Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on October 20, 2014

Bookmark and Share

Who’s Afraid of a Russian Gas Cut?

Who’s Afraid of a Russian Gas Cut? thumbnail

How scared should Europe be of a stoppage in Russian natural gas supplies this winter? That depends on whether countries are willing to sacrifice for one another and unify in their response.

As Russian President Vladimir Putin basked in applause at a Serbian military parade last week, he sent out a clear warning to the European Union: If Ukraine — which has had no natural gas supplies from Russia since June — should siphon gas from transit pipelines to heat its people, he won’t make up the difference but will let the EU go short.

When Russia and Ukraine squared off in a similar gas-price dispute in 2009, Putin went further: He cut all gas transit to the EU via Ukraine for about two weeks, forcing Slovakia to declare a state of emergency and Bulgaria to shut down many of its factories. Even Germany had to scramble to make up for lost supplies. So although talks aimed at resolving the energy dispute between Ukraine and Russia resume on Tuesday, Putin must be taken seriously.

As a whole, Europe is not as vulnerable as it was five years ago. The biggest single change is the construction of Nord Stream, a twin pipeline project to connect Russia with Germany across the Baltic Sea, completed in 2012. Nord Stream has a capacity to supply 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year and, as a result, the percentage of Russian gas exports to Europe that transit through Ukraine has fallen from about 80 percent to just under 50 percent.

So whereas the stoppage of Russian gas supplies via Ukraine affected 18 countries in 2009, ”stress tests” published by the EU last week suggest a six-month transit disruption this winter would severely impact only eight countries.

In addition, the 2009 shock prompted the EU to make a few changes of its own. A new 67-mile pipeline connecting the Slovakian and Hungarian gas grids should be fully operational by Jan. 1, for example. Meanwhile, underground gas storage vaults across the EU have been filled to 90 percent of capacity, in anticipation of trouble.

The Balkans, Hungary and Poland would come under real stress, however. (Finland and the Baltic states might also be severely affected, but only if Russia stopped supplies through pipelines outside Ukraine in a direct attack on those countries.) So long as EU members respond by spreading the pain and helping each other out, lost supplies would average 10 percent to 60 percent, from Greece to Poland, according to the EU stress tests.

On the other hand, if countries stop supplying others with gas as soon as they run out of surplus themselves, some will be hit much harder. Bosnia and Macedonia would lose 100 percent of their gas supplies, while Bulgaria and Serbia would lose 60 percent to 80 percent. So the severity of the impact would depend on just how willing countries were to work with and sacrifice for each other, making this a big test of EU “solidarity.” Nothing would please Putin more than to see the EU fail that test and so disillusion new members and applicants from the ex-communist bloc in Central Europe — including his hosts last week in Serbia.

It’s hard to know what Putin will do. The 2009 disruption worked out well for him in one sense, encouraging Germany to go forward with Nord Stream, despite protests from Poland and the Baltic States. Building that pipeline weakened Ukraine’s leverage in pricing disputes. Another disruption would harden the determination of countries in Southeastern Europe to build another Russian-backed pipeline, called South Stream, this time crossing the Black Sea to emerge in Bulgaria and deliver gas to Italy, Austria and points between via Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia.

Source: Gazprom
Source: Gazprom

With South Stream in place, Russia would barely need Ukraine’s transit network at all, eliminating Ukraine’s leverage in pricing disputes because it would no longer be able to tap into transit gas for the EU when cut off. Loss of the Russia-EU gas transit business would also blow a vast hole in Ukraine’s national budget, because it would no longer collect the associated fees. So for Putin, who is doing his best to bankrupt and destabilize Ukraine, there’s a temptation.

The 2009 gas crisis, however, also encouraged the EU to look for ways to create an effective market for gas across Europe, with enough success to develop a limited spot market at supply hubs that has forced Russia’s Gazprom to lower its prices. A true single gas market is still a long way off, but another cut-off might harden resolve, damaging Gazprom in its most important market. At the same time, falling oil prices are already blowing a hole in the Russian budget, so losing gas sales to Europe — which make up 40 percent of Gazprom’s revenues — would hurt. Putin has shown little sign that he cares about the economic costs of his Ukrainian policies until now, but he may decide making Ukrainians freeze just isn’t worth the cost.

bloomberg



6 Comments on "Who’s Afraid of a Russian Gas Cut?"

  1. Makati1 on Mon, 20th Oct 2014 10:12 pm 

    Threats are all that will be necessary in January…lol. Brrrrrrrr!

    Remember, Russia is now the ‘bad guy’ for the US to target as it is still independent of the US Mobsters in DC.

    And China is number 2 on that list as of this moment, but will maybe be tied for 1st as they continue to team up with Russia to foil the Empire and trash the USD. Stay tuned for more exciting events in the following months as the temps drop and the gas gets low. …

  2. Kenz300 on Tue, 21st Oct 2014 1:18 am 

    Russia ia not a reliable supplier…. they can not be counted on………

    It is time for Europe to wake up and speed up their transition to safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy sources.

    Wind, solar, wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste do not need to be imported from Russia or anywhere else.

    It is time to develop a plan to become more self sufficient in energy production.

    —————————-

    New Biofuels Facility Converts Plant Waste To Ethanol, Is 90 Percent Cleaner Than Gasoline

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/biofuels-plant-waste-ethanol_n_6001670.html

    ———————–

    China Turns to Geothermal Energy To Tackle Carbon Emissions

    http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/09/china-turns-to-geothermal-energy-to-tackle-carbon-emissions

    ———————–

    New Cost Analysis Shows Unsubsidized Renewables Increasingly Rival Fossil Fuels « Breaking Energy – Energy industry news, analysis, and commentary

    http://breakingenergy.com/2014/09/25/new-cost-analysis-shows-unsubsidized-renewables-increasingly-rival-fossil-fuels/

  3. Makati1 on Tue, 21st Oct 2014 7:13 am 

    Kenz, turn off the repeating recorder. No-one is listening. Collapse is inevitable and no plan is going to come forth, just lies.

  4. Davy on Tue, 21st Oct 2014 7:22 am 

    Russia has every right to bargain with its energy. The west is doing the same with finance and political meddling. If Putt choses the nuclear option he will have played his card. He will also have lost most of his respect with the Europeans. If he keeps the pressure focus on Ukraine then one should accept this as part of war diplomacy. Why should Russia support Ukraine when they are in a cold war? I must also mention the dangers this action would create to the systematic foundation of the whole global system. Europe is TBTF component to the global system. This means that Russia will be affected by its own actions. There is more the Europeans and Americans can do to harm Russia. This is a zero sum gain for all those involved. It is like 18 century bloodletting to cure a disease. I believe TPTB understand this more or less but this is high stakes poker. They will take their believed advantages as far as possible. I believe ZH said something to the effect “two balls beats 2 aces any day”. The danger clearly is going too far with the bluff creating a cascade of feedbacks with consequences but also unintended consequences.

  5. JuanP on Tue, 21st Oct 2014 10:42 am 

    More Russia bashing and fear mongering.
    While I basically disagree with the author’s perspective, I found his analysis of the South Stream pipeline’s consequences interesting.
    I think Putin is playing a waiting game based on delaying, diplomacy, obstaculizing, postponing, procrastinating and avoidance. Putin is aware that Peak Oil is around the corner and is mostly focused on holding Russia together through what’s coming.
    The South Stream pipeline would be a terrible blow for Russia’s enemies, particularly the Kiev neonazi regime. This pipeline’s main beneficiaries would be Russians and Europeans. If Europe pushes Russia any further, they will regret it, IMO.
    I believe Russia has the upper hand and will lose less in this conflict than all the other parties involved. The world has a higher need of Russia’s oil and gas exports than Russia has a use for our money. This fact becomes more relevant with every passing day in a post PO world.

  6. penury on Tue, 21st Oct 2014 1:30 pm 

    If you really want to know which entities are more afraid of Sund pipeline look at who has passed restrictions, (Hint: they are all NATO) remember if you own a poodle they will do tricks for you (even if it is to their dis-advantage). If we do not control it, you cannot produce it without permission.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *