"You know what happens when they get in the same room as Putin. They all drop their trousers and say 'I love you Vladimir'." This is the gloomy and cynical view from a senior EU insider, of the leaders of the European Union's 25 countries. Perhaps it's intended to chivvy rather than insult. But there is no doubt that the EU summit in Finland is a rather odd event.

There has been much debate over the reliability of the Russian oil and gas supplies to the rest of the world, with many commentators noting the historic reliability of the source. But as Gazprom takes over an increasing percentage of the world's delivery system, there are some concerns that perhaps need to be highlighted. This is particularly true for the United States with our "Just in time" philosophy, which (as I noted) James Woolsey worried about in St Louis.

The BBC article notes three concerns with the situation a) the threat of a supply disruption, b) the increasingly monopolistic position of Gazprom as a supplier, and c) the lack of a common resolve among nations as to how to deal with this.

At the risk of being a tad repetitive, let me therefore explain, and clarify, some of my concerns. To begin let me state that very obviously Gazprom and Russian interests are not the same as those of the West. Gazprom has every right to run their business to their own advantage, and that is not the major point of concern. However, what has to be of concern to the governments of each nation that it supplies with natural gas, is the reliability and price of the product that it is marketing. If those countries come to rely increasingly on Russian supply, then any disruption in that supply can have significant domestic consequences. Typically these shortages seem to fall in the winter, at a time where, as we learned from Colorado last spring, severe weather can limit production from gas fields. It is at those times that domestic power consumption goes up. And while not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, I have to cough gently and point out, to some of our readers (though not Jerome), that electricity does not magically appear out of an outlet.

As I noted the other day, when talking about the oil sands, cornucopian thinking still seems to control the attitude of government. The comment by the Canadian National Energy Board that Dave cited includes the comment on gas needs

It takes about 34 cubic metres (1 200 cubic feet) of natural gas to produce one barrel of bitumen from in situ projects and about 20 cubic metres (700 cubic feet) for integrated projects. Currently, the oil sands industry uses about 21 million cubic metres (0.7 billion cubic feet) per day of purchased gas, or about five percent of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin production. By 2015, this increases to about 60 million cubic metres (2.1 billion cubic feet) per day, or nearly 12 percent, assuming gas production remains at 482 million cubic metres (17 billion cubic feet) per day.