Why are Americans
making Balkan knot on the
South
Stream
pipeline project?
The
majority of citizens in our country treated
with
interest
the
news
about joining South Stream construction pipeline. In the mid-April
Wirtschaftsminister
Dr. Reinhold Mitterlehner
welcomed
signing of
the
Basic Agreement
on
cooperation between the Austrian
energy group OMV and the
Russian energy company Gazprom in
South
Stream pipeline project.
Decision
of our esteemed politicians and businessmen to join South
Stream pipeline project was taken after a long delay – other
countries where
the pipeline route passes already supported this project several
years ago. Now we can consider differently as future
consumers
the prospective of connecting to a new powerful source of
ecologically clean fuel – natural gas from Siberia.
Construction
of Trans-European pipeline South Stream can bring
certain economic benefits
to European countries – project participants. It is disappointing
and annoying that the pipeline becomes a
confrontation
line
shortly
named by coincidence
as
a known sea
distress
signal
"SoS".
In
this contents “SoS” means Security of Supplies according the
terminology applied in documents and materials in energy market and
as it turns out the
massively
promoted
necessity
of strengthening “SoS”
can
be
used
as a
masked
form of
competition
in energy
market.
You
can consider
yourself
the aims of the attempts for tightening
the knot
on
South Stream
pipeline
at
the Bulgarian section of
the
pipeline
which
is the first part of it's route
to
Europe.
Prime
Minister of Bulgaria Plamen Oresharski announced
after his meeting
with
U.S. congressmen on the 8th
June that he
had ordered to suspend work on
South
Stream pipeline . It would seem
that
for us,
the
Austrians there is nothing notable in the
news. But if you look
closer
at
the background
and
future
prospects
of development
of
the gas market
in
Austria
it
becomes obvious
that
the discussion revolved around
South
Stream pipeline makes practical and very important sense to us as
well.
Our
country
with 9
million people
annually
consumes
about
9
billion
cubic meters of
gas
including
47
percent
of
gas supplies come from Russia,
38 percent – from Norway. The rest 15 percent are produced in
Austria. Thus
Russia
is
our
essential
backbone
supplier.
We
import Russian gas by means of transit through the Ukrainian gas
transmission system (GTS) consisting out of pipelines built in the
Soviet era. There are two disadvantages in this supply route.
Firstly, it is transit risks. All of us remember the
Russian-Ukrainian gas crisis in the winter 2009, whtn
we
were not able to get almost 90% of the planned volume of gas through
the Ukrainian GTS.
Another
disadvantage refers
to
technical features of the Ukrainian GTS.
Indeed,
from
the beginning it's
construction
this
gas pipeline system
in
the Soviet Union, it
was
built as a cross-border export pipeline connection
directed from east to west through Ukraine by two routes for gas
supplies to Europe. After
the collapse of the Soviet Union this
gas transmission legacy received by Ukraine had been extensively used
to meet Ukrainian domestic needs providing energy for local gas
consumers. It resulted in a significant decrease in the technological
capacity of the Ukrainian GTS which is necessary for the export.
A diagram of the
Ukrainian GTS below shows how it was constructed in the Soviet times
and how it is being represented to everybody now.
And here is how the
Ukrainian GTS actually looks nowadays.
In
real situation it is impossible to ignore this difference since now
first of all it works as an extensive industrial network covering
the Ukrainian territory.
Properly
speaking the Ukrainian GTS carries out now two independent missions
at
the same time:
provision of gas supplies to domestic consumers and implementation of
export transit. The question is what task has got the highest
priority? Observation of recent history reviles that such burdening
of export pipeline network with internal gas consumers often leads to
implementation of export
commitments on the basis “whatever
remaining stocks” when a
gas volume for export comes to what left in gas storages after
satisfying the domestic needs and not otherwise. Hence
the conclusion
is
obvious even to
outsiders:
it is impossible to impose on the same system two important
independent tasks. Otherwise problems precisely of technological
nature arise and there were sometimes attempts of tying them up with
other issues including whose that are faraway from the gas industry.
As
a result,
it is clear that
the
dual
purpose
of
the Ukrainian GTS
objectively
creates
a risk
of
ensuring
transit.
Indeed, even a nonexpert can make a conclusion that it is impossible
to maintain a proper management of such a system.
As to
an example of GTS specially built for export with transit risk-less
character you can see below the picture of the pipeline
"Yamal-Europe" laid on the territory of Belarus.
According
to available information all connections on this pipeline in Belarus
are
tightly
controlled, and a dual application as it
is mentioned
above are
excluded.
Other more obvious
examples of such technical solutions correspond to North Stream and
Blue Stream export pipelines.
Now, if we consider the
scheme of South Stream gas pipeline it would seem that it possesses
the advantages of the above export pipelines.
Nevertheless, we have
witnessed a campaign aimed at countering the South Stream project.
Let's
understand why this is happening. Only month ago, everybody thought
that claims to the project associated with the directives and
requirements ascertained by the decisions of the European Commission.
And I also sincerely had held this viewpoint up to the moment when
the news emerged regarding a direct interference of the U.S.
representatives into internal affairs of a member country of the
European Union. That
refers
to
Bulgaria!
Visit
to Bulgaria by a group of US Senators led by Mr. John McCain and an
official statement of US ambassador to Bulgaria Mrs. Marcie Ries
shift the discussion about the South Stream project to the level of
strident political rhetoric. What is the reason for that? There is a
generally accepted answer that it is just supplementing political
confrontation and it is another attempt to find a lever forcing the
political situation in Ukraine. It would be possible agreeing with
that explanation, if do not take into account recent developments in
business life of Ukraine. In mid-May in a remarkable manner the
younger son of US Vice President Joseph Biden has taken the position
of member of the board of directors and legal adviser to Burisma
Holdings Ltd., the largest private natural gas production company in
Ukraine. Far more former president of Poland Mr. Aleksander
Kwasniewski is also a member of the supervisory board of this
Ukrainian company. So there is no surprise that encouraging business
interests of political counterparts Prime
Minister of Ukraine Arseniy Yatsenyuk announced on the 19th
June that Ukraine intends to set up a company to manage the pipeline
when Ukraine would own 51 percent of the venture, but is ready to
invite Western companies as shareholders for the remaining 49
percent.
Now
it is clear why the U.S. is against South Stream and tries by all
means to stop this project. It's just business interests of highest
politicians of the country and their multinational companies. And
they are not ashamed of demonstrating their interests.
Thus
democracy "supporters" put at an energy risk on a whole
region and different countries opposing not only to their economic
development but in general affecting future welfare of South and
Eastern Europe.
Why
should South and Eastern Europe accept this policy?
No comments:
Post a Comment