 | The Permanent Oil Crisis Conference in Amsterdam, January 21 & 22, 2009 | The Oil Drum: Europe | Energy Policy: SER-2 [01] Introduction |  |
66 comments on The Russian Bear?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
66 comments on The Russian Bear?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Isn't this tantamount to a declaration of war? If one nation takes an action that is guaranteed to lead to the death of thousands or millions in another nation (in this case by freezing), what else can you call it?
My first reaction was, "Poor Obama is going to enter office with conflicts igniting into wars all over the world."
I doubt that this represents peak gas for Russia, but I haven't been following the history of their production figures closely. Are their numbers reliable?
Russia is realizing that it's possession of a third of the world's NG reserves can give it great political power over its neighbors. It is testing this power out on one of its nearest neighbors.
And of course it is in relatively recent, living memory of most Russians that Ukraine (and many other neighbors) were part of their empire.
A blockade is an act of war. An embargo is not. Ukraine (and Russia) have no duty of care to see that Western Europe doesn't freeze.
And nobody is placing an embargo. It's EU issue for EU to resolve. Russia already proposed numerous pipelines that would allow higher supplies during very cold periods and would increase reliability of supplies overall. It's was EU (not all, but some of EU countries) that was delaying North Stream. EU at this point has nobody to blame but itself.
As far as Ukraine it's has a horrible goverment that choose to try to blackmail EU and Russia yet it quite possible that it's actions will backfire. Russia offered gas to Ukraine below the cost that Russia itself is paying for imported gas. I think Putin mentioned that Russia was willing to subsidies Ukraine due to their tough economic situation. But after Ukraine tried to blackmail Russia and blocked EU gas, all goodwill on part of Russian goverment is gone and now they are demanding full market price. I believe EU officials have already stated that if Ukraine ever wants to become part of EU it must stop it's current actions and allow Russian gas to pass though unobstructed.
Europe has certainly brought this on itself by simply assuming the contracts will be fulfilled. I can't for the life of me understand why the EU wouldn't step in to help Ukraine pay a sensible price for the gas they use from Russia unless they thought it was just a bluff on Russia's part. But then the EU does not act as one. Though as a critical transit country for natural gas, you'd think Europe would care what happens to Ukraine. Now things have got out of hand it will take more than a quick sit down meeting to sort things out. What a pickle!
However hifi, you sound less than objective in the tone you use to express the issue. What Russia has done *does* amount to an gas embargo even if they don't cast it as that. Fine, it's an indirect embargo and they felt their hand was forced, but either way they risk letting thousands freeze in Eastern Europe over this - that's pretty serious. The alternative pipelines are not built. The Baltic option will take a while yet and the capacity of the belarus and Turkish pipelines is insufficient.
At a time when energy suppliers in Europe were set to lower gas prices, it seems all too convenient timing that this comes now. Obviously it was planned long in advance by Russia. Each party has its role to play here. Germany has avoided taking sides with either Russia or Ukraine and is leading the discussion nowhere. They should have stepped in far earlier but then they have the storage capacity - it's not Germany's population that stands to freeze. They can just sit on the sidelines.
Russia has no viable way to deliver gas to Europe. It can't force Ukraine to let that gas pass though.
You can call it an embargo, but it's clearly not an embargo by Russia. Russia is doing everything it can to send gas over (maxing out it's other pipelines to Europe and Turkey), but it can't control government in Ukraine. You can say that Ukraine government closing off it's transport network is effectively enforcing an embargo against EU. Yet even that is not 100% correct. EU is the party that choose to delay (indefinitely?) construction of North Stream. And as such it is EU that effectively choose (it clearly had a choice here) to be in a position where transit country can blackmail it. I know it's easier for EU to look for villain elsewhere then to admit it's own failures. But how can a reasonable person accuse Gazprom of not doing enough, when it was the very party that probably fought the hardest to ensure reliable gas supplies to EU, while EU was working hard at blocking that? Seriously, credit due when it's due. And people freezing their asses off, should know who to thank for that.
I also do not get why would you say that it was planned by Russia. It reminds me of people who would claim that Russia somehow forced Georgia to attack S. Osetia. Russia does not control government of Ukraine (or Georgia since I brought it up). All that Russia can do is respond in situations like that. It was pretty clear that this would happen for many months now. Russia constantly had to fight battles to get Ukraine to pay for the gas that it used. It was not unexpected that Ukraine would blackmail Europe and Russia when new prices would be applied for the new contract. Russia certainly tried to avoid that by offering price below it's own cost (effectively subsidizing a rather incompetent government in Ukraine) but Ukraine's government refused. I believe that most EU governments have way more influence over current government of Ukraine that Russia does. Why didn't EU forced Ukraine not to interrupt gas flows is beyond me.
You might say that North Stream would not be ready by now. But if it was being build it would be a very different situation.
"I can't for the life of me understand why the EU wouldn't step in to help Ukraine pay a sensible price for the gas"
ROTFLOL, Ukraine has been charged less than half the going rate and they haven't even paid that on time as per contract. We know what happens when gas or oil etc are priced too low; it encourages demand and discourages efficiency - see SUV. should we be subsidising the cost of oil & coal elsewhere? give me subsidised energy and I will run plenty of energy intensive businesses and undercut those paying the market price.
Of course Ukraine should receive something for the transit but this must be a relatively small part of the overall cost. Typical rates are around $4 for 1,000 cubic metres of gas per 100km against a cost of say $400 for 1,000 cubic metres of gas.
Preventing your goods from being stolen is not an embargo.
The EU should be applying maximum pressure on Ukraine to agree to pay the market rate for gas, not steal any and agree the correct rate for transit. Otherwise why on earth should the EU want as a member a state that will not follow normal rules?
How is 400 USD/mcm consistent with market? At current FX rates this translates to 27-28 EUR/MWh which is about 20% *over* western european prices for the next 3 years.
400 USD/cm = 294 EUR/cm /10.4 = 28.3 EUR/MWh
Cal 10 TTF ~22.60
Cal 11 ~ 24
Can someone explain how this is "at market?"
I got my figures from platts
"... Last year Ukraine paid Russia around $179.50/1,000 cubic meters for gas supplies, compared with an average price for European importers of around $400/1,000 cu m. Gazprom had offered to supply gas to Ukraine at a price of $250/1,000 cu m in the first quarter of this year in last-minute negotiations at the end of 2008, but this was rejected by Naftogaz. Dubyna {the head of Ukraine's state oil and gas company Naftogaz Ukrayiny} said part of the dispute centered on how much money Ukraine receives for its services as a transit country.
Ukraine consumes around 6.4 Bcm/year of gas to maintain pressure in the transit pipelines, he said, which would become more costly if Ukraine has to pay Russia a higher price for its gas.
..."
Sounds like a lot of gas just to maintain pressure, maybe they're not stealing the gas it's just leaking :-)
Here's a free article
http://www.platts.com/Magazines/Insight/2008/dec/2e0qZ08120812BS0sQ92P0_...
Wouldn't it be nice if all the prices for gas were quoted using the same measure rather than say (USD/MMBtu UK: GBp/therm, Alberta: CAD/Gj) from upstream, $179.50/1,000 cubic meters ... I suppose that's the beauty of standards, there's so many to choose from:-)
One of the problems is that the whole russia/ukraine deal is murky involving third parties, so who knows what is being creamed off. I would like to hope that Putin is cleaning up after the criminal years of Yeltsin, but who really knows?
There's a good schematic map on the FT site that shows gas movements - principally from Russia and Norway - with production, consumption and transit figures for every country in Europe.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ceba9530-dcef-11dd-a2a9-000077b07658.html
Obviously Europe should not be reliant on one shaky source for a critical portion of its energy. After a few days of cold even the Germans might be in favour of some nukes, everybody will be willing to pay more for e.g. wind power, home solar water, European electricity grid linked to North Africa...
Are their numbers reliable?
I have recently evaluated (for a potential purchaser) a number of oil and gas fields in the Former Soviet Union. Based on this experience, I would say that Russian numbers for reserves are about as reliable as Enron's accounting. While estimates of initial recoverable reserves do appear to have some basis in geology and petroleum engineering, the figures for subsequent production appear to be largely works of fiction (at least in the fields I have examined). There is no way of determining whether the production has been larger than that recorded (due to theft of production, accidental loss in blowouts, or just failure to record data) or lower than recorded (due to cooking the books to meet planned production quotas, inaccurate recording, or faulty measuring equipment). On a typical 20-year-old field it is not unusual to find claims that the recorded production to date is 500% of what appears to be the initial recoverable reserves, or at the other extreme to hear that the production over the first 19 years for the field is less than the production in the last year.
Some facts:
1) On Tuesday Ukraine closed off three of the four gas pipelines transiting Russian gas over its territory.
2) On Wednesday Ukraine closed the last pipeline.
3) Russia stopped bothering to send gas to Ukraine since NONE of it would go to the EU.
So bitch and moan at Yushenko and not Russia. They say the truth is the first casualty of war and it sure looks like the west is in a perpetual information war against Russia.
Agreed here for sure. If the US "media handling" of the S. Osetia issue is any indicator, I'd guess that there appears to be some sort of need to re-start the cold war, at least among present administration in US. All media talkers presenting a consistently obviously biased or worse take on the affair. "Georgia attacks S. Ossetia, problem is Russia's fault" indeed! I'm to the point where I only believe BBC, and that only half the time.
Believe the Beeb HALF the time, Len. Blimey! No disrespect but -- aren't you being a bit trusting? Never believe a word of their 'news' and current affairs ouput unless it can be confirmed by somewhere a long way away. Al Jazeerah or Asia Times, maybe, for example.