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

Anonymous 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

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more