bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Dec 28, 2006 5:34:58 GMT -7
Poland prepared for Russia’s possible cuttoff of gas supplies to Belarus 27.12.2006 (Radio Polonia)
Poland is prepared for the possibility of Russia’s cuttoff of gas supplies to Belarus which may reduce flows to Europe in the first days of January – confirmed Poland’s deputy foreign minister Pawel Kowal.
He said that in response to the news that the latest round of talks between Russia’s Gazprom and Belarus on 2007 gas prices had ended without agreement. Speaking on Polish Radio Kowal said that Poland is ready for any scenario since it imports gas not only through Belarus but also Ukraine.
Moreover, the country has extra gas supplies stored while gas exploration on its territory covers one-third of the demand. Minister Kowal stressed, however, that if such a situation continues it could become problematic.
He reiterated that the issue of Poland’s energy security is of key importance and that it requires discussion about new procedures on raw materials as part of the European Union – Russia relations.
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Dec 28, 2006 5:41:54 GMT -7
Gazprom Risks Reputation With Belarus Gas Threat (Update1)
By Lucian Kim and Katya Andrusz
Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) -- OAO Gazprom's threat to cut off natural-gas deliveries to Belarus because of a price dispute risks intensifying European Union distrust of Russia over secure energy supplies.
Poland, which depends on Gazprom pipelines for 64 percent of its gas deliveries, is bringing the possibility of a New Year's Day shutoff to the top of the EU foreign policy agenda. Germany, Gazprom's biggest customer, takes over the EU presidency on Jan. 1.
``This problem is a threat to us,'' Poland's Deputy Foreign Minister Pawel Kowal said in a radio interview on Warsaw's Station 1 today. ``We want to convince everyone that it's also a key issue for Europe.''
Poland, like other EU members Germany and Italy, experienced a drop in gas volumes in January after Gazprom cut off supplies to Ukraine in a similar price dispute. While Belarus ships only a quarter of Ukraine's volumes, a repeat scenario would add to EU fears that President Vladimir Putin is using Gazprom to muscle into Europe's gas-distribution and transportation networks.
Gazprom is demanding that Belarus surrender half of Beltransgaz, the country's pipeline operator, in return for preferential pricing through 2011. Belarus walked away from talks and suggested today that it may tap into transit shipments bound for Europe if there's a cutoff.
`Room for Agreement'
``As long as Russia doesn't have Beltransgaz in its hands, Belarus can blackmail it,'' said Adam Eberhardt, a Belarus specialist at the Polish Institute of International Affairs in Warsaw. ``Russia would like to avoid an open conflict because it doesn't want any problems with European Union countries.''
The EU has so far kept out of the escalating war of words between Belarus and Gazprom.
``There is still room for agreement between Belarus and Russia,'' European Commission spokesman Amadeu Altafaj said today. ``We are not yet in a crisis situation.''
E.ON Ruhrgas AG, Germany's largest gas provider, doesn't expect shortfalls because its storage tanks are full and most of its gas from Russia comes via Ukraine, spokesman Helmut Roloff said.
Poland has enough gas reserves to continue normal supplies for about 44 days as long as the weather remains mild, Polish broadcaster TVN24 reported today.
Gazprom told the country's gas monopoly, Polskie Gornictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo SA, that supplies may be disrupted beginning Jan. 1 should Beltransgaz takes transit gas for use in Belarus, the Polish company said in a statement on its Web site.
The fallout from a shutoff is more likely to be measured in reputation than in gas volumes, Deutsche UFG said in a note to clients today.
``The damage caused to Gazprom's status as a reliable gas supplier may theoretically be greater than last time round,'' Deutsche UFG said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Lucian Kim in Moscow at lkim3@bloomberg.net ; Katya Andrusz in Warsaw at kandrusz@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: December 27, 2006 16:23 EST
|
|
Pawian
European
Have you seen my frog?
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by Pawian on Dec 28, 2006 6:27:27 GMT -7
A few loose remarks.
Russia and Germany can build the pipe because there is freedom of business and enterprise. As long as they don`t encroach on the Baltic states` sea territory, they can do what they want.
Germany made its own decision which wasn`t consulted with Poland. But what else did you expect? Germans and the West in general don`t share Polish phobias and fears about Russia. They have the money and they are willing to buy Russian recources, while Russians want to sell them. And the deal is done. How simple.
Poland is afraid of its energy security, OK, it is quite understandable. But instead of objecting to Russian-German deal, comparing it stupidly to Ribbentrop Molotov pact, and instead of doing nothing just talking, the government should take steps to secure energy stability of the country. Build a gas port, start thinking od building nuclear stations in the future, send explorers to look for more gas in Poland etc. Russian gas supplies will finish off in 50 years, and what`s next? There is still some time to think about new energy sources.
Poland can`t expect any solidarity from the West over the matter which is slowly becoming a crucial problem for many countries - how to sustain and develop economies with shrinking oil and gas. Polish protests are and will be ignored. The economic stability of the West is more important. We must face reality and somehow adapt to it.
Recent discussions about cutting off gas supplies to Belarus will be used as a new form of pressure on Western governments to promote the Baltic gas pipe. Belarus case will be presented as an example of possible threat for the gas supplies to the West.
Poland, thanks to our government`s harmful foreign politics, is lonely and disregarded in Europe. One cannot win respect from others by blocking and protesting, and that`s what the militant Kaczynski brothers are only able to do. They are trying to create as many enemies as possible, not only in the country but also abroad. Finding an enemy and dealing with him is what they like best. They have the nature of fighters, they cannot live without fight. Hence, they are making a mess all over the place, looking for and getting rid of potential opponents. However, the result is deplorable - Poland is getting more and more isolated and misunderstood.
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Dec 28, 2006 9:00:41 GMT -7
Pawian, I agree with you in some of the points. However I'd like to remind that is was postcommunist (SLD) gov. that cancelled the deal with Norway on gas supply to Poland. I dont think either that Kaczynski brothers can be blamed for Gazprom offensive. I am much more pro-EU than Kaczynskis but lets be fair, they are not anti-EU and they are not guilty for everything we dont like in contemporary history of Poland. Besides, I don't know what do you mean by Poland 'being disregarded'. Do you mean that she is not praised by Germany or France? I am sure Polish government would be praised very much would it approve every move of Berlin and Paris. The two states that are and were historiclly relatively safe at least from the east due to physical presence of Poland...
Here's soemthing interesting to read for you and all interested about European concerns, and not just those Polish, with Gazprom-Kremlin offensive.
Gazprom poses challenge to EU nations
By By Stefan Wagstyl and Isabel Gorst
Updated: 12:11 a.m. ET Dec. 21, 2006 From Portugal in the west to Ukraine in the east Gazprom is expanding its presence in the European market.
For the European Union, this rapid development represents both an opportunity and an economic and political challenge. While Gazprom insists its motives are purely commercial, its critics say the state-controlled gas group often acts as a political instrument of the Kremlin.
In the latest move, Gazprom this week struck a deal with Gaz de France securing direct presence in the French market and access to industrial customers.
A Financial Times study reveals Gazprom has this year struck deals or engaged in serious talks on improving its access to local markets or on investing in local assets in more than a dozen European countries.
They include deals in Ukraine, Italy, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Spain, Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary and France. The countries in which deals are under negotiation include Belgium, the Netherlands, and Portugal.
In return for long-term supplies, Gazprom has generally sought direct access to customers – and with it the potential to build local marketing businesses. As Alexei Miller, Gazprom chief executive, said of the Gaz de France deal: "It's a shining example of a successful implementation of Gazprom's strategy to get access to end-consumers in Europe and increase the efficiency of Russia's natural gas exports."
From Gazprom's commercial viewpoint, the logic is clear – invest downstream and enhance revenues, just as western energy groups have done for decades. The focus on the EU is natural as the European bloc is by far Gazprom's largest customer, accounting for 65 per cent of revenues. Gazprom has 25 per cent of the EU gas market and is aiming for 33 per cent by 2010. In the past, it lacked the cash to invest much downstream, but with energy prices now high, Gazprom can increase its international presence.
As well as improving long-term contractual arrangements, Gazprom is making downstream investments. Its top targets are transit pipelines, especially those crossing Ukraine and Belarus and the proposed €5bn ($6.6bn, £3.4bn) Baltic Sea route, to be built jointly with German and other EU energy groups. Other plans include pipelines across the Balkans and Turkey and an investment in a newly opened British-Dutch link.
Gazprom is also investing in distribution, as in the UK, where its purchase this summer of Pennine Natural Gas, a small marketing company, could presage a tilt at a bigger target, Centrica, owner of British Gas. In Germany, it is increasing its stake in Wingas, a distribution joint venture with BASF, and in Ukraine it has, through RoskrEnergo, acquired interests in domestic distribution to industry.
Gazprom insists its plans are coherent. But Jonathan Stern, head of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, wonders whether the investments fit together well. "If Gazprom ever had a strategy to buy a lot of downstream assets in Europe, they have not succeeded in fulfilling it," he says.
The company's critics also warn that Gazprom may be neglecting to invest enough in upstream gas development while it pours money downstream and into non-gas assets. Vladimir Milov, president of the Institute of Energy Policy, a Moscow think-tank, argues that Gazprom faces a supply shortage as soon as 2010, as production fails to grow enough to meet increasing consumption, including in Russia.
For Polish politicians, perhaps Gazprom's strongest critics, this alleged lack of commercial logic shows the company's motives are political as well as economic. They single out the Baltic pipeline for attack, calling it a deliberate attempt to circumvent Poland and other east European transit states. Radoslaw Sikorski, the defence minister, has even compared the plan with the 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up eastern Europe.
Poland's EU partners may not share these fears but they have serious concerns of their own. First, western companies are seriously concerned that while Gazprom is expanding in the EU, albeit from a low base, they are finding increasing difficulties investing in Russia, except as minority partners. The decision this month by Shell, the Anglo-Dutch group, to give way to Kremlin pressure and surrender control of its $20bn Sakhalin-2 gas project to Gazprom highlighted the realities of doing business in Russia.
The EU is particularly worried that Gazprom is exploiting its export pipeline monopoly and has repeatedly demanded access for independent producers. Russia refuses to implement the European Energy Charter, an agreement that would oblige it to liberalise.
At the recent EU-Russia summit, Vladimir Putin, Russian president, refused to budge. "Questions about the reorganisation of our company fall exclusively within the competence of the Russian Federation. Nobody can decide this for us but we will act in close co-operation with our partners," he said.
Next, Brussels is concerned about the impact of long-term contracts and close producer-distributor ties on competition. The EU will next month publish proposals for liberalising energy markets. It could decide to prevent gas producers from owning transmission networks, which might, for example, oblige Gazprom to dispose of its share in a 2,500km German pipeline network owned by Wingas, its joint venture with BASF.
However, such moves would almost certainly run into powerful opposition from those EU energy groups with big national market shares, including Gaz de France, BASF and EON, which are also the groups forging long-term ties with Gazprom.
The union has so far failed to develop a common approach to energy or to Gazprom. Eastern European states, which are more dependent on Russian gas, are generally more wary of Russia for political reasons. However, given their lack of alternatives, they have also mostly chosen (or been forced to) co-operate closely with Gazprom and allow the Russian group to invest in domestic assets. This is as true in Hungary, which has good political relations with Moscow, as in the Baltic states, where relations with Russia are often fraught.
West European EU members have recently become more aware of the political dangers of engaging with Russia – especially with the killing of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko. But these concerns have had little effect on energy policy. Quite the opposite: Germany, France and Italy have cemented their links with Gazprom this year, with improved supply deals.
In France, Gaz de France has agreed to buy gas via the Baltic pipeline and has given Gazprom local distribution capacity to serve up to 3 per cent of the market by 2010. In return it gets security of supply for 30 years. Jean François Cirelli, Gaz de France's chief executive, did not hide his satisfaction on announcing the deal: "December 19th is a very important date for us."
France's involvement in the Baltic pipeline provoked a very different reaction in Poland, where the project is seen as a stab in the back. Maciej Lopinski, an adviser to President Lech Kaczynski, yesterday told the FT: "Western Europe needs gas. But there's a question whether it has to be supplied by this pipeline. We don't think so. The French decided otherwise."
Robert Fico, Slovakia's prime minister, is more philosophical. In an FT interview this month, he said: "Countries of the EU are dependent on the Russian market in completely different ways. To have the same opinion on how to deal with Russia is very complicated. That's why I am quite pessimistic that the approach of one by one will prevail."
In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel came to power talking of a more robust approach to Moscow. German business, strongly pro-Russian, has persuaded her to soften her attitude. However, the government has been hostile to Gazprom's attempts to invest in distribution in Germany and German companies mostly oppose Russian companies acquiring even blocking minority stakes.
Gazprom is aware of these sentiments and of EU and German moves to challenge the market dominance of powerful local utilities.
Last month, Hans-Joachim Gornig, head of Gazprom Germania, said: "The environment minister is even talking of stripping companies of their electricity and gas networks. This is expropriation in the best Marxist tradition . . . As long as the government is not clear about what it wants, [investments in Germany] will remain off our agenda."
Further west and south, dependence on Gazprom declines and so does political and economic concern. There are few worries in Spain, Italy or Greece, where local energy groups plan to boost co-operation with the Russian group.
But the closer a country is to Russia's borders, the more vulnerable people feel. This is true even in Turkey, which unlike eastern Europe never fell under the Soviet yoke. Necdet Pamir, an energy specialist at the Centre for Eurasian Strategic Studies in Ankara, says: "Europe is getting more and more dependent on Russia and such dependence will inevitably have a geopolitical consequence."
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Dec 28, 2006 10:24:21 GMT -7
bujno
The presentation that of {Gazprom Poses challenge to EU Nations} was an excellent feature of concerns. And rightly so as it may seem on the surface.
But, business is business. The Russians have the means of production, and with out side money, the means of distribution from the well head to the consumers. The means of production through contractual agreements is very solid. The management of Gazprom are very well knowledgeable of this fact. For a violation of contractual agreement of product deliveries, will carry in self, penalties placed against not the product, but, against collateral placed as guarantees of intent. In this case, it is collateral guaranteed by the Russian Government. Most of this collateral is owned by German banks as risk adjustment.
What ever politics that are placed as concerns, is to the beholder as to what is important.
The Russians are very well aware through experience of German manners of business for the long past Hansa is not wasted. But, as the article has brought forward, is valid, and that would be in the interest of those proifial countries close in to the boarders of Russia. For in the instance of gas {earth gas} pressure loss, it would be to the option of Gazprom to close down access valves in favour of maintaining down stream pressure.
Gazprom has been given little choice in that matter. For with re-payment to German banks of funding borrowed for development and construction cost, a cost penalty placed against their margins of profit, would in self constitute a disaster. The next step would entail subsidy payments from the Russian government until the short fall was made up.
What ever concerns as to the life span of the originating gas fields, will be up to the concerns of the Russian owners. Their requirement is to insure continuation of product supplies.
With the concerns of Chancellor Angela Merkel. She is East German and it is a surety that this fact is not lost with Vladamir Putin.
Charles
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Dec 28, 2006 11:18:40 GMT -7
Bescheid, I always thought of you as of a pesimist. How wrong I was, you are an optimist, that's who you are. That's very good, so am I usually, but not in this instance, sorry. The majority of assets is in Russian -Gazprom hands (51%). The banks will never be able to exert any influence with one single ‘niet’. Who will be in Kremlin in future when something goes not quite the right way, we don’t know. Not necesarily someone as nolens-volens fond of Germany as Putin. In history we have seen there men who’d rather starve their people than comply to the ways of Europe. Did the situation there change that much? What will you say once Germany (and half of Europe with them, including Poland) is overly dependent on Gazprom supplies and the valves get closed? If you now plan to respond that they can’t be closed for to long as the cash flow would stop and supplier would starve, don’t do it
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Dec 28, 2006 13:08:20 GMT -7
Bescheid, I always thought of you as of a pesimist. How wrong I was, you are an optimist, that's who you are. That's very good, so am I usually, but not in this instance, sorry. The majority of assets is in Russian -Gazprom hands (51%). The banks will never be able to exert any influence with one single ‘niet’. Who will be in Kremlin in future when something goes not quite the right way, we don’t know. Not necesarily someone as nolens-volens fond of Germany as Putin. In history we have seen there men who’d rather starve their people than comply to the ways of Europe. Did the situation there change that much? What will you say once Germany (and half of Europe with them, including Poland) is overly dependent on Gazprom supplies and the valves get closed? If you now plan to respond that they can’t be closed for to long as the cash flow would stop and supplier would starve, don’t do it bujno In the game of life and survival, a person must be an optimist, realist and {very lucky}. You must remember, I was a war time child and of a war time family. We lost. If not for shear good fortune, absolute blind luck, and situations that still are not mine to know. I would be dead with out even the smell to linger. I understand your situation though, and possibly the reasons of your concerns with the Russians, I understand. For you folks are under the shadow of a giant named {Russia}. I understand also that of positioning and trade {money}. You are mistaken with Russia and a future with out Putin. Russia is between no-where and the West. The Russians are dealing with a loaded situation of finance {lack of finance}. Because of past discretions in dealing with foregn investment firms in the west. And the dis-allowance of Russion investments in German owned interprises. They are stuck {Russians} with very little wiggle room. Remember the words of my self of the past Hansa? Well, that is not dead or out dated. It is as revelant today as it was so long in past. It is the work ehtic. For to work hard is simply not enough. The work must be smart, effective and productive, then we go home and rest. That is what it means with the name of {German work ethics}. The Russians know and understand this, for they are business people also. But, they know and understand, the only road open for them to the Western markets, they must go through Germany. For this will be their portfolio of accomplishments. As you have brought forward of Russian assets used as collatreal to German banks is not entirely true, for there is far more they have placed as risk that they do not want at any means to be lost real and disposable assests. Also that in their money market risk {presented risk credit rating}. The Russians need very badly, underwriting of risk management. They are with out out side funding with forengn banks. They need this very badly for investment and development in the energy fields of known technolgy and production contracts. For it is not just the European market they have played into, but, also that of the Asian market. In other words, the Russians have pay several whores for services to be rendered, and with out the means of producing results, they will stand accountable. A nation may only push so far, and then their is a breaking point. And this is what we do not want. For one default such as what is owed by the Russians, would have a ripple effect throught the economies of most of the Western and Eastern nations {European}. It is of a mosaic ripple effect, each sector that is disturned, has the tendency to be felt through out the mosaice. For Poland, my best advice {such as it is} is absolutly not team up with the foreign affairs of the USA. But, to look to the emmediate West {Germany} as a team leader. For as you have mentioned, what will the post Putin Russian be? Well, simular situation with the USA as a post Bush future? Then what of Poland? {please do forgive the observable spelling irriers, the d-----n spell check is not working} Charles
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Dec 29, 2006 5:19:38 GMT -7
Oh my, Beschied. You are so wondefully immersed in the past And so great an idealist to the position of banking against political will in the Eastern portions of the continent. I don’t know how to put it very delicately in English, but what I want to say is that it seems to me the reference to work ethics in concern to your childhood homeland is not the best advertisement anymore. Easy going, joyful, tolerant, sympathetic people – yes, that is what Germany seems to be nowadays. But not the most hard-working and certainly not working for the sake of work which comprised the outstanding German or Dutch or English, in fact any ‘protestant’, work ethics in the past. You might know Klaus Zimmermann, an outstanding Jewish professor of economy working as a president of German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin. Here are his words in extenso on the work ethics in Germany nowadays "We have created a leisure society, while the Americans have created a work society. Our model does not work anymore. We are in the process of rethinking it." The team leader proposition you offered is very interesting but I am not sure if it is extremely real if we take into account the situation inside EU, the main goal of this organization and the willingness of at least 5 greatest states besides Germany to appoint one team leader. Which are if I remember correctly Poland, Great Britain, France, Italy and Spain. Germany will have its chance in just two days to become a leader, however. You might have heard that the six-months Finnish leadership is conluding on 31 December and for the next 6 months the sceptre goes to Berlin. With German ecomomic and political potential that forms an excellent opportunity for EU to take a huge leap forward in the game of life and survival, you so nicely referred to. We’ll see what happens and we are all very much looking forward to the firm and realistic progress that includes the interests all of the 25(+2 new) EU states with Germany as the team-leader.
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Dec 29, 2006 9:23:29 GMT -7
bujno Yes, I must agree with you on my being an Idealist, perhaps maybe it is good, perhaps not so good. But it is a survival belief of idealism for the common good. As I would also very much suspect that also is you. For you do have intrinsic strong feelings of idealism for what you believe in and for the common good. For you are very well educated and work in the school system as a professor. Within this responsibility, would also entail that of public responsibility. For you are in the responsibility of that of a public servant in civil service. I think perhaps we are not that far apart even with our differences in out look and opinions. Klaus F. Zimmerman. You are very knowledgeable of some very knowledgeable and capable people. I believe he currently heads the department of Economics Policy Research {among other responsibilities} Just for convenience run up the below url. It is both in German and English. A very fine person. {may have to copy/paste} www.iza.org/index_html?mainframe=http%3A//www.iza.org/de/webcontent/personnel/webcontent/personnel/photos/index_html%3Fkey%3D2And yes, I also do agree with you as I am of the far past, but, not so far. Only my mother and I are left of the old family and it is as it should be. I think perhaps though, of the new presidency of EU 01 Januar 2007, may be a new day. Personally my self, I have reservations with Angela Merkel. She is immersed heavily in that of a peace maker, she is not a decisive person, but, seems to rely on time thinking between a decision. If she was fully appraised before hand with back ground study, her decisions should/would be more decisive {my opinion}. The new plan for the coming six months are very strongly worded. It just seems contrary to her normal methods of operation. www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/EU-P/Programm-EU-P-en.pdfBut then, I am a no-body and that is my preference to stay invisible. Charles
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Feb 8, 2007 8:11:16 GMT -7
No help from EIB for Baltic pipeline www.polskieradio.pl/zagranica/dokument.aspx?iid=4799408.02.2007 The European Investment Bank will not finance the construction of the Baltic Sea gas pipeline, informed head of the Bank Philippe Maystadt, saying that Central European states objected to the pipeline. Philippe Maystadt said that the bank would not put forward any funds towards the construction project as long as there was no unity. The pipeline is to link Russia and Germany. Central European states, including Poland, are concerned that after its construction Moscow would be able to stop delivering gas to them.
|
|
|
Post by pieter on Feb 8, 2007 14:02:37 GMT -7
Wojtek & Charles,
With great interest I read your economical and geopolitcal discussion and also the earlier remarks of Eric, and Wojteks reaction to that. It was educational, informative material you provided me. I can't participate in this discussion, because I lack knowledge in this field (macroeconomics & political implications of that), but I assure you that I read your posts as if I am reading my encyclopedia. I am your student in reading your contributions. And that is what I do when I have spare time, visite this site and read the contributions of fellow members.
Pieter
|
|
|
Post by bescheid on Feb 8, 2007 16:33:49 GMT -7
No help from EIB for Baltic pipeline www.polskieradio.pl/zagranica/dokument.aspx?iid=4799408.02.2007 The European Investment Bank will not finance the construction of the Baltic Sea gas pipeline, informed head of the Bank Philippe Maystadt, saying that Central European states objected to the pipeline. Philippe Maystadt said that the bank would not put forward any funds toward the construction project as long as there was no unity. The pipeline is to link Russia and Germany. Central European states, including Poland, are concerned that after its construction Moscow would be able to stop delivering gas to them. bujno Yes, you are correct with your information. And yes, the Honourable Mr. Philppe Maystadt is the EIB President and Chairman of Board of Directors {01 Januar 2000 reelected 2006 to the present. There is only a slight difference in wording from the Polisch source to German. And that is the use of { will not} to the German source as {will not likely} but very trivial. The situation though is this: The EIB is only a Co-financial partner. The back bone of the financing is composed of a small consortium of banking concerns lead by The Deutche Bank. What this means is the projekt is made more expensive but bring it to a close. If you understand the mechanics of banking. The other situation that may arise is a residual fall out of trust of Poland with future projects. It will be very interesting as to the path this pipe line project will evolve to. Charles
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Feb 9, 2007 14:14:59 GMT -7
Pieter, I am very glad that you like this thread. In fact I am glad to hear that someone reads that at besides Charles and me. I will prepare a short resume for you of the last proceedings
|
|
bujno
Cosmopolitan
Posts: 648
|
Post by bujno on Feb 9, 2007 14:28:42 GMT -7
Here we go! Gerhard Schroeder, Nord Stream's chairman and the former German Chancellor and Matthias Warnig, Nord Stream’s managing director and the former agent of Stasi, East German secret police, came to Brussels Wednesday in an attempt to play down fears over the group's planned new pipeline. Warnig said Wednesday that the Russian-German joint venture was seeking financing from the European Investment Bank. The pipeline will supply Europe, not just Germany, Schroeder said. Europe currently relies on imports for 50% of its natural gas supplies, a level that is expected to rise to 70% by 2015, he said. "Nord Stream is not a project that concerns only Russia and Germany," the former German Chancellor explained. "It is a project that will help European supply." Russia is the E.U.'s "best option" for secure gas supplies, Schroeder added. Warnig said he hoped the European Investment Bank would fund about 33% of the project. The project will cost roughly EUR12 billion, up from a previous estimate of EUR9 billion, Schroeder said. Several E.U. governments led by Poland hold a much more negative point of view about the project on both economic and ecological grounds. The on-land pipeline linking Russia and Germany would cost EUR 1,5 billion. The European Investment Bank Thursday said it was unlikely that it would help fund a planned new pipeline across the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. "We know there is clear opposition to this product," said Philippe Maystadt, the investment bank's president. "We need unanimity for this funding and as long as there is opposition from states, we will not be able to finance this project." There is concern among some in Brussels that the pipeline has weakened EU solidarity in energy negotiations with Moscow and undermined efforts to forge a common energy policy. The project, a joint venture led by Gazprom, the state-controlled Russian gas group, with Germany’s BASF and Eon, should be operational in 2010. operating pipelines in red; in brown: 'pó³nocny' is the undewater pipeline, 'amber' - the on-land pipeline planned earlier and abandoned www.rzeczpospolita.pl/gazeta/wydanie_070209/ekonomia/ekonomia_a_3.htmlwiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,53600,3904325.html news.morningstar.com/news/ViewNews.asp?article=/DJ/200702080557DOWJONESDJONLINE000451_univ.xml&Cat=ForMkts www.ft.com/cms/s/c57ef17e-b7ac-11db-bfb3-0000779e2340.html
|
|
|
Post by kaima on Feb 9, 2007 16:46:15 GMT -7
Pieter, I am very glad that you like this thread. In fact I am glad to hear that someone reads that at besides Charles and me. I will prepare a short resume for you of the last proceedings Bunjo, Take solice in the fact that you have 28 posts in response to your ortiginal, and some of us have looked at this often enough that it has been read 280 times. Now that is not a boring topic, by any means. Some of us simply don't have enough gas or hot air to contribute to this topic.... besides, we all prefer quality answers to read! Kai
|
|