European Tribune

Pointed words on European gas

by Jerome a Paris
Thu Jun 19th, 2008 at 04:16:47 PM EST


Is Gazprom's strategy political?

We do not build a pipeline in the hope that we will at some later date be able to find enough customers for the fuel it will supply; nor does it make sense to extract gas out of the ground without an assured market for it in the long term.

So I find puzzling statements that an increase in Gazprom's gas deliveries constitutes a threat to the EU's security, and that it is therefore necessary to limit them. The suggestion that Gazprom would invest billions of dollars in expensive gas export pipelines so that we could then disrupt them for political reasons looks absurd, especially in view of the substantial contribution these gas exports make to Russia's budget and the country's economy. And it is often forgotten that Russia is currently more dependent on the EU than vice versa. The EU depends for 25% of its gas consumption on Russia, yet Gazprom depends on the EU for over 70% of its export earnings. The bottom line is that Gazprom needs Europe as much as Europe needs our gas.

(...)

Under the Commission's proposals, entirely separate - and separately-owned - undertakings would have to be established to transport gas from the supplier to the customer (whether a large industrial user or a retail distribution network), in a highly regulated environment. At the same time, the Commission is calling for a substantial increase in investment in cross-border transmission systems, so as to ensure security of supply. It is hard to see how these two demands can be reconciled: How would companies whose sole function would be to operate pipelines have the commercial interest or the financial muscle to mobilise the capital needed for major infrastructure projects if they are prohibited from having any interest in extracting and selling natural gas? Unlike the suppliers and distributors, they would have no access to the revenue generated from gas sales - the essential underpinning for financing new gas infrastructures.

(...)

The Commission's current approach seems to favour secondary traders and speculators over the market players who actually have access to gas resources.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
The economic arguments make sense.  However they require one to assume that political interests will not be allowed to supersede economic agreements in a crunch. Unfortunately there is a recent history between Russia and Ukraine that suggests that they could be.  Of course no one will forget King Faisal of Saudi Arabia either.

One solution would be to have an available diversity of supply from LNG shipments and gas pipelines.  Another would be to develop infrastructure that would not be dependent on natural gas.  Probably at this point this is a trade off between cost and security of supply.

In Southern California gas imported from out of state is stored in depleted underground gas fields.  This provides security in case an earthquake or other disaster interrupts supplies. Is this a possibility in Europe?      

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 01:12:11 AM EST
You may not have read my articles on the topic, so please go sniff around the diaries written 2 years ago around the Russian-Ukraine crisis, all conveniently regrouped here

You may also want to read that more scholarly article I wrote last year: Gazprom as a Predictable Partner. Another Reading of the Russian-Ukrainian and Russian-Belarusian Energy Crises (pdf)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 04:45:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the link.  Informative and entertaining at once.  I am glad a pending road trip has been deferred. It is good to have the take on this episode from someone in whose judgment I have confidence.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Jerome,

ET should have an index other than in Mig's head.  I am not even down to Non ET Posts and have had a thoroughly informative and enjoyable time.  Your Gazprom as a Predictable Partner paper is wonderful.  Thank you.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 11:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great writing, Jérôme.
by findmeaDoorIntoSummer on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I vote Alexander Medvedev for European Energy Commissioner in 2009.

Vencit omnia veritas.
by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]a[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]gmail[dot]com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 03:22:29 AM EST
I don't understand how not owning the pipelines would reduce Gazprom's ability to cut off gas to Europe? Something must go into the pipes, after all, and if they control the input...

So why doesn't it just input more points of failure (and more points of leverage for foreign political actors with hostile intent) to have a third-party between the gas field and the user? Are there other major gas fields that can be connected to a third-party distribution system to ensure that even if one supplier withdraws for political reason, the Spice still flows?

Nothing I've seen on the gas situation here on ET suggests that, but I could, of course, be missing something.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 03:47:07 AM EST

So why doesn't it just input more points of failure (and more points of leverage for foreign political actors with hostile intent) to have a third-party between the gas field and the user?

Yep. But maybe that's the point: the policy is driven by those that would own these assets: it would be easy for them to extract "rent" once they are snuggled in such a strategic slot.

I can't believe they don't know that pipelines ties suppliers to buyers are much as buyers to suppliers.


Are there other major gas fields that can be connected to a third-party distribution system to ensure that even if one supplier withdraws for political reason, the Spice still flows?

"The markets will provide." Sigh...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 04:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"The markets will provide." Sigh...

Provide new, conveniently located gas fields if supply from the known fields is abruptly cut off?

That would be a pretty neat trick if they could do it...

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Jun 20th, 2008 at 04:52:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]