Skip to main content

Russia and Natural Gas Imperialism

By Eric McErlain
More details on the "pay up or freeze" natural gas deal between Russia and Ukraine are beginning to leak out. Here's Jackson Diehl at the Washington Post:
Ukraine's president, Viktor Yushchenko, and Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov had agreed to purchase Ukraine's gas through a Swiss trading company whose owners and beneficiaries are publicly unknown -- but are rumored to include senior officials and organized crime figures in both Russia and Ukraine. They granted this same shadowy company a 50 percent share in the business of delivering gas to Ukrainian consumers. They accepted a price deal on gas delivered to Ukraine lasting only a few months but guaranteed that rock-bottom rates charged by Ukraine for the storage and transit of Russian gas to the West would be frozen for 25 years.

What does this have to do with democracy in Europe? In effect, some U.S. experts concluded, the Ukrainians may have sold to Putin that which he was prevented from stealing: a Kremlin stranglehold on Ukraine's government. The Russian leader poured money and men into his huge neighbor in late 2004 in a blatant bid to install a pro-Moscow strongman as president and make Ukraine's political system a mirror of the new authoritarian Russian order. His overreach triggered the Orange Revolution and the subsequent democratic election of Yushchenko, whose goals include leading Ukraine to membership in NATO and the European Union.
Harm De Bilj thinks he has an answer.

For more, visit The Washington Realist and The Oil Rules.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, Mr. Putin is visiting a former Soviet satellite, Hungary. From RIA-Novosti:

Hungary is the leading consumer of Russian natural gas in central and eastern Europe. Since 1975, when the supplies began, the country has received about 164 billion cubic meters of Russian gas totaling roughly 80% of Hungarian gas imports.

Under a contract with Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom, Hungary will be provided with up to 10 billion cu m of gas every year until 2015.

Hungary is also the transit country for Russian gas designated for Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro, with the transit close on 2.4 billion cu m in 2005.

Russia is the leading oil importer for Hungary. LUKoil, Russia's no.1 independent crude producer, delivered about 6.4 million metric tons of oil (128,500 bbl/d) in 2005. The company also owns a chain of gasoline stations in the country.

I wonder how the Hungarian government, now a part of NATO, is feeling today? And do you think it's any accident that the three Baltic states, all three of which were bypassed by the proposed Russia-Germany natural gas pipeline, announced yesterday that they would jointly build a nuclear power plant? More from RWDB.

But despite all this news, there are still some folks who would rather be at the mercy of the Russian natural gas supply.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Mr Wit said…
It's not a straight choice between Nuclear power and dependancy on Russian gas supplies in Scotland. And to pretend it is, is a bit cheeky to say the least. By moving to a decentralised energy generation system, Greenpeace have shown that we can save the equivalent of the output of three nuclear power stations in the UK, as generating power at close to the point where it used is vastly more efficient than transporting it huge distances from large power stations. By aiming for a target of 30% of energy from larger scale renewables, research has shown that this will reduce UK energy bills. I don't doubt that we'll need extra non- renewable capacity too in the medium term. This could be natural gas, or it could be clean coal technology, or a mixture of both. Scotland has an abundance of fossil fuel energy resources inlcuding coal and North Sea supplies (even if the latter are in decline now). It also has the best renewable resource in Europe. It is therefore incorrect to compare the situation in Scotland with Central and Eastern Europe.

Given all this. Why would we in Scotland want to consider Nuclear?

1 - Nuclear is more expensive than almost any other form of generation.
2 - Nuclear is not carbon neutral. It will become less so as more of the high grade Uranium ores are used up, and more energy is required to mine and process the lower grade ores.
3 - There is no accepted solution in the UK for where we will store our Nuclear waste.
4 - Judging by the composition of the scottish parliament - The majority of the people in Scotland do not want new Nuclear power.

This discussion is set out at www.leithalwit.squarespace.com
March 2, 2006 at 6:37 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

By
The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …
1 comment
Read more

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

By
If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

By
With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …
Post a Comment
Read more