WTI Crude

Loading...

Brent Crude

Loading...

Natural Gas

Loading...

Gasoline

Loading...

Heating Oil

Loading...

Rotate device for more commodity prices

Alt Text

Could UK Oil Production Peak Again In 2019?

UK, Crude, Oil, Gas, Production,…

Alt Text

Foreign Oil Eyes 44 Billion Barrels In Cuba

Melbana Energy, one of the…

Alt Text

Is OPEC Counting Too Much On Venezuela Sanctions?

WTI dropped below $50 after…

Will Trump Push Back Against Putin’s Pipeline Play?

Trump

Russia’s natural gas strategy in Europe is getting increased scrutiny from some U.S. lawmakers who worry about European energy dependence on their eastern neighbor. However, a major pipeline is inching forward just as there is a growing sense that the issue could be deprioritized by the Trump administration.

“Russia has a track record of weaponizing natural gas,” Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a member of the Senate Foreign Affairs subcommittee on European Affairs, said recently. The immediate issue of concern is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, an expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline that runs from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea. The criticism that the project is mostly political in nature – that is, that Russia is seeking to bypass Ukraine as a transit country in order to neutralize one of Ukraine’s most potent sources of geopolitical leverage – is not new.

Nord Stream 2 would “give Russia even more options for influencing and intimidating Europe, specifically Ukraine,” Senator Shaheen said. She went on to add that the Obama administration worked hard to oppose the project and “the Trump administration, I believe, will be well advised to continue this important priority.”

The issue has taken on renewed importance as it moves closer to a reality. More importantly, the Trump administration’s softer tone towards Russia has raised speculation that opposing Nord Stream 2 could be pushed to the back burner, dialing back the Obama administration’s efforts to break European dependence on Russian gas. Related: Russia Has No Plans To Further Privatize Oil Industry

Europe is divided over Nord Stream 2. The European Commission has stepped up criticism of the project on antitrust grounds – Russia’s Gazprom would own a large portion of the pipeline and 100 percent of the gas that flows through it. But the Commission has also struggled to make the case that it has the legal authority to block it. The Commission has fought with Gazprom over anti-competitive pricing, winning some concessions from the Russian gas giant. But the Nord Stream 2 is an offshore project, which some argue puts it out of the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Still, many countries, led by Poland, are vociferously opposing it. The project has created a divide that is mostly geographical in nature, with Eastern Europe much more opposed than their Western compatriots.

Gazprom, along with the western energy companies involved in the project, argue that Nord Stream 2 is strictly commercial, not political.

But a new report from the Washington-based Atlantic Council casts doubt on that argument. Nord Stream 2 is very clearly a political project, the Atlantic Council says, noting that Nord Stream 1 wasn’t even profitable, costing Gazprom just as much - and arguably more - to transport gas through Nord Stream 1 as it does through existing pipelines through Ukraine. In fact, “the gas being diverted through Nord Stream 1 is simply being diverted from pipelines that go through Ukraine,” the report argues. Nord Stream 1 did not bring a windfall to Gazprom because “the same volume of gas is being transported to the same customers under the same contract only through more expensive export routes.” Related: Saudis, Russia Will Do “Whatever It Takes” To Bring Oil To Balance

Clearly, then, the pipeline was a political project. Gazprom’s CEO admitted as much in 2015 when he announced Gazprom’s intention not to sign an extension of a gas contract with Ukraine in 2019, and he suggested that Russian gas could stop flowing through Ukraine entirely by then.

But in order for that to be possible, Gazprom must see the completion of Nord Stream 2, an expansion that would double the capacity of Nord Stream 1.

The Atlantic Council argues that this should be unacceptable because it would threaten EU energy and economic security, and by extension, would threaten U.S. national interests.

The EU, on the one hand, has gone to great lengths to bolster energy security over the past decade by unbundling monopolies, allowing for freer movement of electricity and gas around Europe, and by building greater interconnections between countries. The goal is an “energy union” so that the entire bloc is more connected and supply disruptions could be more easily overcome. A more integrated Europe, the logic goes, would defang the Russian threat.

But approving Nord Stream 2 would undermine those goals. “By giving the green light to Nord Stream 2, the EU will be endorsing a schizophrenic policy, in effect helping to empower a country whose policies are designed to undermine the EU,” the Atlantic Council wrote.

Top European oil companies that have stakes in Nord Stream 2 are lobbying hard for approval. Five companies involved – Royal Dutch Shell, OMV, Engie, Uniper and Wintershall – recently agreed to finance 10 percent of the cost of the pipeline, pushing the project forward.

The project still needs to be settled at the European level, but Gazprom wants to see the pipeline break ground next year.

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Oilracle on June 01 2017 said:
    ---The criticism that the project is mostly political in nature – that is, that Russia is seeking to bypass Ukraine---

    So what?!
    If EU wants to be less dependent on Russia, then it should build gas pipelines to the Central Asia!
  • Douglas Houck on June 02 2017 said:
    The Atlantic Council article that Mr. Cunningham references, which makes up the basis of the posting, is factually incorrect and is the usual ideological russophobia nonsense.

    First, the logic for why this whole issue is in the US national interest is weak to say the least. The EU is quite capable of determining who they want to buy natural gas from. The EU has found Gazprom to be a reliable supplier of natural gas and simply wants to let the market determine where it buys natural gas.

    Second, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline doesn't significantly impact the fact that Gazprom has not renewed it contract which expires end of 2018, to transport gas through Ukraine. It is the Turkish Stream pipeline, currently under construction with a combined capacity of , which will allow Gazprom to fully stop using the Urengoy-Uzhgorad pipeline through Ukraine.

    In 1998, Gazprom shipped almost all (98%) of its gas to Europe through Ukraine. That percentage has been dropping steadily ever since, and in 2014 was only 40%. At that time most all the natural gas transiting through Ukraine was being shipped to southern Europe and Turkey. The current Nord Stream pipeline is used to transport natural gas to northern Europe.

    The Nord Stream 2 pipeline is to double the existing Nord Stream capacity to 110 billion m3 and is being built to provide the needed gas over the next two decades as a result of the North Sea natural gas production peaking and being in decline.

    To summarize, the Nord Stream 2 project has little to do with Ukraine and its unclear why the US would want to get involved with such matters.
  • NickSJ on June 02 2017 said:
    It will be interesting to see whether LNG from shale gas in the US will be able to make enough of a dent in European gas requirements to affect dependence on Russia. An initial 70,000 tons of US LNG was recently shipped to Europe, with 700,000 tons projected via the same order this year.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News