Europe was going to have tight supplies of natural gas this winter no matter what happened but now they can blame Moscow for all their troubles.

I hope people start to realise just how bad the energy situation is and that those with resources are in the driver's seat and those who import are in serious trouble.

The energy wars are upon us.
.

Russia is simply saying that the Ukrainians will have to face the consequences of their freely chosen political moves away from Russia and towards 'the west'.

Namely a loss of their previous heavily discounted 'client state' status and one where they pay the same prices as the rest of the international markets.
The Ukraine can have all the gas they want but no longer at the hugely reduced rate (around one quarter of market prices apparently).

Why shouldn't the Russians do this?

Is anyone else finding the USA's stance on this (where for some reason they seem to be agreeing with the Ukrainians that the energy cost rises should be phased in over an undetermined period of time - coooo wouldn't you love to see that kind of 'treatment' here at home for the rest of us in our domestic markets, yeah right ) bizarre, to say the least?

There is no reason why this should affect Europe at all (Russia is saying they will even make up the gas it is alleged the Ukrainians have stolen)......but no doubt the absurdly volatile and hysterical energy markets will use this as yet another excuse to gouge customers even more.

Norway is already producing gas at max, so they can´t deliver any more gas to Europe to help out against the shortages. Ukraine needs gas to survive, it´s very cold there now. Ukraine say they want to pay market price for the russian gas but russia wanted 5 times the price which Ukraine found unacceptable. Russia claims Ukraine is now stealing gas intended for Europe and that is probably the case as well. But Ukraine is desperate and they don´t have much choice I guess. What would you do if you were in their situation?

As a sidenote, Russia also recently banned all import of fish from Norway. The ban is still in effect. The reason for this is probably an ongoing "war of fishery rights" between Norway and Russia. An incident involving the russian fishing boat Elektron made them seek "revenge". The Norwegian fish is fine but the Russians claim it´s "not healthy". Only the Russians have come to this conclusion though. Others (like Singapore) have found the Norwegian fish to be in perfect condition.

Just wonder what's the gas price in other countries?

Thanks for the informative posts Pinkey. I would add but it seems you have this one well in hand! "Freedom" might have a higher price than they expected it seems. It is however strange that Russia waited so long and especially so considering that the Ukrain has reserves while Europe did not. Did the Russians intend this as a warning to Europe and not actually at the Ukrain?

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Did the Russians intend this as a warning to Europe and not actually at the Ukrain?

- Interesting angle.

But personally I doubt it though.

Firstly because the obvious differences between Russia and the Ukraine are real and have been simmering for some time and secondly because Europe is at a point where future energy strategies are being developed right now and this would be spectatcularly stupid and badly timed if the Russians were attempting to manipulate things to their advantage.

If Europe is to take any sort of 'warning' from this it is one that will move European policy in a direction which would not be to Russia's selfish advantage.

If you want a conspiracy angle on this how about one where we can say that Russia has just moved in a way that might start to shift European public opinion and that it is possibly to help promote a new round nuclear power stations all across Europe when previously there was absolutely no public appetite for such things?

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Firstly because the obvious differences between Russia and the Ukraine are real and have been simmering for some time and secondly because Europe is at a point where future energy strategies are being developed right now and this would be spectatcularly stupid and badly timed if the Russians were attempting to manipulate things to their advantage.

As far as i can tell Europe has real and growing energy problems and i do not think that shots accross the bow from Russia will be able to force the Europeans out of the dependence on Gas and oil anymore than all the problems in the ME so far has...

If Europe is to take any sort of 'warning' from this it is one that will move European policy in a direction which would not be to Russia's selfish advantage.

Ideally yes but wich government will risk the added cost of such transition? I think the Russians hid this one very well and made their point clear without the public probably realising anything other than just how important Russia still is.

If you want a conspiracy angle on this

I'm not bored and i dont spend time trying to come up with conspiracies....

how about one where we can say that Russia has just moved in a way that might start to shift European public opinion and that it is possibly to help promote a new round nuclear power stations all across Europe when previously there was absolutely no public appetite for such things?

Nuclear power is safer but rather more expensive if not backed by a comprehensive government policy like France implemented in the 70's. Nuclear fuels are not exactly easy to come by either so it just changes the form of energy manipulation imo.

Stellar

[edit on 8-1-2006 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
As far as i can tell Europe has real and growing energy problems

- Agreed, but then don't 'we' all?

i do not think that shots across the bow from Russia will be able to force the Europeans out of the dependence on Gas and oil anymore than all the problems in the ME so far has

- I hear what you are saying but that just seems to me to be tipping the argument back to the old idea that was current after the 70's oil crisis where the seller has all the power in the relationship.
They don't.
They need their buyers (and their buyers money) just as much as we need the product.

......and besides I am far from convinced this was anything like a 'shot across the bows' and certainly not one pointed at Europe.

but wich government will risk the added cost of such transition?

- But that is my point; several countries are, right now, formulating new policies.
In the UK we are likely to have an almighty row over commissioning some new nuclear reactors, I don't expect us to be alone in that.

I think the Russians hid this one very well and made their point clear without the public probably realising anything other than just how important Russia still is.

- I wouldn't be so sure; 'we' have already seen large gas lines laid down between Russia and the west and there is at least one more enormous one to follow next year (IIRC).......which avoids the Ukraine completely ( ).

Originally posted by Gools
Ukraine's parliament has voted in favour of sacking the government over its recent gas deal with Russia.

- Well someone has to carry the can and do a little huff and puff over them losing their cushy 'feather-bedding' deal, huh?

Move along now, nothing to see here...

- I'm not saying there is nothing at all going on.

But I think if your example of an 'energy war trigger' is one state freely chosing to move (politically) away from another and then crying their eyes out as they lose their spectacularly cheap gas deal - but only to move, gradually, from that towards the same price the other 'western customers' are paying - then I think that is making way too much of it.
Sorry but I do.



[edit on 12-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Agreed, but then don't 'we' all?

But Europe is more dependent on middile eastern oil than the US is so they have enough trouble's with those suppliers allready. Disruption from another major supplier will, as you say, obviously not help!

They don't.
They need their buyers (and their buyers money) just as much as we need the product.

And OPEC keeps saying that want the price of oil in the 30 dollar range so i am in full agreement with you. My point is basically that the major producers of oil has not been in control of the oil price for a long time. But i think we are mostly in agreement...

......and besides I am far from convinced this was anything like a 'shot across the bows' and certainly not one pointed at Europe.

Well that's why their called opinions. If i wanted to try convince you ( or imagined i could) i would be putting more on the table.

- But that is my point; several countries are, right now, formulating new policies.
In the UK we are likely to have an almighty row over commissioning some new nuclear reactors, I don't expect us to be alone in that.

The only thing that is apparently stronger than the oil lobbies are those that prevent refineries and new nuclear plants from being built. You can easily wait 3 or more years just for a "environmental impact study" by wich time all your funding has gone away anyways. The system is very much set up to prevent expansion of energy capacity and our governments are doing far more talking and "studying" than much anything practical.

- I wouldn't be so sure; 'we' have already seen large gas lines laid down between Russia and the west and there is at least one more enormous one to follow next year (IIRC).......which avoids the Ukraine completely ( ).

Well they have Europe in a great short term position where Europe has allready invested heavily in these schemes and simply can not abandon them now. These games with Ukraine might simply serve as pretense to raise gas prices exactly as has happened to oil prices. That's how i see it at least.

Anyways!

Stellar

Well so far I think the one element that looks 'iffy' is the damage to the supply lines (but it could have been anyone, there is no proof either way and it is still far from clear who was responsible for that).

Georgia IMO is in a similar boat to the Ukraine.

They have freely chosen to have less and less to do with Russia politically and are moving ever towards 'the west' (or what they imagine to be 'the west', along with a little outside encouragement, no doubt).

Then they get upset when Russia asks they move to a 'western price' for Russia's resources.

I cannot see why anyone thinks this is unusual; if you don't want to be in the 'Russian club' why would you expect any of the benefits that 'membership' once attracted?
If they were trying to charge twice what they charge Europe or something one might have a point but they are merely asking those countries that want to 'move away' from Russia to move to paying the same prices as Europe.

Also complicating this matter is the current unusual extremely cold snap Russia is experiencing.

This has led to Russia to look to Russia first and keep their supply priority up at home first.
But - contrary to what some seem to imagine - this is not the first time this happened and when the ultra cold spell was over supplies returned to normal.

Interesting how the focus of all of this has shifted from a terrible (deliberately? threatening?) Russian made 'European crisis' - a tale completely unsustainable in the light of the facts - to implying nasty old Russia is bullying those poor little countries (that have dared to 'stand up to them' or who 'want to be free' etc etc and all those other cliches), no?


[edit on 24-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]