2014 Ukrainian Maidan Revolt: News, Views, Photos & Videos

Status
Not open for further replies.

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Nothing much new.
More reports of fighting at Border Check Points and Putin welcomes the cease fire but only if leads to proper dialogue with the PRD/PRL leaders and not simply used as an ultimatum.

It sounds like going through the motions on both sides.
 

texx1

Junior Member
So much for perceived EU unity on the Ukrainian front, Austria has approved the South Stream gas pipeline project with Gazprom. The South Stream pipeline will bypass Ukraine entirely by transiting under through Black sea, Romania. When built, there is no more worry about Ukraine siphoning gas going to Europe.

1ffn76.png


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


VIENNA, June 24 (Reuters) - Austria gave its final approval to a controversial Russian gas pipeline project on Tuesday, defying EU officials and welcoming Russian President Vladimir Putin to the neutral country that has been a long-standing energy customer for Moscow.

The chief executives of Russia's Gazprom and Austria's OMV sealed the deal to build a branch of the South Stream gas pipeline to Austria, a staunch defender of the project in the face of opposition from the European Commission.

South Stream, which will cost an estimated $40 billion, is designed to carry Russian gas to the centre of Europe, a continent already dependent on Russia for a third of its gas needs, on a route that bypasses current transit country Ukraine.

The Commission says South Stream as it stands does not comply with EU competition law because it offers no access to third parties. South Stream also counters the EU's policy of diversifying supply sources to reduce dependence on Russia.

But OMV CEO Gerhard Roiss told a news conference after the signing: "Europe needs Russian gas. Europe will need more Russian gas in future because European gas production is falling ... I think the European Union understands this, too."

The project has pitted European industry against politicians in Brussels, and divided South Stream supporters - which stretch from Germany through the heavily Russia-dependent central and southeastern Europe - from other EU member states.

On a one-day working visit to Vienna that drew some criticism in the EU, Putin spoke of close business ties to Austria, the first western European country to sign, in 1968, long-term gas supply deals with Moscow.

He called Austria an "important and reliable" partner for Russia, which is Austria's third-biggest non-EU trading partner after the United States and Switzerland.

Austrian President Heinz Fischer also defended the South Stream project, saying: "No one can explain to me - and I can't explain to the Austrian people - why a pipeline that crosses EU and NATO countries can't go 50 km into Austria."

He said he opposed sanctions against Moscow, but also told Putin Moscow's annexation of Crimea violated international law.
The mood turned jovial when the head of Austria's chamber of commerce reminded Putin that part of Ukraine had belonged to Austria in 1914.

"What is that supposed to mean? What are you proposing?" Putin quipped, eliciting laughter from the business elite.

The EU has said it has no criticism of Austria's hosting Putin despite frosty ties with Moscow. He visited France for World War Two commemorations this month.

But some politicians have warned that Putin may try to exploit divisions between friendly EU states, such as neutral Austria with its traditionally good ties to Moscow, and those like Britain that want to take a harder line.

"Obviously ... Putin wants to split the European Union. That's nothing new. That's what the Russians always try to do when they are in a corner," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt told Austrian broadcaster ORF on Monday.


TALKS WITH BRUSSELS

Gazprom chief Alexei Miller said earlier he was in weekly if not daily contact with European Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger about winning approval for the South Stream project.

"We solve problems as they come up, and now the problem of construction of the pipeline is to be solved," Miller said.

The pipeline deal does not address the question of third-party access, which is required by EU law to prevent the owner of an energy source from monopolising its distribution channels. OMV's Roiss said the issue must be negotiated with Brussels.

Roiss said the Austrian part of the pipeline, which is planned to be built in 2016 and deliver its first gas supplies around the start of 2017, would comply fully with European law.


Gazprom and OMV said they would split the 200 million euro ($272 million) costs of building the 50-km (31- mile) Austrian stretch of South Stream, which in total will be 2,446 km long.

The route travels across Russia, under the Black Sea and then through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia to Austria. Another branch may be built to Italy.

Gazprom's partners for the offshore part of the project are Italy's ENI, Germany's Wintershall Holding and France's EDF.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
So much for perceived EU unity on the Ukrainian front, Austria has approved the South Stream gas pipeline project with Gazprom. The South Stream pipeline will bypass Ukraine entirely by transiting under through Black sea, Romania. When built, there is no more worry about Ukraine siphoning gas going to Europe.

1ffn76.png


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Holy gas pipe line Batman, according to that map Russia owns Europe (for now till something comes up).:p
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
How exactly an you read the twists and turns of the last few days, where all sides make overtures for Peace one minute, make aggressive noises the next, stand by the ceasefire and also routinely violate it.

Its enough to make your head spin.

Putin's revocation of the authority to intervene militarily in the Ukraine has definitely made tongues wag. Does it carry any real significance?
The first thing I note is that he was able to gain the authority very quickly, just as he was able to revoke it. Is there any doubt that he could get it back just as quickly if he wanted it?

Some commentators have made the point that this authority was only really intended to help secure the Crimea, and with that now safely in the bag, it was not really required for anything else.

We know that there are talks taking place between all sides, but there is no detail released and so no way of determining if they are genuine or simply a PR façade. I suppose they could be a façade that runs the danger of actually achieving a settlement!

Somehow however I still think that this is just a pantomime and that the slide to conflict is almost inevitable.

The two break away Republics of DPC/LPC have agreed the constitutional terms for the their merger into a single confederal State
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


This of course is the formal recreation of Novorossiya which is a "confederate Union of People's Republics".

Noted this from the Ria Novoisti article

According to the constitution, the UPR is open to the accession of other states

Is this the clue to what comes next?
Will Russia recognise; South Ossetia style, Novorossiya as an Independent State and send the RF Army to evict the Ukrainian Invaders? If so such action could easily encourage adjacent Pro Russian regions to declare themselves and join Novorossiya and likewise come under immediate RF military protection.

As this is not seen by Moscow as Ukrainian territory anymore, the need to intervene militarily in the Ukraine is no longer a requirement.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Holy gas pipe line Batman, according to that map Russia owns Europe (for now till something comes up).:p
This has been the point/issue the entire time.

The US has the gas reserves...the most in the world...to make a differnce. But it should have been acting on that years ago if it wanted to make a difference now. It would take several years to get it up to a point to alleviate the Russian influence...and everyone knows it.

So, Russia has a big trump card, and they all know it. How far that particular arm can be twisted...well, there are limits, and Putin is pretty adroit at recognizing them I believe.
 

texx1

Junior Member
This has been the point/issue the entire time.

The US has the gas reserves...the most in the world...to make a differnce. But it should have been acting on that years ago if it wanted to make a difference now. It would take several years to get it up to a point to alleviate the Russian influence...and everyone knows it.

So, Russia has a big trump card, and they all know it. How far that particular arm can be twisted...well, there are limits, and Putin is pretty adroit at recognizing them I believe.

US has vast gas reserves, but it still doesn't have enough gas, most importantly profitable gas and infrastructure to make any meaningful difference.

According to US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Russia supplied 30% of the EU members' 18.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2013 which is about 5.7 trillion cft per year or about 15 billion cft per day. In 2013, US produced about 27 billion cft of dry shale gas per day. So replacing Russian gas would mean US has to devote more than 50% of its own shale gas production to Europe which is very unlikely. Plus, US is still a net LNG importer in 2014 so there is no enough natural gas for US itself, never mind saving EU from Gazprom dependence.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(page 4 & 13)

Supply issue aside, exporting gas to EU means liquefying natural gas, a process that is energy intensive and expensive. 25% of the natural gas is lost during the conversion process. In other words, US exported gas would be at best only 25% more expensive than Russian gas without accounting for transporting, shipping, storage costs. No guarantee EU would simply pay.

From the demand side, since US can't import gas from Russia while telling EU not to, gas to EU translates into more expensive gas price for US consumers which could create internal political pressure as people start to ask whether it is worth to subsidize EU while main street pays the bill.

Regarding infrastructure, LNG plants and shipping terminals are expensive projects involving billions of dollars and long construction times. There is no guarantee that there won't a détente between US and Russia in next 10 or 20 years. If relationship improves, bans on Russian gas is lifted. Anybody that invested in NG infrastructure in US would be left holding the bag. Hence, no sane investors would back US based natural gas infrastructure unless US government pays for everything which is doubtful.

Therefore, US shale gas coming to the rescue of EU from bad Gazprom bears is nothing but a wet dream created by mainstream medias that do not conduct proper research.
 

Janiz

Senior Member
Holy gas pipe line Batman, according to that map Russia owns Europe (for now till something comes up).:p
Yes, they own Europe if you take two presumptions:

1) Russia is the sole country in the world that has got gas deposits (not true)
2) gas pipelines are the only means of transport for gas (not true)

Most of European countries have 'Plan B' to countermeasure the case of Russia cutting gas pipelines.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Yes, they own Europe if you take two presumptions:

1) Russia is the sole country in the world that has got gas deposits (not true)
2) gas pipelines are the only means of transport for gas (not true)

Most of European countries have 'Plan B' to countermeasure the case of Russia cutting gas pipelines.

Not a lot can be done, though. Europe's energy supplies are heavily dependent on Russia, and thus far 24% of EU natural gas comes from Russia. Sure, Russia might not be the only one with hydrocarbons under its boots but it has an overwhelmingly large quantity of natural gas reserves and also the optimal infrastructure to support the extraction of it. The entire EU produces less than 1/4 of what Russia pumps out per year, according to the IEA. To develop infrastructure to turn that gas reserve into usable energy is very time- and money-consuming and I'm willing to wager that European governments would find it a lot cheaper to suck up to Russia for some gas rather than trying to sludge it out on their own.

As per IEA reports, half of Russia's exports to the EU pass through Ukraine. Production of EU gas to supplant Russian imports is quite unrealistic, and by the same token, transportation of gas isn't easy either. They would have to reroute 80000000000 cubic centimeters of gas per year through either road transport or by sea. Tankers would have to traverse the Black Sea which happens to be, surprise surprise, the hub of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. But all this talk of gas transport is useless if Russia doesn't agree to export gas in the first place.

Germany's Merkel and a few other EU nations have already started to make side deals with Russia on gas. Until Canada feels that its infrastructure is ready to support the burgeoning demand and is willing to cut some deals with China, the EU is on a tight noose and Putin knows it.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Canada is missing out on a huge opportunity here, although I admit that it would be a long time before Canada could be an active and loyal supplier of natural gas to the EU and US in meaningful quantities.

The main problem is the hundreds of individual opposition groups that the Canadian government and gas suppliers face whenever the idea of an Alberta pipeline is brought up. All this environmental concern and opposition is seriously getting quite petulant and highly oblivious to the potential economic gains, jobs opened, and regional security. Someday Alberta's oil and gas will be extracted, no question, and they will be transported to international customers, regardless of whether these people protest or not.

There is also the problem of joint ventures with Chinese companies. It's hard to imagine that Canada would let a potential rival to develop the infrastructure for energy production and partially control what could become a history-changing resource for the country. Just imagine if Canada had all the rigs and pipelines in place today, free of foreign control, to readily export gas to EU.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top