Discussion
OK usual apology, sorry if topic is already covered....
For these who do not know, Gulf Stream 2 is a pipe line from Russia to Germany to carry gas to Europe, it will make Russia a lot richer, potentially it be able to control the energy supply to Europe and while it is a pipeline to supply Europe it is not a EU project but a Russian/German one.
Donald Trump blocked the build of the line but Comrade Biden has now allowed it to carry on saying that he wanted to repair relationships between Europe and the USA. There are reports however he took money from the companies building the pipeline for hs presidential race funds
For these who do not know, Gulf Stream 2 is a pipe line from Russia to Germany to carry gas to Europe, it will make Russia a lot richer, potentially it be able to control the energy supply to Europe and while it is a pipeline to supply Europe it is not a EU project but a Russian/German one.
Donald Trump blocked the build of the line but Comrade Biden has now allowed it to carry on saying that he wanted to repair relationships between Europe and the USA. There are reports however he took money from the companies building the pipeline for hs presidential race funds
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Bearing in mind how EU countries think it is ok to threaten smaller countries with turning off the taps as a way to bring them to heel (Jersey and Switzerland) It does seem a little strange to put themselves under the perceived influence of a bigger country in this way. If the only alternative is seeing the lights go off however you wonder what choice they have. gruffalo said:
Yes allowed was the wrong word but the question remains should Europe be dependent on Russia for energy supplies?
The Middle East supplied Europe for many years surely there has to be an alternative source.
The Middle East has never been a big gas supplier to Europe, and they've never been a big gas supplier full stop until recently. Europe's gas always came from either Russia or the North Sea shelf until the last few years when LNG has taken off and it's been easier and worthwhile to transport gas around the world on ships. The Middle East supplied Europe for many years surely there has to be an alternative source.
The reason Trump tried to block it was to deprive Europe of Russian gas because the cheapest and easiest alternative was American LNG from the Gulf of Mexico. It was as much (if not more) about protectionism for US energy suppliers as it was depriving Russia of income, and Germany/NS2 simply became a pawn in the middle. The sanctions weren't really working anyway, and construction of NS2 continued, albeit at a slower pace.
Russia has a right to extract their own gas, and it is Europe's cheapest supplier. It didn't do US/German relations much good either, and did always seem a huge over-reach of US policy to interfere in a commercial project between 2 countries - one a major US ally - based a long way from the US in an attempt to support their own companies. The world cannot just bow down to whatever the US wants, and the US cannot simply enforce it's will on other countries across the globe irrespective of their own plans.
Getragdogleg said:
Looking at this very simply, is the supply of gas and it's inconvenient political connotations from Russia one of the reasons why the UK government are trying to get the UK public to move away from gas boilers?
No. There are other suppliers (US/Qatar/Australia etc) but home heating is responsible for about 20% of the UK's CO2 emissions, and there is no easy way to get to their Paris agreement targets without doing something about it. Russia has plenty of gas.
It needs the ForEx.
The investment in NS2 is large.They need a return in their investment.
The UK (as mentioned above) has been getting it's gas from the UK Continental Shelf - which is declining.
Alternatives are Norwegian supplies - but they can easily go to continential Europe if the price is higher.
LNG comes from all over the world, and can also go to most places in the world.
NS2 can send a large volume of gas to Europe and UK - we should be thankful as we need it in the UK and the UKCS is massively depleted...
As for Trump - pure pretectionism for US LNG ...
It needs the ForEx.
The investment in NS2 is large.They need a return in their investment.
The UK (as mentioned above) has been getting it's gas from the UK Continental Shelf - which is declining.
Alternatives are Norwegian supplies - but they can easily go to continential Europe if the price is higher.
LNG comes from all over the world, and can also go to most places in the world.
NS2 can send a large volume of gas to Europe and UK - we should be thankful as we need it in the UK and the UKCS is massively depleted...
As for Trump - pure pretectionism for US LNG ...
The other thing Trump didn't like about NS2 is it avoids Ukraine. At the moment Ukraine charges a fee for the transit of gas across their country, and even if NS2 doesn't mean a huge additional volume of gas from Russia - which it might not - then it does mean that the gas will be routed via NS2 as a cheaper alternative to the current arrangement, and the Ukrainian government obviously get less income, income which is then used to buy arms to fight Russia.
Condi said:
The other thing Trump didn't like about NS2 is it avoids Ukraine. At the moment Ukraine charges a fee for the transit of gas across their country, and even if NS2 doesn't mean a huge additional volume of gas from Russia - which it might not - then it does mean that the gas will be routed via NS2 as a cheaper alternative to the current arrangement, and the Ukrainian government obviously get less income, income which is then used to buy arms to fight Russia.
It's almost like stopping the pipeline was punishment for Ukraine not Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff