• 4 minutes End of Sanction Waivers
  • 8 minutes California Politicians Hiked Gas Tax, Now Demand Investigation Into State's $4 Per Gallon Gas Prices
  • 11 minutes What Would Happen If the World Ran Out of Crude Oil?
  • 15 minutes Mueller Report Brings Into Focus Obama's Attempted Coup Against Trump
  • 3 hours Permafrost Melting Will Cost Us $70 Trillion
  • 2 mins California is the second biggest consumer of oil in the U.S. after Texas.
  • 4 hours Let's just get rid of the Jones Act once and for all
  • 23 hours At Kim-Putin Summit: Theater For Two
  • 57 mins Balancing Act---Sanctions, Venezuela, Trade War and Demand
  • 3 hours Saudi, UAE Overstate Their Oil Capacities?
  • 3 hours Robots And Emotions: Simulated Love Is Never Love
  • 23 hours NAFTA, a view from Mexico: 'Don't Shoot Yourself In The Foot'
  • 1 day UNCONFIRMED : US airstrikes target 32 oil tankers near Syria’s Deir al-Zor
  • 21 hours "Undeniable" Shale Slowdown?
  • 1 day Nothing Better than Li-Ion on the Horizon
  • 1 day Russia To Start Deliveries Of S-400 To Turkey In July
  • 1 day How many drilling sites are left in the Permian?
Alt Text

Did This Gas Major Just Ensure Its Survival?

Santos Ltd. just posted a…

Alt Text

The Tipping Point In Trump’s Quest For Energy Dominance

Trump’s latest executive order to…

Alt Text

U.S. Energy Exports To Mexico Go Into Overdrive

Putting aside difference over immigration…

Irina Slav

Irina Slav

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

More Info

Trending Discussions

Beast Of The East Highlights European Gas Dependence

The UK is receiving two Russian LNG cargos this week after a rare cold spell caused by freezing winds from Siberia. Some might see a cruel irony in that: Siberian winds highlight Gazprom’s dominance in Europe. Irony or not, however, this is the truth to date, as painful as it may be too many in Europe. As Gazprom’s CEO Alexei Miller put it, there is no other gas supplier to the continent and the UK that can ramp up deliveries so quickly.

This state of affairs is certainly a challenge for the European Union. It has been trying to diversify its gas supplies away from Russia, intensifying these efforts after the gas war between Russia and Ukraine in 2010 that led to supply outages in Europe. This gas war has flared up again in recent days after the Stockholm Court of Arbitration ruled in favor of Ukraine’s Naftogaz, slamming Gazprom with a more than US$2-billion bill.

The EU has wasted no time calling on the two countries to settle their differences. After all, like it or not, more than 40 percent of Russia’s European gas deliveries pass through its estranged eastern neighbor. Russia certainly doesn’t like it. Neither does Europe. For the former, this is too great a dependence on Ukraine, especially since bilateral relations are unlikely to change for the better anytime soon. For the latter, this is too great a dependence on Russian gas.

Both are working to change the situation. Russia has plans for two more pipelines—Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream—and the EU is building the Trans-Adriatic pipeline that would supply gas from the Caspian Sea to the continent. TAP is, however, several years away from completion, and the project has gone anything but smoothly. LNG supplies are an alternative, but again, Russia has the edge: the Yamal LNG terminal is closer to Europe than any other supplier’s facility. Related: Chevron: We Will Survive Under Any Climate Change Scenario

The diversification problem is aggravated by the fact that Germany wants Nord Stream. In fact, it needs it as the government makes vow after vow to get rid of coal and nuclear power. These need to be replaced by something, and this something is gas. Lots of gas. Norway can’t deal with this spike in German gas demand alone. Russia can, so Germany wants Nord Stream 2. The Baltic States, however, don’t. They are worried about their energy independence, however much of it they have since they, too, rely predominantly on Russian supplies.

But this dependence is mutual. Europe—EU and the Balkans—is Gazprom’s biggest client for the moment and likely to remain so in the foreseeable future despite Moscow’s Chinese pivot. Much as been said about Russia’s willingness to use gas as a political tool; the Stockholm court’s ruling has shown that this is not so, just as have demands from the EU that have forced Gazprom to revise some of its supply contracts.

For Gazprom, building Nord Stream 2 to divert part of gas supplies from Ukraine is just as urgent as it is for Europe to get Caspian gas flowing in. Yet even after TAP is completed, Europe will have to rely on Gazprom for much of its gas needs, just as Gazprom will have to rely on Europe for much of its export income. The Beast from the East simply reminded both that they can’t divorce just yet.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com: 




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment
  • Mamdouh G Salameh on March 05 2018 said:
    The European Union’s (EU) dependence on Russian gas supplies is inevitable and increasing fast. And while the EU is trying to diversify its gas supplies, there is no alternative to Russian gas supplies for the foreseeable future. Russia is way ahead in the geopolitics of gas supplies to Europe.

    Russia is already building two more gas pipelines: the Nord Stream 2 and the Turkish Stream to ensure Russian gas supplies to Europe are not vulnerable to disruption through the Ukraine.

    The US has always been opposed to Nord Stream II, which it views as Russia’s attempt to solidify its hold on Europe’s energy supplies.

    In fact, US misgivings about the geopolitical implication of Nord Stream II are shared by eight European countries (perhaps instigated by the US) – Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania. They strongly believe that Nord Stream II would undermine the energy security of Central and Eastern Europe, and detrimentally impact Ukraine.

    But the prospective shareholders in the Nord Stream II consortium (Gazprom 50%; E.ON 10%; BASF/Wintershall 10%; Royal Dutch Shell 10%; OMV 10% and Engie 10%) argue that Nord Stream II would enhance Europe’s long-term energy security by providing an alternative gas supply route that avoids the unreliable transit state of Ukraine.

    When completed probably by the end of 2019, Nord Stream II will transfer 27.5 billion cubic meters a year (bcm/y) of gas, doubling the capacity of the Nord Stream I. Germany could be the biggest beneficiary of Nord Stream 2.

    Cultivating this dependency is a conscious move by Russia. Russia has developed economic leverage that enables it to exert pressure over countries that could pose a danger to it by threatening their energy security. Is this just business for Putin? Of course not; geopolitical interests are intertwined.

    Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
    International Oil Economist
    Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
  • Lee James on March 05 2018 said:
    Which is worse: bumping-up European fossil fuel emissions by keeping some coal plants, or ... becoming dependent on natural gas from Russia?
  • RussianJew on March 06 2018 said:
    Which is worse: using gas supply as a political tool or using Stockholm court as a political tool?

Leave a comment




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