It's a bit unfair to suggest that I'd like you (Heading Out) to shut up. I'm certianly not saying that one should not worry about security of supply, but I am certainly saying that the issue is being hyped by people with other motices as well, and is being polluted by other games being played.

• the West has no reason to doubt Gazprom's ability to fulfill its commitments. Thr Ukraine dispute proved that Gazprom will favor its reliability to the West over its income form Ukraine (it caved to Ukriane BEFORE any deal was reached) and all the European buyers know it well, since the 1993 and 1994 episodes, which were substantially similar to the one this year)

• meanwhile, the EU Commission, in its ideological drive to create "competition", is try to ditch ther long term contracts that are at the core of the gas industry in Europe, and, in doing so, is directly threatening Gazprom's long term ability to finance its future investments. Gazprom is understandably miffed at this, and that conversation has been going on for years with, again, a good chunk of the industry (and DG TREN - the energy directorate) much closer to Gazprom's position than to the Commission (the competition and internal market directorates)

• inside Russia, Gazprom has to deal with the fact that it is obliged to deliver gas at low prices to users, starting with power plants. It is in a long running campaign to get these prices increased. Creating the impression of shortages, and getting those clients that are able to to pay higher prices on the grey market for additional supplies are good things from Gazprom's perspective. They do not signal per se that there is a supply problem - just that there is a suply problem at low subsidized prices.

• some doubt Gazprom's ability to put more reserves online and to increase production when it will be needed. Why should it invest for capacity that can only be sold at low prices now. When it really needed extra production, it quickly ramped up Zapolyarnoye. Do people actually realise whant it means to put 100 bcm/y on line in less than 5 years and for a few billion dollars? Gazprom just created another Shell in terms of production size) out of thin air. When it will be needed, more fields, whether from Yamal or elsewhere, will come on line when needed. Remember that there is a history of skepticism that Gazprom can deliver - skepticism which has each time been contradicted by facts. People said that Blue Stream would never happen. It did, and Gazprom cornered the Turkish market. People mock the much delayes Yamal-Europe pipeline. But it WAS built. Only, it's the "Europe' bit (i.e. the Western branch from Western Russia to Germany via Poland) which was built, thus ensuring that Gazprom had the requisite export capacity for the 2000 decade. So no I don't buy the "Gazprom won't make it" arguments.

• deliveries to China will happen from fields that are totally separate from those that send gas to Europe. Westenr Siberia is simply too far form China to make it worthwhile to build pipelines between the two. It just does not make sense. China is just not a credible threat, and if it's believed in the West, it's just because our politicians and pundits are too stupid to leanr about the industry or because they have ulterior motives in generating energy-linked geopolitical tensions.

• as I've written before, my contention is that the tensions with Russia are being whipped up by those that are trying to hide their own incompetent policies (Blair), that are trying to wrest some power (the EC trying to get a role as an energy policy maker in lieu of the States, and trying to exert its power over the EDFs and E.Ons of the continent) or that have generally happy to whip up the atmosphere of fear and conflict (and scapegoating) rather than looking for real solutions to our energy problems - solutions that might impact the profits of their friends in the oil and military industries (Cheney).