Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 1, 2014
Did Natural Gas Debt Trigger the Ukraine Crisis?
Defending Moscow’s December 18, 2013 agreement to provide Ukraine with an aid package estimated at about $15 billion, and cheaper natural gas through discounts and “gas debt forgiveness” estimated as able to save Ukraine $7 bn in one year, Vladimir Putin said the decision to invest $15 bn in ‘brotherly slavic’ Ukraine, and grant the gas discount was “pragmatic and based on economic facts”.
At the time, the “investment” in Ukraine was already conditional – not only on the political issue of Ukrainian loyalty to Moscow – but on Ukraine complying with previous longstanding, often revoked, modified or extended commitments to repay gas debts dating from as far back as the early 1990s. In December, Russia’s Finance minister Anton Siluanov said payment of the “aid or investment” funds to Ukraine, in tranches of about $2 bn each, would need Ukraine making a serious response to end-2013 estimates, by Russia, of the minimum “monetized gas debt” Ukraine has to pay. Siluanov’s ministry said this was about $2.7 bn, itself a large downward revision on other published figures from Russian sources, extending well above $5 bn. His ministry also published statements suggesting that Ukraine’s non-payment of gas taken and consumed by the country, since 2010, ran at a yearly average as high as $2 – $2.25 bn.
To be sure, events starting in February as the “Maidan movement” drew massive public support in the capital and western Ukraine to overthrowing the government-in-place. This was a repeat of Egypt’s anti-Morsi flash mob street revolution, followed by the Saudi-financed military coup against elected president Morsi. In Ukraine, however, the street magic stopped in the east, and especially in Crimea where 75%-85% of votes cast in the 2010 election were for Viktor Yanukovych.
To be sure, this blood-colored version of the Orange Revolution aimed at aligning Ukraine with the European Union has scuppered further bail out payments by Moscow. Any upping of the ante, as enacted and supplied by NATO and John Kerry, could lead to Russia also making a total shutdown of gas supply to Ukraine – Kiev’s Independence Square flash mob could hope that Global Warming will shorten the winter, ease heating needs, and give Ukraine a head start for becoming a debt wracked European Union associated country – but this is far from sure!
Debt, Gas Debt and Gas Prices
The national gas debt will surely feature in the round of proposals for “Ukraine bailout” being developed by the IMF, European Commission, EU member states on a bilateral basis, the US and potentially other actors, including the ECB and the UN ECE (the UN’s European economic agency), as well as private banks and energy companies. One thing is sure and certain, much higher gas prices for Ukraine are inevitable, under any scenario.
As of early January 2014, Russia’s second largest state bank, VTB, organized the first tranche of the $15 bn financial bailout, by making a $3 bn sale of Ukrainian debt bonds on the Irish Stock Exchange, guaranteed by Russia’s $88 bn sovereign-wealth National Welfare Fund, which was also tasked with financing of the $7 bn natural gas price discount and gas debt forgiveness to Ukraine in counterparty for Ukrainian starting payment of its monetized gas debt.
Current estimates of Ukraine’s total national debt stand at about $145 bn, around 80% of GDP in 2013, but late-February foreign exchange reserves were said by newswires to be only about $15 bn.
Although heavily affected by political rivalries and disputes, Yulia Tymoshenko’s two-month-only role as Ukrainian deputy prime minister responsible for fuel and energy, in 1999-2000, included her attempts at cutting back Ukraine’s constantly rising gas debt, by proposing a huge increase in gas prices inside the country. One of her proposals was for Ukraine to start paying Russia’s Gazprom $400 per thousand cubic meters (about $11 per million BTU, close to current west European prices at the major gas hubs NBP, Zeebrugge, Baumgarten).
After her “time in the political wilderness” and return to power as Prime Minister in 2007, this price was a major bargaining chip in very rocky Ukrainian negotiations with the Kremlin and Gazprom. Her supposedly “surprising” decision to pay for Ukraine’s gas through gas trading using a specially created Switzerland-based trading subsidiary, partly owned by Gazprom and major business and political figures in Ukraine – several of them “suspected of organized crime” – was a key factor in the 2009 “Ukraine-Russia gas crisis”. Tymoshenko tried a political wriggle-out by claiming there was either no outstanding Ukrainian gas debt – or that if it existed, it was now the debt of Swiss-registered RusUkrEnergo!
Only for year 2008 gas deliveries, the new and additional gas debt of Ukraine towards Gazprom was estimated by analysts at about $2.4 bn. Since 2010, about the same annual rate of gas debt increase is claimed to have been racked up by Ukraine, according to Russian sources such as Alfa Bank Moscow.
Certainly at times in the long, complicated and dispute-riddled negotiations with Tymoshenko, Alexei Miller, CEO of Gazprom said his corporation could and would supply Ukraine with gas at $235 per thousand m3, but RusUkrEnergo was too attractive to Ukrainian business and political players as an opaque gas payments and trading entity able to be milked for huge kickbacks. On January 1, 2009 Russia halted all shipments of gas to Ukraine and demanded $450 per thousand m3. Then prime minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin said that $470 would be the future price, close to the 2009-price paid by many EU national gas companies “lower down the gasline”, of about $500.
Proving the extent to which this was Kremlin armtwisting of Ukraine, to make Tymoshenko close down RusUkrEnergo for reasons including this entity’s total impossibility of repaying national gas debt, when gas supplies were resumed after the crisis they were billed by Gazprom at about $230 per thousand m3, far below then-current west European gas prices, and still so, today.
Even this price was however too much to pay, for Ukraine. To be sure, inside Ukraine, especially after its government collapse and the “disappearance” of its now-fugitive (for western Ukrainians) former president Yanukovych, Russia can be portrayed as cynically allowing Ukraine to run up massive, unpayable gas debts. For Gazprom however, the euros-and-cents costs of gas supplies, trade and disputes with Ukraine over the years is a black hole for corporate finances. Some analysts suggest that only for the three years 2011-2013 Ukraine’s total gas debt could be $7 bn, and that writing this amount off (calling it a “friendship discount”), and returning to the previous $2.7 bn “official monetized gas debt” figure was pure political largesse by Vladimir Putin, aimed at buying Ukrainian loyalty.
The Spring Gas Crisis is Coming
Ukraine-Russia gas crises are “traditionally” short wintertime crises, which ups the ante each time, as Ukrainians start to freeze, businesses and industry shut down and the lights go out. This time however, the effects may be enduring. Ukraine’s gas debt will certainly feature in negotiations aimed at relaunching the Ukrainian economy. Gas supplies to the country from Russia, under a presently far-from-impossible worst case scenario, could be terminated pending the immediate and full payment of outstanding gas debt – without “friendship discounts”. Currently Ukraine is unable to pay west European gas prices or repay gas debt, or its sovereign national financial debt. To be sure, if Ukraine’s gas supply is cut off, this will create havoc “further down the gasline” and reignite the energy security debates that the short but dramatic 2009 crisis triggered across Europe.
In a 26 February article “Sustaining Ukraine’s Breakthrough” published by Project-syndicate, George Soros argued that Ukraine needs a modern equivalent of the Marshall Plan. He reminded his readers that while the Marshall Plan aided western Europe’s recovery from the ravages of World War II, it did not include the Soviet bloc and reinforced the Cold War division of Europe. Soros said that a replay today of the Cold War would cause immense damage to both Russia and Europe, but he forgot to say that this time around, Ukraine needs a Marshall Gas Plan.
With no shadow of doubt “the gas question” will feature in what happens in the present standoff between Putin’s Russia and the west – and inside Ukraine – and will powerfully underline the energy economic interdependence of Russia and Europe. Also sure and certain, Ukraine will pay much more for its gas, and will have to face its accumulated gas debt, as the role of seaboard LNG terminals is given more attraction due to the present crisis, underlining the geopolitical risk of international gas pipelines.
By Andrew McKillop
24 Comments on "Did Natural Gas Debt Trigger the Ukraine Crisis?"
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 1:33 pm
I am not going to argue the subtleties of the Russia/Ukrainian/European economic political nexus. We see from this article the arrangements are not sustainable. We also see the real need for Ukraine to develop some of its indigenous gas potential to mitigate this economic unstainable situation. It is obviously unable to afford Russian gas in the current arrangement but it is reliant through the old soviet economic realities. I am arguing the Ukraine is a country TBTF for Europe and Russia. Ukraine due to is landmass and population must be maintained. Ukraine is a major food exporter at a time of global food supply issues. The instability of a country this large with the very important food variable sandwiched between two giants has the potential to destabilize the global economic system far more then is realized on the surface. The old cold war “realpolitik” is no longer a valid option. The gas export situation is difficult for both sides. One may think Russia can just shut these exports off without impunity but the reality is always far different. Due to the interconnected nature of the world’s financial system the effects would hurt both sides and the world significantly. Russia needs the payment stream to service her debt and pay national needs. Europe needs to stay warm!
DC on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 4:00 pm
LoL! At least the article all but admits that meddling zionist Soros and his so-called ‘Open Society Foundation is behind this latest so-called ‘color(nazis) revolution. NatGas, ahem, no. Creating a Yugoslavia or (Syria) on Russia’s doorstep as a prelude to directly attacking Russia itself is more like it. Andrew can rattle on about the price of gas of Ukraine(which is immaterial and none of his affair really) all he likes. The instability the US and it agents create, is no accident. A more accurate title would be,
Did George Soros and US agents cause the Ukraine Crisis?
Dont be silly!, of course they did!
rockman on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 4:40 pm
DC – But Soros is a liberal and liberals don’t start military conflicts.
indigoboy on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 4:44 pm
Putin should give the killer blow to the dollar, and ask that the Ukraine (unpaid), gas bill or any future gas supply, to be paid in gold
Davey on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 4:44 pm
Spam filter indicates a North Korean Style propaganda spew recently beware of half truths and distortions!
J-Gav on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 4:47 pm
Both of the above comments make some valid points: Davy when he argues that things are always more complicated than meets the eye; and DC when he points out there was considerable Western funding of Ukraine’s “freedom fighters” (not only US donators by the way, DC, Pierre Omidyar contributed a handsome sum as well, for example).
For my part, I’ll reiterate in different terms what I said last week on the subject: There is no way in hell that Russia will just stand idly by and watch the Donbass industrial region and their strategic Black Sea naval presence in Crimea be handed over to the U.S. and/or European interests.
If there is some clique amongst the western power structure higher-ups who believe that’s possible without without conflict, they are raving lunatics.
Davey on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 4:54 pm
Gav, my issue is with mr dc’s style having no balance. I actually like some of the info he brings to the table. I say let Russia have its Crimea. They have legitimate reasons for a zone of influence there. They will pay a price for this action. The West should be happy it is only that part of Ukarain and not all the border land.
bobinget on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 5:27 pm
Take a second out of your busy schedule and imagine
tens of thousands of Americans in danger of
retribution from angry foreign citizens spurred on by government instability. Would any US President not send in troops to defend an American speaking minority in danger ? What if those Americans and their families were located in another country contiguous
to the US mainland or offshore State? Would political pressure demand military intervention?
While tanks are absolutely useless in modern warfare
tanks are terrific intimidators of civilian populations.
Kenz300 on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 5:58 pm
Every country needs to develop a plan to become more energy independent. Relying on Russia or any other source for a majority of their energy needs is dangerous economically and politically.
One more reason to transition to locally produced energy sources with local labor. Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste can all be produced locally and help to diversify their energy sources.
Arthur on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 5:58 pm
Take a second out of your busy schedule and imagine tens of thousands of Americans in danger of retribution from angry foreign citizens spurred on by government instability. Would any US President not send in troops to defend an American speaking minority in danger?
Of course they would. That is exactly what Germany did in 1939 and the only real reason for the invasion, to protect the Germans living in Poland.
Now Russia is invading the Crimea, not just to protect the ‘Russians’ there, who are in far less immanent danger than the Germans living in Poland were in 1939, but mainly to protect it’s port.
The uprising itself began as a grass roots phenomena, but was hijacked by the ultra-nationalists from the western Ukraine, bought and paid for by ‘the West’, which smelled yet another the chance to hurt Russia, after Syria:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02/17/us-eu-paying-ukrainian-rioters-protesters-paul-craig-roberts/
The entire drama has NOTHING to do with gas, oil or caviar or whatever.
DC – But Soros is a liberal and liberals don’t start military conflicts.
Not sure what your definition of a ‘liberal’ is, but if you mean ‘Democrat’, it needs to be said that over the last 100 years most wars were started by Democrats.
Arthur on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 6:09 pm
They will pay a price for this action. The West should be happy it is only that part of Ukarain and not all the border land.
Or the West will pay the final price: self-abolishment altogether. Germany is soo dependent on fuel from the East, that they can’t afford a conflict with Russia, even if they wanted it (they don’t).
And forget about the conflict remaining confined to the Crimea. Janukovitch was elected by ca. 50% of the electorate, indicating that these protesters in Kiev do not represent the majority. But for some reason Soros is not interested in paying bus fairs for these people. If the Crimea goes (referendum now scheduled for end March), and it will go, lot’s of cities in the east and south will want to follow: Kharkow, Donetsk and Odessa to mention the most important. Here is an idea of what is to come, probably much worse than Yugoslavia, with guaranteed intervention of Russia in the east and south:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Ethnolingusitic_map_of_ukraine.png
andya on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 6:49 pm
Russia has troops on the ground, check!
Unless western powers want a hot war, they can’t do shit all now.
It’s important to remember the ousted government was legitimately elected. In a ‘friendly’ country the freedom fighters would be called the terrorists. Not the legitimately elected government.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 6:57 pm
@Arthur said – Or the West will pay the final price: self-abolishment altogether. Germany is soo dependent on fuel from the East that they can’t afford a conflict with Russia, even if they wanted it (they don’t).
Arthur you can also put it this way: The basket case we call Russia has a declining social fabric from alcohol, drugs, and poor nutrition. The Russian population is in decline and the life expectance is also in decline. Russia’s economy is a feudal economy of mafia types, rich oligarchs, corrupt security forces, and a corrupt body politic. Russia is overly dependent on natural resource sales to support an economy that has been unable to transform itself into a modern diverse economy. Russia bank rolls its economy with natural resources which are beginning their decline. Russia cannot afford to stop the flow of oil, gas, and other resources or its economy will quickly run out of foreign exchange and vital industrial and consumer goods it must import
Arthur on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 7:14 pm
basket case we call Russia has a declining social fabric from alcohol, drugs, and poor nutrition.
Basket case Russia had more medals than you recently, as did Norway and Canada, come to think of it and Russia can put a man in orbit, which not everybody can say. And France has a far greater drinking problem than Russia. About demographics: Russia is the only white country with a birth rate boosting program, where the rest tries to destroy their own populations with their cultural marxist programs of mass immigration. In the US, 50+% of those below 5 is coloured, which is good news for the rap industry, but not much else. The US is the next Brazil, with corresponding future geopolitical clout: little.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 7:23 pm
Russia is a “death star” of corruption, decay, and violence. Its population boosting programs are ineffective and prove that there is much worry about the decline of the white Russian and the increase of the Muslims in the mix. You are showing some racism Arthur. Last I heard there is nothing wrong with color yet, you claim nonwhites are bad for a country. You wish the US will someday have no clout but unfortunately this will not be the case due to the fact that the US leads the world in many of the most important economic assets of a strong nation. The most notable is food production.
andya on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 8:50 pm
DH, if you hadn’t noticed who is #1 in crude oil production, #1 in nat gas exports, and a major food exporter. The US still leads in terms of nominal debt, afaik the Russian govt runs a budget surplus.
The differences between Russia and the US are cosmetic only. Both have democracies, both hate each other, both are run by the rich for the rich. One runs a trade deficit but has the world reserve currency. It’s hard to know what other then food production (not exports) that the US leads the world in? Inequality, obesity, gun ownership, random shootings, invasion of privacy, incarceration rates what am I missing?
DC on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 9:02 pm
I am not quite sure what this ‘balance’ is your are after from me here Davy. I do not subscribe to the peculiarly american insistence that all issues have but ‘two side’s that must compared and contrasted in every single instance. There is but one reality. And while those realities may be complex, they often have root causes-and that is what matters-not some kind of mythical duality we put on some arbitrary set of scales and go, voila! Balance.
The Us, IS in fact, actively encouraging and supporting the problems in both Venualua and Ukraine. Russia, China, or Cuba, or whoever else one happens to dislike-are not. If Russia were the ones stirring the pot on their own doorstep, id be all over that shyt too. But they are not. So therefore, I feel no need to slag Russians as a pile of drunken, impotent, war-mongering oligarchs.I’ve long given up on the idea that ‘we’, were the unquestioned good guys in this world. I used to fall for that horseshit, rah rah ‘the west is best’ and all that, but Ive gotten over that now. I know Russia has a corruption problem-the whole does, but corrupt Russian oligarchs, whatever their failings, are not the ones pushing the world towards war. Its YOUR corrupt oligarchs, and there puppets(and that includes my own corrupt govt in that category) that are doing that Davy-sorry if that bit of info is unsettling for you, really I am.
I am however, very alarmed that the Us is forcing Russias hand, and will possibly use it as a pretext for a major conflict, and feign ignorance and or innocence after the fact.You can see this behavior out of your corrupt capital and its puppet president even now.
But in the interests of ‘Balance’, ill give it go.
Cons:US attempting to provoke Russia by fomenting revolution right next door
Pros:ummm none(Russians drink too much?)
Pro?:’Liberals’ dont start wars? (Presumably Soros and DroneBama qualify under this heading?)
Con:No evidence provided that any of the implied linkages have any basis in reality.
Pro?(or Con?):North Korea and China have bad oppressive Gov’ts.
Con?(Pro?):May be true by some (narrow) definitions-but neither has anything to do with Us efforts to undermine Ukraine or Venezuela.
See? Balance isnt much help here is it?
Arthur on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 10:27 pm
Russia is a “death star” of corruption, decay, and violence. Its population boosting programs are ineffective and prove that there is much worry about the decline of the white Russian and the increase of the Muslims in the mix.
You should compare Russia today with where Russia is coming from, between 1980-2000. Russia is clearly on the ascending trajectory, now that it has scrapped communism.
Just saw on National Geographic a documentary of rampant crime in Philadelphia, mostly black btw. I would prefer to live in Kharkow over Philadelphia any time of the day. Fortunately, as a European, I don’t have to make that decision. You do realize that the US is the most violent country in the world with the largest % of people in the slammer?
You are showing some racism Arthur.
For what? For calling a spade a spade? Average income in Africa is perhaps $2k, but for ideologues like you that probably is a sin to even mention that fact. With the shifting demographics within the US, the US are going to be the real death star. And since the US is a country like all others, you are going to experience what happened to Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and now the Ukraine, first hand in your own country. If Slavic Serbs, Croats and Bosnians can’t live together, if Sunnis and Shi’ites can’t live together, if not even Orthodox, Slavic Ukrainians and Russians can’t live together, what gives you the idea that the US, the country with the largest ethnic differences available on this planet would stay in one piece, once the Chinese government is going to invite the US ambassador and tells him how much China values the relationship with the US, but now that China has assembled a pile of 3 trillion $, there is some skepticism to add yet another 1 trillion $ to that pile. So yes, China is very interested in continuing to trade with the US, but now China would like to see real goods and services in return for Chinese goods and services and not green paper with zero inherent value. When that happens the role of the dollar will be over and, as a consequence, the preeminent position of the US as global hegemon. And that will initiate the troubles in the US that will lead to it’s breakup, just like is happening to the Ukraine before our eyes.
Last I heard there is nothing wrong with color yet, you claim nonwhites are bad for a country.
Nobody says that. Expect the US to win the gold medal for the 100m sprint most of the time, that’s the good news. But you might as well close down NASA, since the Brasil’s of this world don’t have space programs. But no problem, leave running space program’s to Europe, Russia and China.
Russia is overly dependent on natural resource sales to support an economy that has been unable to transform itself into a modern diverse economy.
That’s absolutely true. Thank God they have a neighbor like Europe, that has good use for these resources. Match made in heaven.
Russia cannot afford to stop the flow of oil, gas, and other resources or its economy will quickly run out of foreign exchange and vital industrial and consumer goods it must import
That’s true, but that is not going to happen overnight, in contrast what most of us, including me, thought 2 years ago.
You wish the US will someday have no clout
No, I don’t wish that at all. I have said time and time again that I don’t want to see the trans-Atlantic relationship to disappear. I also said repeatedly that the geophysical conditions in the US are relatively favorable: good climate, big area, not overpopulated, lot of resources. I do expect that there will be a future as a great power for the US, or however it will be called in the future, after the Balkanization I and many others see coming:
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/aztlan_map.jpg
… and La Raza will carry the majority Mexican US states back into Mexico, just like majority Russian parts of the Ukraine will be carried back into Russia. People all over the world simply prefer to live among their own kind and Euro-Americans will be no exceptions once it starts to dawn on them that the days of US empire will be over. Secession will be next.
Arthur on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 11:05 pm
Now watching CNN, for the first time in years, with David Gergen and Richard Roth and the rest of the kosher senior commentariate, insisting on the ‘territorial integrity’ of the Ukraine, although, thank God, nobody is contemplating military action, so it is going to be ‘sanctions’. I am pretty sure the Europeans were not consulted on this silly proposals, because it will be them sitting in the cold as a result of US proposed sanctions. Russia can sell all it’s fuel to China if it has to. I think this action of Soros, the NGO’s, western secret services, could backfire enormously, just like Iraq and Syria backfired against the NWO. What ‘the West’ will achieve is adding another 10-20 million people to Russia, plus valuable cities. And potentially losing key European countries as strong allies, first and foremost Germany. Here is the reason why:
http://deepresource.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/german-oil-dependencies.jpg
Germany gets by far most of it’s fuel from the East. So they can’t afford any antagonizing Russia over the Ukraine and so they won’t. Western strategists should realize this if they want to keep Europe within the US empire for a little longer. But western strategist have made a lot of miscalculations lately, so don’t hold your breath.
george on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 11:23 pm
this goes back a thousand years
NG is a non issue
Northwest Resident on Sat, 1st Mar 2014 11:37 pm
Europe needs Russia’s gas like you and I need air. Without it, Europe crashes and burns. Russia needs to sell its gas to Europe, or it crashes and burns. America needs Europe and Russia to maintain the status quo. Like George says, the issues we see brewing have been latent and ever present for a long time, especially since Stalin’s deportation and mass starvations. What everybody wants is for Russia to step in with a heavy hand and restore order. Sure, America and Europe will make public statements about “democracy” and “will of the people” and “elections” and threats of economic and diplomatic retaliations — and all that crap. But in private, they just want Russia to take care of business. Which is what is happening. Arthur, your conspiratorial mind is over-active again.
rockman on Sun, 2nd Mar 2014 10:48 pm
NR – Russia needs to sell gas to the EU…for now. But Russia and China are discussing the construction of tens of $billions in pipelines to haul that NG away from the EU. Not very different the the Canadians needing to sell oil to the US…for now. But get that oil to one coast or the other and that dynamic can radically change. Best to start thinking in terms of decades instead of just the next 4 or 5 years IMHO.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 2nd Mar 2014 11:44 pm
rockman — From the time that Russia and China put the ink on that deal, I wonder how long it would take to get enough pipelines built to make any kind of difference. Do you have an educated guess?
I thought Russia was also either contemplating or already building underwater pipelines to Europe in order to bypass Ukraine.
In the meantime, if enough Ukrainians were in a “let’s start Armageddon” mood, they could start blowing up sections of the Russia-to-Europe pipelines and I guess we’d get a real mess started very quickly.
So much dry tinder. So many sparks. The world is just one well-placed spark away from going up in a bonfire.
IF the Russians do begin to start developing pipelines to redirect their natural gas to China, that would cause trouble. Europe probably isn’t going to sit passively and watch Russia walk away with the gas and oil they need to survive. Don’t you think?
rockman on Mon, 3rd Mar 2014 9:16 am
NR – The big hang up has been negotiating the NG price. Been going on for many years so the “Power of Siberia Pipeline” is an old idea. But they are supposed to ready to make the trade. Just a very rough guess: 5 years to build.
In the case of Ukraine I’m not sure it would as simple as just “laying another line”. The various pipeline systems thru Ukraine are extensive. But be it China or the EU it’s going to take a long time. So much speedier to just kill 10k or 30k Ukrainians to take control. Nothing personal…just business.