, Lithuania, Latwia, and Estonia (EU members)?
Maybe we should build the pipeline zik zag through half of the EU that some more countries can make a profit?
If two companies want to make a joint venture to realize a project like this they think economically. So I guess they know why they build it directly through the sea.

[Laworkerbee]

I like the flow and tone of this thread now, it's changed very nicely from a few pages ago.

[my name again]

Going straight from point A to point B without having to deal with other people who want money from you is surley certainly the cheapest way to get something donep-)

[Derbedeu]

Thank you for your opinion !
Can you provide the essay you wrote about the "Nord-stream" in which you prove it is economical nonsense?
I would very much like to read it.

Well it is nearly twice as expensive to build, and even harder to maintain/repair, than it would be building a pipeline on land. It's also not as environmentally friendly. Granted transit fees will be cheaper, but the pipeline will be a lot more expensive to maintain. It's a trade-off, but I believe it's easier and cheaper overall if it were built on land. Just my 2 cents.

[void]

Well it is nearly twice as expensive to build, and even harder to maintain/repair, than it would be building a pipeline on land. It's also not as environmentally friendly. Granted transit fees will be cheaper, but the pipeline will be a lot more expensive to maintain. It's a trade-off, but I believe it's easier and cheaper overall if it were built on land. Just my 2 cents.

Issues with a pipeline over land include the purchase of the land corridor, and that may involve invoking imminent domain, which may not be too popular with the populace/people affected given the sentiment of some of the potential transit countries towards Russia and Gazprom.

Imho it would be a nightmare and take a LONG time to cobble out a deal with countries such as the Baltics and Poland on the matter of a new pipeline from Russia, regarding things such as land cost and transit fees. MUCH less hassle just to go through international waters.

In the end, all of these EU countries are harping about "energy independence", have you ever thought that Russia itself wants energy independence in regards to not being dependent on transit countries? It's a two way street.

[tea drinker]

Well, we've already seen guys going ape**** over mining rights in the sea, do you really think that it would be easier on land? They would have field day with hold ups and court orders injunctions appeals etc. Apparently because Germany wants to make victims from the eastern europeans? If Germany wants to buy something she should be free to do that in the most convenient and suitable way. But she isn't.

This gas industry seems to have an awful lot of hangers-on, victims adding no value and creating instability. Far too much feeling and emotion for rational business decisions to be made except by the concerned business partners. Many in Eastern Europe are very much against trade with russia - and in this case they won, they don't have russian gas running through their borders. What's not to like? A win-win for all.

[Wojtop]

Some East European countries should learn to stick with their contracts first. Then we can speak about the transit of gas.
(You must know that I like it warm inside if it's cold outside.)

You mean Russia? AFAIK they are the only ones who break their contracts as we speak. Gasprom cut deliveries to Poland by some 1,3 bln square meters in 2009 despite of a valid contract and no means can force them to respect the paper they signed. Gasprom supposedly needs money, Poland needs gas, Poland never broke any transit/delivery contract with Russian gas companies, pays full market price always on time. Despite of that negotiations fail cause Russia wants more than money.
Russia is very far from a credible business partner when it comes to energy-related goods. If you like warm inside watch carefully what Russians are doing in EE as one day thay may try the same trick with ze Germans.

[void]

You mean Russia? AFAIK they are the only ones who break their contracts as we speak. Gasprom cut deliveries to Poland by some 1,3 bln square meters in 2009 despite of a valid contract and no means can force them to respect the paper they signed. Gasprom supposedly needs money, Poland needs gas, Poland never broke any transit/delivery contract with Russian gas companies, pays full market price always on time. Despite of that negotiations fail cause Russia wants more than money.
Russia is very far from a credible business partner when it comes to energy-related goods. If you like warm inside watch carefully what Russians are doing in EE as one day thay may try the same trick with ze Germans.

Can you give me a link to an article regarding this? I have not heard of this before, and cannot seem to be able to find anything on Google.

[Derbedeu]

Issues with a pipeline over land include the purchase of the land corridor, and that may involve invoking imminent domain, which may not be too popular with the populace/people affected given the sentiment of some of the potential transit countries towards Russia and Gazprom.

Imho it would be a nightmare and take a LONG time to cobble out a deal with countries such as the Baltics and Poland on the matter of a new pipeline from Russia, regarding things such as land cost and transit fees. MUCH less hassle just to go through international waters.



Well, we've already seen guys going ape**** over mining rights in the sea, do you really think that it would be easier on land? They would have field day with hold ups and court orders injunctions appeals etc. Apparently because Germany wants to make victims from the eastern europeans? If Germany wants to buy something she should be free to do that in the most convenient and suitable way. But she isn't.


Both Poland and the Baltic's are more than willing to provide an overland route. As such, I highly doubt that there would be much of a hassle in getting it built if all the governments are behind it. The four countries are also willing to help subsidize the building of the pipeline:


Besides, Baltic States are ready to participate in the project and pay the part of its cost. According to Polish experts held the calculations of probable expenses, the new gas pipeline will be twice cheaper than "Nord Stream" built on the Baltic Sea bottom as well as significantly shorter.http://eng.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=104374

So I honestly can't see how it would be a problem if these nations are willing to work with both Russia to build the pipeline.


In the end, all of these EU countries are harping about "energy independence", have you ever thought that Russia itself wants energy independence in regards to not being dependent on transit countries? It's a two way street.Transit countries? Here's a very interesting pic:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5250/gazpromdependence.gif (http://img21.imageshack.us/i/gazpromdependence.gif/)

Poland and the Baltic states are not just transit countries. All 4 are dependent on Russian gas, much more than Germany in fact. Building over land will ensure that their energy needs are accounted for as well.




This gas industry seems to have an awful lot of hangers-on, victims adding no value and creating instability. Far too much feeling and emotion for rational business decisions to be made except by the concerned business partners. Many in Eastern Europe are very much against trade with russia - and in this case they won, they don't have russian gas running through their borders. What's not to like? A win-win for all.I'm sorry, but this is pretty much bull****. As I have already shown above, Poland and the Baltic states are not averse to trading with Russia. In fact they depend on Russian gas much more than Germany does. Secondly, it's cheaper to build over land, and such an overland pipeline would provide for not only Germany's needs, but Poland's and the Baltic's as well. Thirdly, Poland and the Baltic states are not Ukraine. All four are EU nations and have no interest whatsoever in pulling any shenanigans.

Building on land will be a lot safer environmentally. It's also cheaper in the long run, since as you can imagine, it's a lot more expansive making repairs and maintaining an underwater pipe. There are also security issues at hand. Sweden, Finland, hell, even Germany have had some reservations when it comes to security risk imposed by Nord Stream:



In a letter to the defense committee of the country's lower house of parliament, the Bundeswehr (armed forces) said it was concerned that the pipeline would be laid close to a sea testing ground near the Island of Rugen, which is actively used for naval exercises, Kommersant said.
The paper said the German military had repeatedly voiced concern over the Nord Stream project. The latest statement by the Bundeswehr's top officials echoed complaints made in January 2007 by commanders of the Northern District based in Kiel, who said construction would be adjacent to zones where the German Army and Navy hold exercises.http://en.rian.ru/world/20090610/155218595.html


Simply put, adding all these factors, it makes more economic and even political sense to build Nord Stream on land. I also firmly believe that both Poland, the Baltic states, and Russia will strengthen their somewhat lukewarm relationship if the pipeline is built through those countries. After all, trust can only be gained working together, and not alienating one side or the other.

[zg18]

The whole point of "North Stream" is direct connection supplier-customer , the Balts and Poles have connections to Russian gas and pay it regularly and Russians deliver it , no problem in this sphere. It would be waste of money to build new strategic pipeline through several countries when you're trying to avoid exactly the same problem with one already , if Germany doesn't find interests in this project it would be abandoned long time ago.

[void]

Both Poland and the Baltic's are more than willing to provide an overland route. As such, I highly doubt that there would be much of a hassle in getting it built if all the governments are behind it. The four countries are also willing to help subsidize the building of the pipeline:

http://eng.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=104374

So I honestly can't see how it would be a problem if these nations are willing to work with both Russia to build the pipeline.



It is easy to say that youre willing to work and help a project, it is much harder to actually get planning permission from local authorities and get a land corridor, which can be held up by litigation and court cases.


In the end you just have to accept that this project concerns Germany and Russia, other countries which would possibly prefer a land route through their territory just have to accept that this is the way the cookie crumbles.

Quite obviously Russia and Germany for various reasons view the Nord Stream as being more advantageous for them than an overland route, why should they concern themselves with the interests of 3rd party countries? Germany wants a direct guaranteed supply with zero chance of transit troubles due to 3rd party countries, and Russia wants a direct route to Western Europe so as not to be reliant on transit countries.

[tea drinker]

Derbedu, I have seen on news many times many times complaints from Politicians in Eastern Europe and Baltics regarding trading with Russia. I simply don't believe you are not aware of this.




Poland keen to shed anti-Russian image inside the EU
Prickly relations
Poland and Russia have endured prickly relations since Poland joined Nato and the EU, culminating in Poland's veto in 2006 of an EU-Russia partnership pact under the government of Lech Kaczynski's brother, Jaroslaw.
The Kaczynski twins' style of diplomacy reinforced Poland's reputation in EU circles as a Russophobe country, which should be marginalised in the interest of broader EU-Russia ties.

http://euobserver.com/9/28608

I am not judging whether it is right or wrong for the Poles to have their stance, but if it interferes in other business at EU level, or even just another countries business relationship then it is wrong.

This is another example of pursuing it's own anti Russia agenda and ignoring higher level EU affairs:


Will Poland Split EU Over Russia Policy?
By Andrew Curry
No European leader has been more outspoken in his criticism of Russia's actions in Georgia than Poland's Lech Kaczynski. Are his provocative words a sure way to marginalize Poland -- or a sign of a larger split in the European Union?


DPA
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, right, and Polish President Lech Kaczynski at a joint news conference in Tbilisi, Georgia on Wednesday.
The sight gave hope to Georgians and credibility to their embattled president, Mikhail Saakashvili. On Tuesday, five heads of state from nations once controlled by the Soviet Union -- Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and Poland -- arrived at a rally in Tbilisi to rebuke Russia for its invasion of the Caucasian country.
For French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was engaged in frantic shuttle diplomacy between Moscow and Tbilisi to bring an end to the conflict, Tuesday's visit was badly timed. More than anything, it highlighted deep divisions within the European Union over how to deal with Russia. Since it expanded into Central Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union in 2004, Poland and the Baltic states have pushed the EU to take a stronger stance against Russia -- to the dismay of many diplomats in what some call "Old Europe."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,572105,00.html

2006:


Poland has vetoed the start of talks between the EU and Russia on a new partnership agreement covering energy, trade and human rights.
The move means that it is unlikely the talks can be launched as planned at an EU-Russia summit in two weeks' time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6142418.stm


I'm not having a go at Poles, they are probably right to be pissed of at Russia.
But if you have a particular foreign policy you should expect consequences, though in this case 2 trading partners deciding on a method of delivering gas free from interference might not have anything to do with that policy.

[Twelve]

Why cant Europe just accept that Russia will always remain their key energy supplier for many decades to come?

[Wojtop]

Can you give me a link to an article regarding this? I have not heard of this before, and cannot seem to be able to find anything on Google.
It's kinda complicated. Google RusUkrEnergo - it's a company owned in 50% by Gasprom who signed contract to deliver gas to Poland. RusUkrEnergo/Gasprom ceased to deliver it after Ukrainian crisis and do not want to resume or sign a new contract unless Poles do some concessions regarding ownership of Polish part of Yamal pipe. A little gas blackmail - uncool.

[zg18]

It's kinda complicated. Google RusUkrEnergo - it's a company owned in 50% by Gasprom who signed contract to deliver gas to Poland. RusUkrEnergo/Gasprom ceased to deliver it after Ukrainian crisis and do not want to resume or sign a new contract unless Poles do some concessions regarding ownership of Polish part of Yamal pipe. A little gas blackmail - uncool.

Other half is owned by Yushchenko pal Dmitry Firtash ...

[gazell]

I like the flow and tone of this thread now, it's changed very nicely from a few pages ago.

Pervert...:lol:

[Universal_Soldier]

Common sense. You really think, that building, and renovation of gas pipe on the deep of sea are cheaper, then pay for transit?

That's not what it is about. I think it's more about uninterrupted supply to partners who are ready to pay for it. Supplying gas via partners that constantly want price changes, contract changes and delayed payments which eventually leads to Gas crisis is not very good. With Nord and South Stream Pipelines, issues like this would be averted. As for those saying that Russia can now play gas politics with Eastern Europe if these pipelines are in place, I have one question. Why haven't Ukraine and other concerned countries looked for alternative sources of gas? There are plenty of suppliers in the caspian region. Peharps they get good deal from Russia?

[Relict]

That's not what it is about. I think it's more about uninterrupted supply to partners who are ready to pay for it. Supplying gas via partners that constantly want price changes, contract changes and delayed payments which eventually leads to Gas crisis is not very good. With Nord and South Stream Pipelines, issues like this would be averted. As for those saying that Russia can now play gas politics with Eastern Europe if these pipelines are in place, I have one question. Why haven't Ukraine and other concerned countries looked for alternative sources of gas? There are plenty of suppliers in the caspian region. Peharps they get good deal from Russia?

Money. East European countries hew not enough money, Germany, and Russia hew, + idiotism of our leaders. And abouts "russofobe" Poland. Russia made economical war with East Europe some 10 years ago. Ewery contracts sign with Russia are just paper, and are broken regulary. That can made ewery country "russofobe".

[Difool]

Money. East European countries hew not enough money, Germany, and Russia hew, + idiotism of our leaders. And abouts "russofobe" Poland. Russia made economical war with East Europe some 10 years ago. Ewery contracts sign with Russia are just paper, and are broken regulary. That can made ewery country "russofobe".
I know that they made bad experiences with the Soviet Union. None the less are good relations with Russia essential for the EU with profit for both.

[tluassa]

Money. East European countries hew not enough money, Germany, and Russia hew, + idiotism of our leaders. And abouts "russofobe" Poland. Russia made economical war with East Europe some 10 years ago. Ewery contracts sign with Russia are just paper, and are broken regulary. That can made ewery country "russofobe".

Even without money, you could at least try to spell words correctly ... "hew" my godness and im not even an native english speaker.
Thing is that Poles elected 2 dumbhead twins that seriously pissed off Germans at the time and before the treaties were signed. Now they come whining afterwards, just like they came after every European Union treaty they blocked and signed only after getting a "special deal". Seriously get your head sorted out and dont play the scared, hurt, poor, bully victim. Poland is not a victim on this issue in any Way. To the contrary, they did everything not to get the deal.

[Laworkerbee]

Why cant Europe just accept that Russia will always remain their key energy supplier for many decades to come?

I think this pipeline demonstrates that quite clearly.

[Relict]

Even without money, you could at least try to spell words correctly ... "hew" my godness and im not even an native english speaker.
Thing is that Poles elected 2 dumbhead twins that seriously pissed off Germans at the time and before the treaties were signed. Now they come whining afterwards, just like they came after every European Union treaty they blocked and signed only after getting a "special deal". Seriously get your head sorted out and dont play the scared, hurt, poor, bully victim. Poland is not a victim on this issue in any Way. To the contrary, they did everything not to get the deal.

Sorry for my English, i must learn Russian in my sholl. Im just sick, when i heard ebout "European Union", "European Solidarity", "European Seciurity", and other bull****s like this. Every country playing his own game. And German - Russian pipeline, are best proof of that.

[Relict]

I know that they made bad experiences with the Soviet Union. None the less are good relations with Russia essential for the EU with profit for both.
That was write about today expiriences with Russia.

[Difool]

That was write about today expiriences with Russia.
Please give one or two examples for that.

It's good that you write here even if your english is not that good yet.
Just practice!

[Stormz_STA]

Thing is that Poles elected 2 dumbhead twins that seriously pissed off Germans at the time and before the treaties were signed.

I like this. Typical german patronizing bull****. I bet you would want someone who would agree with everything your government says because only Germans know better.


Now they come whining afterwards, just like they came after every European Union treaty they blocked and signed only after getting a "special deal".

It's called politics. I guess getting "special deals" and blocking what is not good for Poland is, in your opinion, "un-European". Well, every country in the EU does the same but you had to single out Poland.
Why am I not surprised you're German???

[Wojtop]

Thing is that Poles elected 2 dumbhead twins that seriously pissed off Germans at the time and before the treaties were signed. Now they come whining afterwards, just like they came after every European Union treaty they blocked and signed only after getting a "special deal". Seriously get your head sorted out and dont play the scared, hurt, poor, bully victim. Poland is not a victim on this issue in any Way. To the contrary, they did everything not to get the deal.

rofl WTF, so Poland is not a victim of the deal but Germany signed the deal because Polish dumbhead twins pissed Germans off? You just denied your own words.

Doesn't the deal have anything to do with Schroeder and a bunch of Scandinavian politicians getting fat contracts in Gasprom? How do you think?

As for "Poland doing everything not to get the deal" - no deal was ever offered to Poland so obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.

As for Poland blocking "all treaties" - what you obviously miss is that Germany blocks and break the same treaties as long as it have bad effect on your economy. Opel's case is the best example. Get real.

[ozumn]

Leave the Baltic Sea alone.

[Universal_Soldier]

I think this pipeline demonstrates that quite clearly.

As always....on point!

[tluassa]

rofl WTF, so Poland is not a victim of the deal but Germany signed the deal because Polish dumbhead twins pissed Germans off? You just denied your own words.

Doesn't the deal have anything to do with Schroeder and a bunch of Scandinavian politicians getting fat contracts in Gasprom? How do you think?

As for "Poland doing everything not to get the deal" - no deal was ever offered to Poland so obviously you have no clue what you are talking about.

As for Poland blocking "all treaties" - what you obviously miss is that Germany blocks and break the same treaties as long as it have bad effect on your economy. Opel's case is the best example. Get real.

You dont even seem to get what this deal is about, that is supplying Europe with Gas !!! Germany and Russia signed this deal to get Russian gas to Germany, not to piss off Poles. (I might add that every relation btw. Germany and Russia seem to piss off Poland anyway)

Interestingly, most other countries in the Baltic are participating, only Poland managed to stay out, because of your great Government. (at the time)
When the first talks about the pipeline were started, "the Twins" directly started to cry betrayal, that is what I call "we dont want to participate". Offering good conditions and a route through Poland would have been the right thing, Poland did not do that. Now you blame Germany.

PS: There is a European agreement to help each other out in times of energy shortage, (and securing the net !) which means that Poland will be supplied through the Gas of the pipeline anyway. You just will have to pay for it, instead of us paying you for using Poland as a transition country.

[Relict]

Please give one or two examples for that.

It's good that you write here even if your english is not that good yet.
Just practice!
Last two: On 2006 polish "Orlen" group buy oil refinery in Mazeikiai. Just after that, main pipeline , that supplying this rafinery hew failure on the territory of Russia. Rusians repared them till today.
2009; Poland sign long time contract with Gasprom to buy gas. This gas newer coming there.
+ blockade of polish harbour in Elblag, regular embargos for some polish stuffs, ect, ect...

[Relict]

Interestingly, most other countries in the Baltic are participating, only Poland managed to stay out, because of your great Government. (at the time)
When the first talks about the pipeline were started, "the Twins" directly started to cry betrayal, that is what I call "we dont want to participate". Offering good conditions and a route through Poland would have been the right thing, Poland did not do that. Now you blame Germany.

"The twins" win elections two months, after Germany, and Russia sign a contract to build "Nord Stream". Before, they was nobody. And this is strange to you, that Poland dont want parcitipated in investition that is completly not in polish business?

PS: There is a European agreement to help each other out in times of energy shortage, (and securing the net !) which means that Poland will be supplied through the Gas of the pipeline anyway. You just will have to pay for it, instead of us paying you for using Poland as a transition country.[/QUOTE]

"European agreement" ar paper. "Nord stream" are reality.

[tluassa]

Interestingly, most other countries in the Baltic are participating, only Poland managed to stay out, because of your great Government. (at the time)
When the first talks about the pipeline were started, "the Twins" directly started to cry betrayal, that is what I call "we dont want to participate". Offering good conditions and a route through Poland would have been the right thing, Poland did not do that. Now you blame Germany.

"The twins" win elections two months, after Germany, and Russia sign a contract to build "Nord Stream". Before, they was nobody. And this is strange to you, that Poland dont want parcitipated in investition that is completly not in polish business?

PS: There is a European agreement to help each other out in times of energy shortage, (and securing the net !) which means that Poland will be supplied through the Gas of the pipeline anyway. You just will have to pay for it, instead of us paying you for using Poland as a transition country.

"European agreement" ar paper. "Nord stream" are reality.[/QUOTE]

Now who is contradicting himself now ? In your last post you desperately wanted Poland to be included into the deal and the pipeline to be build through Poland, NOW you state that Poland had no desire to get the deal in the first place.

And if we start again to regard "treaties" (which are not just "paper" !) in Europe as you do, I seriously fear for order and security on our continent ! It would also mean for Poland that you are living partly on "occupied soil".

[Derbedeu]

Personally speaking, it would be nice to see the EU form a more coherent energy policy.

[Difool]

Personally speaking, it would be nice to see the EU form a more coherent energy policy.

Would be no mistake. But it requires a common agreement what seems to be very hard to achieve since the EU has grown that big.
Also you guys have to realize that the energy market is not state owned as it used to be in socialistic times. Every company wants it's own and biggest piece of the cake. I see this as the biggest barrier.

[Vandervahn]

...Ewery contracts sign with Russia are just paper, and are broken regulary. That can made ewery country "russofobe".

Russia/the USSR kept every delivery quota with Germany since 1984.


Personally speaking, it would be nice to see the EU form a more coherent energy policy.

Well, and the Nord Stream is part of it. Lets leave out the Poles for a second as they are crying Wolf with little reason (in case of a HYPOTHETICAL gas crisis they can get their gas from Germany). The problem is that there are more transit countries in the way - the Ukraine and Belorussia.

Specifically, 80% of the russian gas comes over the Ukraine. which means the Ukraine has the power to hold half of western Europe hostage by flicking a switch. I absolutely cannot see any strategic interest to give them and to a lesser degree the Belorussians that power. Not to speak of the possibility of a technical failure or third party involvement somewhere down the line - at the moment there is no subsitute for the Ukrainian line, and that has to change.

[serg123]

Last two: On 2006 polish "Orlen" group buy oil refinery in Mazeikiai. Just after that, main pipeline , that supplying this rafinery hew failure on the territory of Russia. Rusians repared them till today.

1) Actually oil leakage happened before Orlen bouth refinery.
2) Pipeline operator Transneft long time ago dicided not to repare 40 years old pipeline with more than 7800 found defects. Investments to new BTS-2 pipeline considered as more preferable.
3) It would be no problem to repair pipeline if Orlen would finance that along or together with russian oil supplier. Orlen is not interested probably because oil price delivered by sea is only 7.5 Euro per tonn more expensive.
4) Refinery gets oil by sea from Russian port Primorsk. If Russia would want to do something against refinary or make oil price for refinary even higher than it would stop using Primorsk facilities.


2009; Poland sign long time contract with Gasprom to buy gas. This gas newer coming there.

You probably mixed Gasprom and RosUkrEnergo. Polan had contract with RosUkrEnergo, but after Ukrainian prime minister Timoshenko kicked off RosUkrEnergo from the market Poland had to find new supplier.




+ blockade of polish harbour in Elblag,

Never heard about this.


regular embargos for some polish stuffs, ect, ect...
If you mean meat embargo, then after Polish meat factories allowed inspection and Polish authorities stoped practice of fake export of South America low quality meat as polish product embargo were lifted up.

[Universal_Soldier]

Wow...Construction for South Stream could start before Nord Stream (NS: Scheduled for completion 2012). Also SS could be completed before its official start date of 2013.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=United+Kingdom+%26+Europe&month=October2009&file=World_News2009102391116.xml

[serg123]

Both Poland and the Baltic's are more than willing to provide an overland route. As such, I highly doubt that there would be much of a hassle in getting it built if all the governments are behind it. The four countries are also willing to help subsidize the building of the pipeline:

When Gasprom got troubles with Ukraine it offered to Belorussia and Poland to expand existing alternative pipleline through Poland. Poland refused due to solidarity with Ukraine. Then polish twins compared Nord Stream project with Molotov Ribbentrop Pact. Russian-Polish gas JV was busy in curts suing each other, etc, etc, etc. So Gasprom just got tired from all that political BS and doesn't want to be dependant from political regims of transit countries. Nord Stream project is more expensive, but not paying several bln dollars as transit fees and avoiding political riscs would justify that.

[Relict]

OK. I clear my point.
1. "Nord stream" are good buisness for Germany and Russia.
2. "Nord stream are very, very bad buisness for Poland.
3. Governments of Germany, and Russia are not blody monsters, but do everything to make his countrys stronger, and safer. (many times not clear, but this is real politicy)
4. Governtments of Poland (every during last 20 years) completly failed in this theme.
5. European "Energy politicy" exist not. Ewery country must made his own.

I write before, that i hate only double standarts, and hipocrisy. When poles tell about his interests, they are "ksenophobes, antieuropeans, imperialists, and simply idiots". When Germans, and Russians telling about his interests, they are "proeuropeans, true democrats, and great politics".

[gazell]

PS: There is a European agreement to help each other out in times of energy shortage, (and securing the net !) which means that Poland will be supplied through the Gas of the pipeline anyway. You just will have to pay for it, instead of us paying you for using Poland as a transition country.

The moment of truth, I'm pleased a German posted it.:lol:

The position of being a first transit country is highly desirable. Poland messed up politics on this huge. It's time to learn from it, I guess.p-)

[MkH]

I don't like this at all. The way I see it, the reasons for building the pipeline are almost as much political (in regards of security) as they are economical. Russia will be using it as an excuse for increasing its presence on the Baltic sea - and it will not be for just next few years, but for decades to come. At least the Estonians have the balls to say this out loud, whereas the Finnish politicians are still kneeling to the east, despite the fact that Soviet Union fell nearly 20 years ago (and some probably have rubles in their pockets).

Then there's the ecological factor. Seeing that we, the Finnish taxpayers, had to pay for St. Petersburg's waste management plant to reduce to the amount of waste let into the Baltic sea, I don't really have much trust on our neighbors capability to take care of a much, much bigger ecological threat. When Russia has reduced its emissions to Baltic sea to an acceptable level - in, say, 30 to 50 years - then I think the pipeline could be considered, at least from that respect.

[Difool]

There is another factor you forgot to mention: During evolution we have lost most of our fur.
We need to heat our houses in winter.

[Afro-European]

Estonian parliament speaks against Nord Stream project

TALLINN, October 27 (RIA Novosti) - The Estonian parliament on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the possible environmental fallout from the Nord Stream gas project and said it should not be allowed to go ahead.
The Nord Stream pipeline, which will carry gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, bypassing Poland, Belarus and Ukraine, is being built jointly by Russia's Gazprom, Germany's E.ON Ruhrgas and BASF-Wintershall, and Dutch gas transportation firm Gasunie with an estimated price tag of $12 billion.
Estonian MPs said in particular that the project's developers "failed to take into account the specifics of the Baltic Sea as a sensitive ecosystem."
The pipeline will not pass through Estonia so it has no direct say in the project, but it can present its point of view to transit countries.
Estonian MPs urged their colleagues in other Baltic states to wield their power and closely supervise environmental risk assessment and the process of granting construction licenses.
The environmental safety of the project, which is due to go on stream in 2012, has been queried by several transit countries, including Finland.
On October 20, Denmark became the first country to approve the pipeline's route. The Danish Energy Agency said the pipeline would run through 88 km (55 miles) of Denmark's territorial waters and 50 km (31 miles) of its exclusive economic zone

[Difool]

Estonian parliament speaks against Nord Stream project

TALLINN, October 27 (RIA Novosti) - The Estonian parliament on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the possible environmental fallout from the Nord Stream gas project and said it should not be allowed to go ahead.
The Nord Stream pipeline, which will carry gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, bypassing Poland, Belarus and Ukraine, is being built jointly by Russia's Gazprom, Germany's E.ON Ruhrgas and BASF-Wintershall, and Dutch gas transportation firm Gasunie with an estimated price tag of $12 billion.
Estonian MPs said in particular that the project's developers "failed to take into account the specifics of the Baltic Sea as a sensitive ecosystem."
The pipeline will not pass through Estonia so it has no direct say in the project, but it can present its point of view to transit countries.
Estonian MPs urged their colleagues in other Baltic states to wield their power and closely supervise environmental risk assessment and the process of granting construction licenses.
The environmental safety of the project, which is due to go on stream in 2012, has been queried by several transit countries, including Finland.
On October 20, Denmark became the first country to approve the pipeline's route. The Danish Energy Agency said the pipeline would run through 88 km (55 miles) of Denmark's territorial waters and 50 km (31 miles) of its exclusive economic zone
I'm not surprised.
They get so much money from Germany via the EU. But if a German-Russian joint venture wants to make a deal without them they come with concerns. Pure hypocrisy.

[Derbedeu]

I'm not surprised.
They get so much money from Germany via the EU. But if a German-Russian joint venture wants to make a deal without them they come with concerns. Pure hypocrisy.

I would imagine building a pipeline underwater is more hazardous to the surrounding environment then building one over land. I would like to know what studies Gazprom has done with regards to the environmental impact. If you have any links it would be appreciated.

[Difool]

I would imagine building a pipeline underwater is more hazardous to the surrounding environment then building one over land. I would like to know what studies Gazprom has done with regards to the environmental impact. If you have any links it would be appreciated.

I think a pipeline is always a risk. But the ships in the Baltic sea are also.
I'm comvinced that NGOs like Greenpeace and so on are against this project, but they're always complaining.
I don't know what studies have been done. As for the German part I know the environmental protection laws. Such studies take years and every ****ing department plus certain NGOs are involved. I can look for more info, but I'm going to bed now. Ciao!

[sarhat]

I would imagine building a pipeline underwater is more hazardous to the surrounding environment then building one over land. I would like to know what studies Gazprom has done with regards to the environmental impact. If you have any links it would be appreciated.

you just don't want to understand that land route is impossible (in business&political terms) - to many risks.

[sarhat]

Estonian parliament speaks against Nord Stream project

TALLINN, October 27 (RIA Novosti) - The Estonian parliament on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the possible environmental fallout from the Nord Stream gas project and said it should not be allowed to go ahead.
The Nord Stream pipeline, which will carry gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, bypassing Poland, Belarus and Ukraine, is being built jointly by Russia's Gazprom, Germany's E.ON Ruhrgas and BASF-Wintershall, and Dutch gas transportation firm Gasunie with an estimated price tag of $12 billion.
Estonian MPs said in particular that the project's developers "failed to take into account the specifics of the Baltic Sea as a sensitive ecosystem."
The pipeline will not pass through Estonia so it has no direct say in the project, but it can present its point of view to transit countries.
Estonian MPs urged their colleagues in other Baltic states to wield their power and closely supervise environmental risk assessment and the process of granting construction licenses.
The environmental safety of the project, which is due to go on stream in 2012, has been queried by several transit countries, including Finland.
On October 20, Denmark became the first country to approve the pipeline's route. The Danish Energy Agency said the pipeline would run through 88 km (55 miles) of Denmark's territorial waters and 50 km (31 miles) of its exclusive economic zone

dog barks - caravan moving

[Afro-European]

I would imagine building a pipeline underwater is more hazardous to the surrounding environment then building one over land. I would like to know what studies Gazprom has done with regards to the environmental impact. If you have any links it would be appreciated.

The pipeline will not pass through Estonia so it has no direct say in the project, but it can present its point of view to transit countries
So what are they whining about?

On October 20, Denmark became the first country to approve the pipeline's route. The Danish Energy Agency said the pipeline would run through 88 km (55 miles) of Denmark's territorial waters and 50 km (31 miles) of its exclusive economic zone
Denmark doesn't have any issue with the environmental bull*** eventhough the pipeline 'd run through its its territorial waters.

[Jack Daniels]

Estonian parliament speaks against Nord Stream project


The pipeline will not pass through Estonia so it has no direct say in the project

Enough said.

[Difool]

I think a pipeline is always a risk. But the ships in the Baltic sea are also.
I'm comvinced that NGOs like Greenpeace and so on are against this project, but they're always complaining.
I don't know what studies have been done. As for the German part I know the environmental protection laws. Such studies take years and every ****ing department plus certain NGOs are involved. I can look for more info, but I'm going to bed now. Ciao!


I want to go back to the studies dealing with possible environmental dangers.
The Helsinki Commision (members are the states surrounding the Baltic Sea and the EU) responsible for environmental protection in the Baltic Sea ordered North Stream to make an international environmental impact assessment. This report will be given to all the states at the Baltic Sea. Every state then has to check it on base of their laws.

[AmaStrat]

It sums it up when Russian firms become "open, competitive, and capitalist". Problem is that many important firms are in the control of the Russian governement. Russia doesn't work as a free capitalism.

In my opinion all influential companies of the world work for or with the government; or are the real government behind the "visible" government. Although Western companies are definitely more independent, they still are part of the government or the nation in some way.

[Eye]

Even inhabitants of small Polish coastal settlement are against nord stream, so it has no chance to be realized p-)

The council of Baltic coastal community of Rewal, northwest Poland, have adopted a resolution (http://www.rp.pl/artykul/67299,313066.html) demanding a deposit of EUR 675 mln from Nord Stream, a German-Russian consortium developing a gas pipeline at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. According to the council, the deposit would serve as collateral in the event of an environmental disaster caused by the pipeline construction or operation. The Rewal council said that due to possible environmental risks, the pipeline project could decimate tourism revenues of Poland's seaside resorts.
http://www.greenhorizon-online.com/index.php/Poland/polish-community-demands-nord-stream-deposit.html

[smile]

Even inhabitants of small Polish coastal settlement are against nord stream, so it has no chance to be realized p-)
Cry me a river. It is underwater pipeline. It is international water, but coastal settlement need money too. It is ok, did the ever heard about pipelines from Norway. Maybe they need to cut some money from this too? It is too far away and keep all standard, but how cares.
Onland gas pipleline has no chance too. Every city community cut a piece from this project.

the deposit would serve as collateral in the event of an environmental disaster
Only if polish people from one coastal settlement building it.

[Eye]

Only if polish people from one coastal settlement building it.
So when it will be finished? I have to know when should I change gas powered central heating to some coal powered.

[User_Name]

So when it will be finished? I have to know when should I change gas powered central heating to some coal powered.

Do it now, help your environment:cantbeli:

[Jack Daniels]

This is such a pointless discussion. Europe needs energy and Russia has plenty of it, sooner or later this pipeline will be built, couple of Polish or Estonian peasants are not going to stop such a huge project. There's probably more chance that Russia, Germany and Co. would invade or overthrow governments of one of those countries before it would say 'bye' to Nord Stream.

I am sorry but lets get real here, since when small countries stopped anyone from doing anything, especially when we are talking about world's powers such as Germany and Russia, laughable..

[Mousepad]

Estonian parliament speaks against Nord Stream project

TALLINN, October 27 (RIA Novosti) - The Estonian parliament on Tuesday expressed serious concern over the possible environmental fallout from the Nord Stream gas project and said it should not be allowed to go ahead.
The Nord Stream pipeline, which will carry gas from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea, bypassing Poland, Belarus and Ukraine, is being built jointly by Russia's Gazprom, Germany's E.ON Ruhrgas and BASF-Wintershall, and Dutch gas transportation firm Gasunie with an estimated price tag of $12 billion.
Estonian MPs said in particular that the project's developers "failed to take into account the specifics of the Baltic Sea as a sensitive ecosystem."
The pipeline will not pass through Estonia so it has no direct say in the project, but it can present its point of view to transit countries.
Estonian MPs urged their colleagues in other Baltic states to wield their power and closely supervise environmental risk assessment and the process of granting construction licenses.
The environmental safety of the project, which is due to go on stream in 2012, has been queried by several transit countries, including Finland.
On October 20, Denmark became the first country to approve the pipeline's route. The Danish Energy Agency said the pipeline would run through 88 km (55 miles) of Denmark's territorial waters and 50 km (31 miles) of its exclusive economic zone

Interesting, how underwater pipe can harm ecology, Oil - yes can pollute a lot, but gaz, even if pipe gets ruptured, there will be only giant fart-bubbles, or am i wrong?

As for Estonian concern, i fully agree that it's just whining for lost profit, and any say.

[Jippo]

Interesting, how underwater pipe can harm ecology, Oil - yes can pollute a lot, but gaz, even if pipe gets ruptured, there will be only giant fart-bubbles, or am i wrong?


To start up people are worried of the toxins in the sediment that the pipe laying will kick up. What the environmental impacts are in total, I don't know, but that is at least one of the concerns.

[Eye]

There's probably more chance that Russia, Germany and Co. would invade or overthrow governments of one of those countries before it would say 'bye' to Nord Stream.


I'm afraid that you have very tiny contact with reality. You have had great problems with invading Georgia and you want to invade Poland :bash:

[User_Name]

I'm afraid that you have very tiny contact with reality. You have had great problems with invading Georgia and you want to invade Poland :bash:

roflroflrofl
PotatoLand StroNGG!1!11!

3 days to make superior in man power army run and win the war in 5 days shows clearly how hard it was.

Every body is afraid of Poland, it is all because of its blue water navy and a bomber fleet, NOT!

edit: And by the way you should read carefull the original post, nobody want invade Poland, so nobody gonna drop the "North stream" project, because of whining of some baltic and east european states.

[Jack Daniels]

I'm afraid that you have very tiny contact with reality. You have had great problems with invading Georgia and you want to invade Poland :bash:

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/61fps/2009/01/facepalm.jpg

[Switek]

roflroflrofl
PotatoLand StroNGG!1!11!:cantbeli:


What an explosive mixture of arrogance and ignorance...

Potatoland is my translation of ironic name of Greater Poland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Poland_Voivodeship) voivodship called by locals and rest of Poles "Pyrlandia", where a word "pyra" is local name for potato. One of the reason of that is Greater Poland's agriculture is one the most developed in the country and one of the main part of it was potato growing.

;)

[Eye]

roflroflrofl
PotatoLand StroNGG!1!11!

3 days to make superior in man power army run and win the war in 5 days shows clearly how hard it was.

Every body is afraid of Poland, it is all because of its blue water navy and a bomber fleet, NOT!

I have some trouble with you identity. You have stated that you are German, but you write like Russian. Interesting.

[JCR]

Everybody can write like a russian
You just need the proper "mat" attitude and some alcohol. It is fun.

[User_Name]

Everybody can write like a russian
You just need the proper "mat" attitude and some alcohol. It is fun.
roflroflrofl

But it is very hard to understand for some Poles. Beware, after the north stream there, we and russians gonna conquer you again.
You ask for what?
For giggles...
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4668/cvschroederputin302382g.jpg

[lauris71]

Can someone clarify to me how this works? If they built a land pipeline they would have to pay transfer fees, but not if they build it in another countrys territorial waters/economic zone??
In territorial waters all depends on the will of coastal state. They have full authority there, so they can allow/refuse any activity at will and demand whatever fees they want.
Economic zone is area of exclusive access of sea resources - fishing and mining. Other than that, it is free for all, so in theory they do not have to pay any transit fees for pipelines. Still they have to prove, that pipeline is not dangerous to environment, both because there are international treaties about marine conservation and because they have to prove, that pipeline is not bad to the fishing by coastal state (of which they have exclusive right).
Because of that, the fight for/against Nord Stream is mostly fought in ecological field.

[Afro-European]

Putin sees problems emerging with Ukraine paying for Russian gas

MOSCOW, October 30 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine is again having difficulty paying for Russian natural gas supplies and the EU is not going to lend Kiev money to solve the problems, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Friday.
Moscow briefly shut down supplies via Ukraine's pipeline system at the start of the year during a dispute with Kiev over unpaid debt.
"It seems we are again seeing problems emerge with [Ukraine] paying for energy supplies (http://en.beta.rian.ru/business/20091026/156591008.html)," Putin said at a meeting with the leadership of the ruling United Russia party.
Putin added that Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko told him by telephone on Friday that President Viktor Yushchenko was blocking payments for Russian gas supplies.
The Russian prime minister said that IMF data showed Ukraine had gold reserves of $27-$28 billion, with a maximum of $12 billion required to cover the payment. He also noted that the European Union had refused to extend any loans to Ukraine to cover its gas purchases.
"The EU has not given Ukraine any money," Putin said. "Ukraine has not received a single cent, not one hryvnia."
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on Friday that he hopes Russia and Ukraine will resolve gas issues on their own without EU mediation.
He told journalists the EU will support both sides in resolving problems with Russian gas deliveries to Europe via Ukraine but will not mediate commercial disputes between the former Soviet neighbors.
Russia supplies around one fifth of Europe's gas via Ukraine (http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20090609/155206402.html). Brussels had announced intentions to take part in the modernization of Ukraine's gas transit system.
Ukraine's state-controlled energy company Naftogaz rejected on Monday reports of gas payment problems, saying it would pay for Russia natural gas supplied in October on time and in full.
A source in Naftogaz on Monday quoted its CEO Oleh Dubyna as saying at a meeting with Gazprom head Alexei Miller last week that it was increasingly difficult for the Ukrainian energy company to make gas payments and it could be problematic for it to pay for natural gas supplied in October.
Yushchenko has repeatedly called for the revision of long-term gas contracts signed by Gazprom and Naftogaz to resolve the January gas dispute. The Ukrainian president said Naftogaz had lost at least $2.5 billion from Russian natural gas transi

[sepheronx]

Putin sees problems emerging with Ukraine paying for Russian gas

MOSCOW, October 30 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine is again having difficulty paying for Russian natural gas supplies and the EU is not going to lend Kiev money to solve the problems, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Friday.
Moscow briefly shut down supplies via Ukraine's pipeline system at the start of the year during a dispute with Kiev over unpaid debt.
"It seems we are again seeing problems emerge with [Ukraine] paying for energy supplies (http://en.beta.rian.ru/business/20091026/156591008.html)," Putin said at a meeting with the leadership of the ruling United Russia party.
Putin added that Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko told him by telephone on Friday that President Viktor Yushchenko was blocking payments for Russian gas supplies.
The Russian prime minister said that IMF data showed Ukraine had gold reserves of $27-$28 billion, with a maximum of $12 billion required to cover the payment. He also noted that the European Union had refused to extend any loans to Ukraine to cover its gas purchases.
"The EU has not given Ukraine any money," Putin said. "Ukraine has not received a single cent, not one hryvnia."
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on Friday that he hopes Russia and Ukraine will resolve gas issues on their own without EU mediation.
He told journalists the EU will support both sides in resolving problems with Russian gas deliveries to Europe via Ukraine but will not mediate commercial disputes between the former Soviet neighbors.
Russia supplies around one fifth of Europe's gas via Ukraine (http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20090609/155206402.html). Brussels had announced intentions to take part in the modernization of Ukraine's gas transit system.
Ukraine's state-controlled energy company Naftogaz rejected on Monday reports of gas payment problems, saying it would pay for Russia natural gas supplied in October on time and in full.
A source in Naftogaz on Monday quoted its CEO Oleh Dubyna as saying at a meeting with Gazprom head Alexei Miller last week that it was increasingly difficult for the Ukrainian energy company to make gas payments and it could be problematic for it to pay for natural gas supplied in October.
Yushchenko has repeatedly called for the revision of long-term gas contracts signed by Gazprom and Naftogaz to resolve the January gas dispute. The Ukrainian president said Naftogaz had lost at least $2.5 billion from Russian natural gas transi

A good reason why building new pipelines is needed. The problem is not Russia, but its neighbors. Poland can bitch, but in the end, money and resources talk, not old rehashed comments made during the 80's about evil empire.

[gazell]

saying it would pay for Russia natural gas supplied in October on time and in fullIsn't it end of October?

[User_Name]

Isn't it end of October?

They pay not at the end of a month, but a week later.

[gazell]

They pay not at the end of a month, but a week later.

There is hope then...

[tea drinker]

There is hope then...
How can they use gas that they cannot pay for? Do they not charge their customers enough to cover costs of gas and infrastructure?

This seems very strange that there are still problems in this area, surely the gas company know how to charge after all the previous issues?
I know Ukraine has money problems the same as the rest of us - but surely there is some sh1t stirring here?

Bet the Germans are loving that investment in Nord stream right about now.

[Difool]

Putin sees problems emerging with Ukraine paying for Russian gas

MOSCOW, October 30 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine is again having difficulty paying for Russian natural gas supplies and the EU is not going to lend Kiev money to solve the problems, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Friday.
Moscow briefly shut down supplies via Ukraine's pipeline system at the start of the year during a dispute with Kiev over unpaid debt.
"It seems we are again seeing problems emerge with [Ukraine] paying for energy supplies (http://en.beta.rian.ru/business/20091026/156591008.html)," Putin said at a meeting with the leadership of the ruling United Russia party.
Putin added that Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko told him by telephone on Friday that President Viktor Yushchenko was blocking payments for Russian gas supplies.
The Russian prime minister said that IMF data showed Ukraine had gold reserves of $27-$28 billion, with a maximum of $12 billion required to cover the payment. He also noted that the European Union had refused to extend any loans to Ukraine to cover its gas purchases.
"The EU has not given Ukraine any money," Putin said. "Ukraine has not received a single cent, not one hryvnia."
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on Friday that he hopes Russia and Ukraine will resolve gas issues on their own without EU mediation.
He told journalists the EU will support both sides in resolving problems with Russian gas deliveries to Europe via Ukraine but will not mediate commercial disputes between the former Soviet neighbors.
Russia supplies around one fifth of Europe's gas via Ukraine (http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20090609/155206402.html). Brussels had announced intentions to take part in the modernization of Ukraine's gas transit system.
Ukraine's state-controlled energy company Naftogaz rejected on Monday reports of gas payment problems, saying it would pay for Russia natural gas supplied in October on time and in full.
A source in Naftogaz on Monday quoted its CEO Oleh Dubyna as saying at a meeting with Gazprom head Alexei Miller last week that it was increasingly difficult for the Ukrainian energy company to make gas payments and it could be problematic for it to pay for natural gas supplied in October.
Yushchenko has repeatedly called for the revision of long-term gas contracts signed by Gazprom and Naftogaz to resolve the January gas dispute. The Ukrainian president said Naftogaz had lost at least $2.5 billion from Russian natural gas transi

It's not a bit surprising, is it? Happens twice a year that payment is delayed.
I mean that's why alternate routes are needed. So North Stream is a project I really support. But you know that. I stated this before.
What about the soccer EC?

[Universal_Soldier]

Pipeline is built because everybody needs gas

Poland just signed a 37 years Gas deal with Gazprom.

This is demand and supply at work. Basic principles of economics.

[Universal_Soldier]

In case we are still talking about pipelines, They [Pipelines] are built because everybody needs gas.
Poland just signed a 37 years Gas deal with Gazprom (Switek must really mad now)

This is classic demand and supply at work. Basic principles of economics.

[CaptMorgan68]

In case we are still talking about pipelines, They [Pipelines] are built because everybody needs gas.
Poland just signed a 37 years Gas deal with Gazprom (Switek must really mad now)

This is classic demand and supply at work. Basic principles of economics.

It's more like supply and demand being used by the Russians to gain more economic and political leverage over Europe) IMHO

[Universal_Soldier]

It's more like supply and demand being used by the Russians to gain more economic and political leverage over Europe) IMHO

Political leverage is secondary and somewhat subjective (depends on who you ask). As for the economic leverage, of cause! That's what everybody is trying to gain. Gaining economic leverage over another is what competition is all about. You 'll be a fool not to fight for economic leverage in the world market.

[Afro-European]

This recurring crisis always pops up in the winter lol.

[Universal_Soldier]

This recurring crisis always pops up in the winter lol.

If Ukraine pays their gas pill, there will be no crisis. I'm glad the Europeans are gradually beginning to admit that much those days. Instead of claiming that evil Ruskies are trying to freeze eastern Europe. Now they trying to make sure Ukraine pays their bills on time.

[Silent Reader]

It's more like supply and demand being used by the Russians to gain more economic and political leverage over Europe) IMHO


what else should they do? they have the ressources and they will use them.

as soon as brown coal becomes en vogue again or we get a monopoly/patent on solar power Germany will use it to dominate the rest of Europe too :D

[smile]

It's more like supply and demand being used by the Russians to gain more economic and political leverage over Europe) IMHO
Agree, they build it up. But who? Volkswagen buid up new big factory in Russia. Skoda as part of Volkswagen build factory too. And so on... Two sites of coin.Gazprom need not much more middlemandealer. Good prices for endcustomer and safe transport. Btw,this double standart about bad Russia companies and own companies is old tale.

[Archaon]

One step closer: The Swedish goverment today signed a yes for the Nord Stream-project

[smile]

Big Milestone for Nord Stream today.Sweden and Finland Government approved a Baltic Sea pipeline project that would ship Russian natural gas to EU, clearing two key obstacles for construction to begin next year. Nord stream achieve all technical and ecological EU standards.
The Swedish decision was taken after environmental monitoring a 23-month review off all posibilities of the application and consultations with the Nord Stream consortium.

[Jack Daniels]

Russia weak!!11!1 crew aren't going to be happy about this.



The construction is due to begin in 2010 and completed in 2012.

[Eye]

Poland Wants Nord Stream Gas Pipeline to Run Under Seabed

The Nord Stream gas pipeline linking Russia with Germany must be laid under, not on, the Baltic seabed in the area adjacent to the Polish ports of Szczecin-Swinoujscie. This postulate has been submitted by Poland in talks held with the German government, deputy minister of state treasury Mikolaj Budzanowski said Thursday.
Poland believes that a pipeline laid on the seabed may restrict navigation at some future date, thus putting restrictions on the development of the Szczecin and Swinoujscie harbours and jeopardising the development of the planned Swinoujscie gas terminal.
The only acceptable limit on the development of sea traffic to/from the Polish harbours is the depth of the Danish Straits (17.5 meters), explains the head of Szczecin port Andrzej Borowiec. The access route for ships plying for Swinoujscie is now 14.5 meters deep and a pipeline laid on the seabed there would make it impossible to deepen the route in future.
Deputy Minister Budzanowski said the Polish position, which is considered top priority, had been presented to the German side in official documents. Talks with the Germans have been held at government level by officials from the environment, foreign affairs and infrastructure ministries.
As a result of the talks the German side has pledged to include a clause in the new spatial development plan saying that the Nord Stream pipeline (and any other similar project) must be placed under the seabed.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=82178

[Afro-European]

Ukraine paid in full for Russian gas in October - Tymoshenko

KIEV, November 6 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine's Naftogaz has paid Gazprom in full for Russian gas deliveries in October, Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said on Friday.
"Today, we have paid Russia another $500 million," the Ukrainian government quoted Tymoshenko as saying.
However, she complained about difficulties in making the payment, referring to "a complete blockade" on the part of the national bank and the president, with local gas consumers providing just 50%-60% of payment.
Gazprom has not so far confirmed Naftogaz's payment for October.
The European Commission signaled on Friday that it wants confirmation of Ukraine's gas payment for October, according to Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, a European Commission deputy spokesperson.
Hansen denied that Kiev had turned to the European Union for financial assistance (http://en.beta.rian.ru/world/20091102/156689143.html) in paying for Russian gas supplies.
Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Sunday briefed his Swedish counterpart, the current EU president, Fredrik Reinfeldt, about possible problems with Ukrainian payment for Russian gas and its transit to European consumers.
Putin warned that payment problems could lead to difficulties for European consumers receiving Russian gas via Ukraine. A dispute between Moscow and Kiev at the start of the year over gas debts and 2009 deliveries left millions of Europeans without gas in January
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on Friday he hoped Russia and Ukraine would resolve gas issues on their own without EU mediation.
A source in the European Commission said on Friday that Ukraine had reported 25 billion cubic meters of natural gas in its storage facilities, which Kiev said would be enough for the uninterrupted transit of Russian natural gas to Europe in the winter

[Difool]

Good news if it's true. I don't trust those news very much, though.

[gazell]

It's confirmed, by all sources, so we have till, hm, when is the next bill due?

[Afro-European]

Russia, Slovenia could sign deal on South Stream next Sat - media

SARAJEVO, November 7 (RIA Novosti) - Ljubljana and Moscow have finalized an agreement to take the South Stream gas pipeline through Slovenia and could sign it in Moscow next week, a Slovenian paper reported on Saturday.
Slovenian Prime Minister Borut Pahor is expected to visit Moscow for talks with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, next Saturday. His visit will coincide with the first playoff between Slovenia and Russia for a 2010 World Cup qualifier.
In an interview with the Dnevnik paper, Janez Kopac, acting director general of the Energy Directorate at the Slovenian Ministry of Economic Affairs, said the two countries could sign the South Stream deal on the day of the match.
"We can confirm that after extensive talks with Russia we have reached agreement," Kopac said.
Pahor said the talks led by Economy Minister Matej Lahovnik had been tough. He said issues related to taxation, and the security of Russian investment and assets have yet to be solved.
Pahor and Putin met in Gdansk in early September and urged efforts to speed up talks on South Stream.
Russian energy giant Gazprom and Slovenia's Geoplin Plinovodi will each hold a 50% stake in a joint venture to be set up under the deal, according to Kopac.
"Under EU rules, the new company should provide access to the pipeline to other players on the gas market [third countries], and obtain approval from Brussels before starting to operate," Dnevnik reported.
Slovenia is a member of the European Union.
The South Stream gas pipeline to carry gas to southeastern Europe is part of Russia's efforts to cut dependence on transit nations. South Stream is a rival project to the EU-backed Nabucco, which would bypass Russia.

[Difool]

Guess what:

http://en.rian.ru/exsoviet/20091119/156902979.html

[gazell]

Guess what:

http://en.rian.ru/exsoviet/20091119/156902979.html

Hands up, who is surprised! :lol:

[Afro-European]

Gas Feud Escalates Between Russia and Ukraine

KIEV, Ukraine (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/ukraine/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) —A dispute between Russia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/russiaandtheformersovietunion/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) and Ukraine over natural gas (http://www.nytimes.com/info/natural-gas/?inline=nyt-classifier) supplies escalated on Thursday, with an aide to the Russian president calling Ukraine’s warnings of a possible gas crisis “political blackmail.”
Sergei Prikhodko (http://eng.kremlin.ru/subj/22163.shtml), an aide to President Dmitri A. Medvedev, said in Moscow that Ukraine was trying to scare Russia and Europe by raising the specter of higher gas prices, ******* reported.
“The attempt to intimidate Russia and Europe with forecasts of a crisis in the transit of gas — this already looks something like political blackmail,” Mr. Prikhodko was quoted as saying.
Ukraine announced on Wednesday that it would double the fees that Russia must pay to transport natural gas through Ukrainian territory to the rest of Europe, raising the possibility of a new feud between the countries that could lead to another disruption in the flow of gas this winter. The Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia V. Tymoshenko (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/yulia_v_tymoshenko/index.html?inline=nyt-per), said the increased revenue would be important for the country, which has been hit hard by the financial crisis. Ms. Tymoshenko, who presented her plan a day before she was to meet Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/vladimir_v_putin/index.html?inline=nyt-per), said it would ensure stable supplies of gas.
Mr. Putin had warned of possible disruptions in gas for Europe in the coming months. Last January, a dispute between the countries led to a shutoff of gas for roughly two weeks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/world/europe/20ukraine.html?_r=1&ref=europe

[Difool]

Just read that Timoshenko told Putin that Neftogas will pay. I wonder if her president agrees on that. :(

[Derbedeu]

Russia gives Ukraine new gas deal
Russia has agreed to ease the terms under which it supplies gas to Ukraine, in a deal which Moscow says should prevent disruption in coming months.
The deal was announced after talks between Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Yulia Tymoshenko.
It means Ukraine will not be fined for using less gas than in its current contract, because of the downturn.
In January, many countries in Europe were left short of gas due to a payment dispute between Moscow and Kiev.
Russia provides about a quarter of the gas consumed in the EU and 80% of that is piped through Ukraine.
'Meeting halfway'
The two prime ministers met in the Ukrainian resort town of Yalta on Thursday to discuss the issue of gas supply.
Under contracts signed with Russia earlier this year to end last winter's dispute, Ukraine faced the prospect of huge fines if it did not pay for all the gas it had contracted to buy, regardless of the amount actually used.

Gas consumption in Ukraine has dropped sharply as a result of the economic crisis.
Mr Putin said Gazprom and Naftogaz, the two countries' energy firms, would agree on new volumes.
"We deemed it possible to meet Ukraine halfway and tweak several of our earlier agreements," Mr Putin said.
In a reference to January's dispute, he added: "It would be very good to meet the New Year without any calamities."
Ms Tymoshenko played down the prospect of further disruptions to Europe's gas supply, pledging that Ukraine would meet its obligations to Russia.
"Ukraine has been paying and will continue to pay on time," she said.
In August, the EU and international lending institutions agreed a $1.7bn (£1bn at the time) loan deal for Ukraine to help secure European gas supplies, in return for reforms to Ukraine's gas sector.






http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8369705.stm

[Difool]

Err...is the ice age over? Maybe a love affair between the two PMs?
Hopefully it lasts until next year.

[User_Name]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8369705.stm

You bold false text passage, here is one that shows how evil Russians are:):


It means Ukraine will not be fined for using less gas than in its current contract, because of the downturn.

[Derbedeu]

You bold false text passage, here is one that shows how evil Russians are:):

I didn't bold anything, I copied and pasted.

As for the part you pointed out, well, it's nice to see Russia come to it's senses. p-)

[User_Name]

As for the part you pointed out, well, it's nice to see Russia come to it's senses. p-)

Not Russians should come to theirs sence, but Ukraine to grow up and pay the consequences for breaking contarcts:bash:

[Derbedeu]

Denotes humor -----> p-)

[User_Name]

Denotes humor -----> p-)

:bash: to Ukraines politicians not to you

[widi243]

roflroflrofl
PotatoLand StroNGG!1!11!

3 days to make superior in man power army run and win the war in 5 days shows clearly how hard it was.

Every body is afraid of Poland, it is all because of its blue water navy and a bomber fleet, NOT!

edit: And by the way you should read carefull the original post, nobody want invade Poland, so nobody gonna drop the "North stream" project, because of whining of some baltic and east european states.

Your comments are so aragant and stiupid so you make me laugh all day. You are patethic with your comments on MP Net.:cantbeli:

[Afro-European]

Yushchenko sends open letter to Medvedev on gas problems

KIEV, November 19 (Itar-Tass) -- Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko sent an open letter to Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev proposing to solve several problems “in order to establish mutually beneficial cooperation in the gas sector.” The letter was posted on the official site of the Ukrainian leader.
Yushchenko estimates critically the gas agreements, which the countries signed on January 19, 2009, but notes that “during the heating season in 2009-2010 the Naftogaz Company will ensure Russian gas transit supplies to European consumers.” Alongside, Yushchenko emphasizes that “for the Ukrainian side the fulfillment of its liabilities is too burdensome over several non-market principles fixed in the contracts.” He recalls that “the Russian gas price for Ukraine has almost tripled for the past three years and exceeds the average European gas price, but the gas transit price along the Ukrainian territory remains unchanged – 2.5 – 3 times lower than the prices of other European gas transit countries.”
The president is concerned over Russia’s probable penalty sanctions, “which may exceed the price of bought gas supplies.” Yushchenko notes that “the non-market principles outlining financial and economic parameters of cooperation conditioned over four billion dollars of the Naftogaz budget deficit this year.”
In this respect, Yushchenko proposes to make immediate changes in some provisions of the contracts. Otherwise, the Ukrainian company “will not be able to prepare for the next heating season” in spring 2010, Yushchenko writes. He believes that then “a potential threat will be looming for reliable gas supplies to Ukraine and gas transit supplies to European countries.”
In order to avoid potential problems in the Russia-Ukraine-EU gas cooperation Yushchenko offers “to introduce the common basic market principles of formulating the major parameters of the gas sale and purchases and gas transit

[User_Name]

Your comments are so aragant and stiupid so you make me laugh all day. You are patethic with your comments on MP Net.:cantbeli:

Before to claim about somebody's stupidity, check your grammar, mister brain...

[Eye]

Before to claim about somebody's stupidity, check your grammar, mister brain...
Pathetic as usual - you will never disappoint me.

[widi243]

Before to claim about somebody's stupidity, check your grammar, mister brain...

My grammar is incorect because I'm not native english speaker so if you try to suggest that I'm uneducated you have faild. And I don't think so that you are in position to check my grammar in my native language so leave it and try from the other side. I have right to laugh this evening to. rofl
And I'm writiing about stiupidy of your comments not about you.

[Stormz_STA]

Before to claim about somebody's stupidity, check your grammar, mister brain...


Not Russians should come to theirs sence, but Ukraine to grow up and pay the consequences for breaking contarcts:bash:

And your english is perfect :roll:

[Robert.V]

He never said his was.

[Sashko]

My grammar is incorect because I'm not native english speaker so if you try to suggest that I'm uneducated you have faild. And I don't think so that you are in position to check my grammar in my native language so leave it and try from the other side. I have right to laugh this evening to. rofl
And I'm writiing about stiupidy of your comments not about you.



Not an excuse for bad spelling. English is my 3rd non-native language, and yet I look out for little red underlines that appear under misspelled words, just out of respect for readers. I believe countries, names, languages are spelled with capital letters in Polish as well. Punctuation rules are not that different either - so follow them.

[Switek]

Not an excuse for bad spelling. English is my 3rd non-native language, and yet I look out for little red underlines that appear under misspelled words, just out of respect for readers. I believe countries, names, languages are spelled with capital letters in Polish as well. Punctuation rules are not that different either - so follow them.


The wrong usage of English is the most lame argument in mp.net's discussion.

[Afro-European]

Russian state company to control oil project off Turkmenistan

Itera, an independent Russian oil and gas producer, is expected to sign an agreement today to sell a 51% stake in its Block 21 PSA off Turkmenistan in the Caspian Sea to Zarubezhneft, a state company with extensive offshore drilling experience fully owned by state property management agency Rosimushchestvo.
This means that the government will assume control of the first hydrocarbons project coordinated with the Turkmen president.
Itera sold the stake soon after it was granted more access to the pipeline system. Analysts say it was no coincidence that the two events came in such close succession.
"We will sign the deal on Friday and close it by the end of the year," said Nikolai Brunich, head of Zarubezhneft.
Itera will hold the remaining 49% in the PSA.
The value of the deal cannot be calculated precisely because there is no reliable information on the block's reserves and potential production volumes. Itera has long been working in Turkmenistan, but the block turned out to be too big for it and so it decided to diversify risks and share them with a state company, said Valery Nesterov of Troika Dialog.
Until recently, no Russian company has implemented an oil or gas project in Turkmenistan. Itera has a Turkmen subsidiary, Zarit, which announced the acquisition of several offshore blocks in the Caspian Sea, but Block 21 is so far the company's only real project there.
Russia's gas export monopoly Gazprom has no hydrocarbons development licenses in Turkmenistan and has not won the tender for the construction of the East-West pipeline from the giant South Iolotan gas field to the Caspian shore.
"Given the political crisis in relations between Russia and Turkmenistan following a stop on Turkmen gas exports in April, it was very difficult for Itera to get the development license [for Block 21], which makes it a major achievement for Russia," said Maxim Shein from Broker Credit Service.
Nesterov said that Zarubezhneft did not provoke Turkmenistan's irritation and that the terms of the PSA agreement, provided they are not changed, suit all parties.
On Thursday, Itera increased gas supplies from the Beregovoye gas field in West Siberia's Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Area to Russia's gas transportation system from 5-6 billion cubic meters daily (in April) to 14 million cu m.
Vitaly Gromadin, an analyst with Arbat Capital, said the sale of part of Itera's project in Turkmenistan was connected with its access to the Gazprom-controlled gas transportation system.
Tentative data for Block 21 puts its recoverable reserves at 160 million metric tons of oil and 60 billion cu m of associated gas. Estimated annual production at the $1-billion project could reach 10 billion cu m of gas and 20 million metric tons of oil.

Source:Kommersant

[TheBelgian]

The wrong usage of English is the most lame argument in mp.net's discussion.

It's 'lamest'.


Just kidding, buddy :p

[Switek]

It's 'lamest'.


Just kidding, buddy :p

Ha :)! Smartass p-)

[Sashko]

The wrong usage of English is the most lame argument in mp.net's discussion.



It is a lame argument, but bad grammar is even more lame. I actually yell at native English speakers who cannot spell in their own damn language in real life p-) Even fired a guy once for that.

[gazell]

It's 'lamest'.


Just kidding, buddy :p

You missed the full stop.

Only kiddin'.

[English John]

It is a lame argument, but bad grammar is even more lame. I actually yell at native English speakers who cannot spell in their own damn language in real life p-) Even fired a guy once for that.

It is a good job you do not work in England as you would sack most of your staff.
Last week our PM (I saved the world) PM Brown made 26 mistakes in a letter he sent out to a mother whos son had just died.
Spelling is not a strong point of the British, it comes well below being able to drink 6 pints of beer.:)

So get over it as it is no big thing with us Brits.:)

[gazell]

It never ceases to amaze me that these forums appear to be swarming with 'linguists'.

[Afro-European]

Poland tries to hinder Nord Stream again

Nord Stream, a planned natural gas offshore pipeline, due to be built by Nord Stream AG to link Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea, received final approval in early November.
However, countries discontent with the project continue to oppose it. Poland, for example, demands that the pipeline be laid two meters beneath the seabed.
Analysts say such demands are far-fetched.
On Saturday, Poland's Deputy Treasury Minister Mikolaj Budzanowski said a terminal, due to be opened at the country's Swinoujscie port in 2014, would handle tankers delivering liquefied natural gas from Qatar.
Such tankers with a 12.5-meter draught would pass just a meter above the Nord Stream pipeline. Budzanowski said this was fraught with possible damage to the pipeline.
Moreover, a NATO naval base is located in Swinoujscie, and the gas pipeline could restrict ships' access to it, Budzanowski said.
Moscow's reaction was restrained. The project operator has not yet received any official information on Poland's new claims, Nord Stream AG spokesperson Natalia Vorontsova told the paper.
"More detailed official comments will probably be available as soon as such information is received. We can now say that the gas pipeline does not pass through Polish waters," Vorontsova said.
She said the pipeline will be covered with earth only where it approaches the shoreline and in some other places where the seabed is uneven.
"The Nord Stream gas pipeline route steers clear of international navigation routes," Vorontsova explained.
The analysts interviewed have no doubts that Poland and other countries excluded from the Nord Stream project will continue to hinder the pipeline's construction. "It is going to take a long time for the Poles to calm down," said Mikhail Krutikhin, a partner at RusEnergy Consulting.
He said Poland's latest claims were a bit strange, and that Warsaw's efforts were probably in vain.

Source:Nezavisimaya Gazeta

[daily666]

That's last ditch defence. Poland cannot do anything, nor it could do against it in the past. It was useless right from the beginning. Should have tried to jump on the bandwagon and have shares of the pipeline.

Now Poland just signed contract with Russia for natural gas deliveries till 2037. If Belarus and Ukraine cut out the flow we're gonna beg for a southern leg of Nord Stream to Poland.

[Wojtop]

Daily, last ditch or not - Polish side has a valid point. According to international law underwater constructions like the pipe should not obstruct communication in international waters. The pipe obviously reduce the depth of the sea. Port in Swinoujscie is being expanded as we speak and it will require full depth of the Baltic Sea to accept big gas tankers. So, Gasprom is just being warned that either they will bury the pipe underground in the shallowest part of the sea or will risk the pipe being damaged - and both financial and legal responsibility will be entirely on Gasprom if it happens. What's wrong with that from a logical or legal point of view?

[Switek]

Anyway if Polish objections are valid it will cause only technical problems for NordStream and will make this project more expensive for few millions of Euro. We can not stop political pressure tied with this project.

Seems I was wrong. I assumed it wouldn't be ever completed.

[gazell]

Well, the West of Europe is easy on this, they have never been under Russian occupation. And, as partly a result of bad Eastern policies I personally think, how much though I do not know, we have somewhat of a economical Molotov-Ribbentrop as Poland put it. Not too good.

We shall never count for Western Europe, US or Russia, all just regard us as colonies, got to learn that finally.:lol:

[sepheronx]

Is poland going to get any additional funds or at least any benifits to signing this, rather then the oil and gas coming from Ukraine/Belarus?

[daily666]

Is poland going to get any additional funds or at least any benifits to signing this, rather then the oil and gas coming from Ukraine/Belarus?

Signing what? The gas deal till 2037? It's not been agreed on yet. It seems that there are minor issues between govts of Russia and Poland to be negotiated. Yesterday there was a Grand Gala organised by Gazprom in the National Opera in Warsaw commemorating the deal. The Polish side say it's a guarantee that the Jamal pipeline won't be shut down when Nord Stream becomes operational. I remember many more guarantees from the past so we'll see.

[Sergei Litvin]

Well, the West of Europe is easy on this, they have never been under Russian occupation. And, as partly a result of bad Eastern policies I personally think, how much though I do not know, we have somewhat of a economical Molotov-Ribbentrop as Poland put it. Not too good.

We shall never count for Western Europe, US or Russia, all just regard us as colonies, got to learn that finally.:lol:

My observation from the sidelines is that at some point after 1991 "being russophobish" could score you points in politics and economical development in Eastern Europe and it was a cool thing to do.
Right now it is not anymore.
Countries who are still stuck in it are being left on the station, while the big EU-Russia train whistles by.

[Breerman]

No doubt this pipeline will increase the risk of war in the Baltic Sea region.

It will also most definitely be used to plant intelligence gathering devices. Interestingly the Russians denied this (of course) but are themselves scared of the same thing happening in connection with those Japanese islands.

[edi_]

No doubt this pipeline will increase the risk of war in the Baltic Sea region.

Huh?

How did you come up with that anyway?
I don't see how there can be a war unless Baltic States or Poland attacks Nord Stream/Russia :grin:

[smile]

No doubt this pipeline will increase the risk of war in the Baltic Sea region.

It will also most definitely be used to plant intelligence gathering devices. Interestingly the Russians denied this (of course) but are themselves scared of the same thing happening in connection with those Japanese islands.
Expert in offshore-pipelines, or just the same kind of flaming like ever? Call Lundin and Preem petroleum, ask how the pipelines work.

[daily666]

Huh?

How did you come up with that anyway?
I don't see how there can be a war unless Baltic States or Poland attacks Nord Stream/Russia :grin:

Of course it's easy to put the blame to the others. I can see Russia make an excuse that the pipe is threatened (somehow) and would place defensive measures near it. It only takes some imagination and one PR stunt by the Russia Today (RT) TV ;).

One of the biggest concerns of Sweden was the possible use of this pipe for intelligence gathering reasons. But it was also Sweden that actually gave a green light for the pipe to be built.

[Sergei Litvin]

No doubt this pipeline will increase the risk of war in the Baltic Sea region.

It will also most definitely be used to plant intelligence gathering devices. Interestingly the Russians denied this (of course) but are themselves scared of the same thing happening in connection with those Japanese islands.


First of all, the islands are Russian.

Second, what kind of intelligence would you get from the bottom of the Baltic Sea? How two lobsters shag each other and what sort of breeding instrument they use?

In the age of satellites and what those babies can do, it is funny someone even brings the notion of "pipeline intelligence gathering devices"rofl

[tommy00]

The only problems with this pipeline are the environmental ones.....IMHO
If all thouse terms are strictly followd,.....go and build...
I do think that this pipe is useless and a waste of money,......bud it's not my money, so.....

[edi_]

I do think that this pipe is useless and a waste of money,......bud it's not my money, so.....

Maybe you should write a letter to Russia and Germany and warn them?

rofl

[gazell]

My observation from the sidelines is that at some point after 1991 "being russophobish" could score you points in politics and economical development in Eastern Europe and it was a cool thing to do.
Right now it is not anymore.
Countries who are still stuck in it are being left on the station, while the big EU-Russia train whistles by.

Quite some truth in that. Things do change, you gotta be able to adept.

I would not call it cool though, more like desperate gut hatred for reasons and a lot of it still exists, most find it hard to get over it.

Westerners are a different matter, they go easy, never had to live in it.

However, it is just business and politics based on it though. More feel like sorry for those who think of the US or WE as a friend of democracy, who are in love with Middle/Eastern-Europe as a contrast to Russsia, they are hopeless nuts.

[smile]

The only problems with this pipeline are the environmental ones.....IMHO
If all thouse terms are strictly followd,.....go and build...
I do think that this pipe is useless and a waste of money,......bud it's not my money, so.....
Tell us please more, which problems, you as hobbyexpert know? Nord Stream pipeline achieve all standards. Gas pipelines on land as poject has a hill of agreements and approvals. The same does apply for offshore pipelines.
On 20. october Denmark approved the allowance, Sweden and Finnland recently after. This is long time task (about 23 months), every possibility has norms and securities. But curiously they are problems when a russian company try to build something. Suddenly here are some enviromental problems. Pipelines from Norway surely doent need to be mentioned, they are indestructible and so on... Do you work for BP, to write some positive feedback, you can send pm to me, if you wanna.
Same ****, another day.

[daily666]

Tell us please more, which problems, you as hobbyexpert know? Nord Stream pipeline achieve all standards. Gas pipelines on land as poject has a hill of agreements and approvals. The same does apply for offshore pipelines.
On 20. october Denmark approved the allowance, Sweden and Finnland recently after. This is long time task (about 23 months), every possibility has norms and securities. But curiously they are problems when a russian company try to build something. Suddenly here are some enviromental problems. Pipelines from Norway surely doent need to be mentioned, they are indestructible and so on... Do you work for BP, to write some positive feedback, you can send pm to me, if you wanna.
Same ****, another day.

The biggest issue of this project is it's economical aspect. Building it will cost several times more than a comparable onland pipeline, that's for sure. The NS AG argumentation is that it will be profitable because of lack of transit fees but most people think the cost of maintenance alone could swallow any profits.

70% of the pipeline will be a financed by the external financial institutions, this means the company must have got a good business plan and a serious profit margin to get it. But as for now, I don't know if it got the financing it needs. This will be definitive.

[Afro-European]

Gazprom to supply up to 6 bcm of gas annually to French utility

PARIS, November 27 (RIA Novosti)
Russia's Gazprom signed a deal on Friday to supply Electricite de France (EDF), the world's largest utility company, with up to 6 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, a Russian deputy PM said.
Igor Sechin said the extra gas would be added to supplies for GDF Suez S.A.
Last year Gazprom delivered 10.9 bcm of gas to France.
Gazprom and GDF are working under contracts valid until 2030. An agreement was also reached on Friday to supply GDF with an extra 2.5 bcm of natural gas via the Nord Stream pipeline Russia is building jointly with Germany, and talks are underway to include GDF in the project as a shareholder.
In addition, Gazprom has been supplying up to 1.5 bcm per year to direct consumers in France since October 2007, Sechin said.
He said a number of details have yet to be discussed with Gazprom's partner in South Stream, Italian oil and gas company Eni S.p.A.
Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said on Friday that EDF would receive 10% of South Stream's "sea sector."
"Our French colleagues will become minority shareholders of the South Stream project, of its sea sector," he said.
Gazprom and Eni currently hold equal stakes in South Stream AG, the operator of the gas pipeline, scheduled to be completed by 2015. The project is part of Russia's efforts to cut dependence on transit nations. It is a rival project to the EU-backed Nabucco, which would bypass Russia.

[daily666]

Wondering why the so "shout out" hardcore EU members like France and Italy are killing EUs' Nabucco project with this.

[Telmar]

Wondering why the so "shout out" hardcore EU members like France and Italy are killing EUs' Nabucco project with this.

Because there is no (or not enough) gas at the other end...

It's a bummer, but you can't beat the location of the ressources.

[Universal_Soldier]

Britain is also in on the Gas Jamboree....

Britain is to start piping gas directly from Russia for the first time in 2012, according to the chief executive of Nord Stream, the Kremlin-backed gas pipeline venture.
In an interview with The Times in Switzerland, Matthias Warnig said that more than 4 billion cubic metres of gas a year had already been booked for the UK market through the pipeline, which is due to enter service by the end of 2012.


I thought they said Gazprom is evil? Reason is this:


Britain will need to import 50 per cent of its gas supplies this winter from countries such as Norway, Qatar and Algeria, a sharp rise from 27 per cent in 2007.

Russia want's to sell gas Europe wants to buy gas.... I don't know why some folks are just going bizark over this.

[Eye]

Tell us please more, which problems, you as hobbyexpert know? Nord Stream pipeline achieve all standards. Gas pipelines on land as poject has a hill of agreements and approvals. The same does apply for offshore pipelines.

Maybe he thought about possibility of pipeline damage by LPG ships going to Świnoujście harbour from 2014. Pipeline will pass fairway leading to Świnoujście dangerously close to.

[smile]

Maybe he thought about possibility of pipeline damage by LPG ships going to Świnoujście harbour from 2014. Pipeline will pass fairway leading to Świnoujście dangerously close to.
Maybe he should call some gas companies in norway, which tell him how the offshore pipelines system works. The review about all possibilities was about 23 months, all organisations have regulations (every state, eu, greenpeace and so on). This is reliable method since decades. Piplelines from Norway work and attest it every day. Had the same kind of dialog (more monologue) with very old man, who tell how unreliable gas lines are. The gas system next to his house is older than he.

[Afro-European]

Piped gas from Russia to boost Britain’s supplies from 2012

Britain is to start piping gas directly from Russia for the first time in 2012, according to the chief executive of Nord Stream, the Kremlin-backed gas pipeline venture.
In an interview with The Times in Switzerland, Matthias Warnig said that more than 4 billion cubic metres of gas a year had already been booked for the UK market through the pipeline, which is due to enter service by the end of 2012.
That is equivalent to more than 4 per cent of total UK gas demand of about 94 billion cubic metres per year.
Mr Warnig said the additional gas imports would help to offset a steep decline in production from the North Sea, which is due to fall by 6 per cent this year.
“The UK is switching from a gas exporter to an importer,” he said. “By 2025 there will be a substantial import need ... Several billion cubic metres per year are already contracted for the UK through Nord Stream.”
At present, Britain imports negligible quantities of gas from Russia but that is about to change. Construction of the €7.4 billion pipeline, 51 per cent-owned by Gazprom, the Russian gas giant, is due to start in April. It will be laid at a rate of three kilometres a day by special vessels starting from the German and Russian ends of the route.
Russian gas destined for the British market would be piped through the Netherlands and Belgium, across the North Sea via pipelines that run to Bacton in Norfolk.
Mr Warnig said that 22 billion cubic metres of the pipeline’s 55 billion cubic metre capacity had already been contracted out by its partners, which include E.ON and BASF of Germany and Gasunie of the Netherlands.
Of that, he said, Gazprom UK had booked 4 billion cubic metres a year while another company, Wingas, had contracted a further unspecified amount for the UK.
Britain will need to import 50 per cent of its gas supplies this winter from countries such as Norway, Qatar and Algeria, a sharp rise from 27 per cent in 2007.
Britain was a net exporter as recently as 2004 but by 2015 will need to import three quarters of its supplies of the fuel.
The growing dependency on imports is a result of Britain’s increasing reliance on gas for electricity generation.
Almost 35 per cent of UK electricity comes from gas-fired power stations, up from less than 5 per cent in 1990.
Nord Stream is based in Switzerland for tax purposes and because its owners wanted to site its headquarters in a neutral country.
Nord Stream has a total capacity of 55 billion cubic metres per year, enough to supply nearly 70 per cent of Germany’s gas demands.
GDF Suez, the French energy group, is also expected to take a 9 per cent stake in the venture, although this has not yet been completed.
Russia is also keen to press ahead with a second gas pipeline running via the Mediterranean to Greece, Italy and Southern Europe.
It has been dubbed South Stream, although it is running several years behind Nord Stream.
America has also been backing construction of another pipeline called Nabucco, which would bypass Russia and deliver gas from Central Asia and Iraq to Europe.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6935708.ece

[daily666]

Gazprom's gonna have more money than God.

[CaptMorgan68]

Gazprom's gonna have more money than God.

God has no need for money, my brother)