Yuri Kramar, Kiev. Exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza
As the major political crisis began in Ukraine, the geopolitical competition between Russia and the West stiffened. However, despite addresses of the self-declared Ukrainian authorities to their “supervisors” in Europe and the USA to help them, the West made it clear that NATO wouldn’t fight Russia for Ukraine. Instead of this Washington and Brussels threaten Moscow with economic sanctions. One of the most important directions is the weakening of Russia as one of the major gas exporters to Europe.
The Russian share in European gas supplies is not very big – about one third of all gas consumed by Europe; but it is about 150 billion cubic meters, and it should be replaced or certain industries and public services should be modernized. The point is in prices.
According to the data by Bernstein Research initiated by The Financial Times, such modernization will cost $215 billion investments along with annual “installments” of $37 billion; all in all $400 billion will be spent in first five years. Of course, a similar sum was equal to the Greek debt waived by the Europeans. However, Ukrainian requests to give it at least 35 billion euros are considered only in the form of a loan.
Thus, hopes for the EU citizens would agree to spend so much money are tiny, especially ahead of the elections in the European parliament in May. Western experts predict that “European skeptics” who stand against extension of the EU and expenditures for support of foreign “friends,” like Ukraine, could win the elections.
A more realistic option of replacing Russian gas is shale gas import from the USA. Washington speaks about this all the time. However, gas liquation plants are needed for full-scale export of American shale gas, while only one of five necessary plants is planned to begin its operation in 2015. All five plants could be launched only in 2018-2020. Moreover, they need a special tanker fleet, construction of terminals in Europe, and it will cost at least $50 billion.
It is not a very big sum for the USA, but it doesn’t guarantee energy independence of Europe. There would be replace of Russia by the USA. Washington is a partner of Europe which often has interests that contradict interests of the EU. Furthermore, the initial cost of shale gas is double of Siberian gas’s cost.
That’s why talks about replacement of Russian gas export to Europe are only talks. However, it doesn’t prevent European bureaucrats from disturbing Russia in other issues, for example, creating obstacles to construction of the South Stream Pipeline on the Black Sea bottom. At the same time, the biggest thing Brussels can do is to warn Bulgaria to be careful, as it has agreed to construct the pipe on its territory.
The project is not aimed at diversification of gas import in Europe, as the South Stream is a Russian gas export route by-passing unreliable Ukraine. If the project fails, Gazprom will continue to export its gas to Europe through old routes – Ukraine and the Baltic Sea.
To be continued
