By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor-in-chief of The Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth
Forests and trees. We live in a world built on such an overkill of 24/7 propaganda and misinformation that some of it easily slips by. At that point you need to rely on the little man inside to raise a warning sign. That’s about how I felt when I read yesterday about EU plans to deliver gas to Ukraine by reversing the flow through existing pipelines. That made me wonder things like: ‘How would that work in practice?’ and: ‘Which gas?’ While the little man simply said: ‘I don’t believe a word of this’.
And before you know it, you spend many hours trying to get a clearer picture. Here’s an idea of how that went for me. First, the Guardian on the initial report:
EU leaders are rapidly drawing up plans to send some of their stocks of Russian gas back to Ukraine and other eastern European countries that need it, if Vladimir Putin reacts to western sanctions over the Crimea crisis by starving the continent of energy.
Gazprom provides Ukraine with around half its gas, and other countries in eastern and southern Europe, including Poland and Greece, reportedly have low stocks of gas. Although Gazprom said the threat to Kiev would not affect the supply to the rest of Europe, western leaders are steeling themselves for a possible battle with Moscow over energy supplies. [..]
“Either Ukraine makes good on its debt and pays for current supplies, or there is risk of returning to the situation of early 2009,” Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said on Friday, adding that Ukraine now owed $1.89 billion in unpaid bills. [..] Although it is the largest producer of natural gas, the US does not currently export its supplies, and the construction of a handful of export terminals will not be completed until at least 2015. [..]
In Brussels on Thursday, European leaders engaged in detailed discussions about the feasibility of switching the flow of gas in eastern Europe’s pipelines. Storage reserves in Europe, particularly Germany and Hungary, which have ample supplies, could be used to pump gas back towards Ukraine. José Manuel Barroso, the president of European Commission, said energy security was an early priority for Ukraine, adding: “We are looking in the short term at the gas transmission network to ensure that reverse flows with the European Union are fully operational.”
A project to modernise Ukraine’s gas transmission infrastructure forms part of the EU’s $15 billion promised aid package to Kiev, with an initial loan possible in the near future.
A European Commission memorandum specifically states it will seek to enable “reverse flows” of gas to Ukraine, ensuring they can be “operationalised as soon as possible”. [..]
What I get from that: Europe is drawing up all sorts of plans before there is any real threat to its supplies. That gives me the idea that it’s overplaying the Ukraine threat card on purpose, but that’s just my little man inside. There’s also a lot more to that than either Ukraine or EU are saying, and that makes me suspicious. As does the line about “part” of the promised aid being set aside for “modernizing” Ukraine’s gas transmission infrastructure. What does that mean? That Shell and BP are going to come in to make sure that get control, and push aside Gazprom? What else could it be? Who else has the know how?
What is clear is that Ukraine has a horrible history of paying Gazprom for gas deliveries through the past 20 years. And Barroso et al are not urging Kiev to finally pay the bills, they intend to help them get gas without paying Russia for past delivery. But still, you could argue that these things are open to interpretation, though I think western coverage of delivery and payment has been very one-sided for a long time.
So let’s try another angle. My first question about reverse gas flows was: ‘How would that work in practice?’. Here’s what the article says about this:
… European officials and energy experts concede there are doubts over whether it would be technically possible to transfer sufficient gas through the continent, west to east, if Russia decided to restrict its supplies for a significant period of time. While short-term assistance through the summer months could help, western Europe would not have the capacity to supply neighbours in the east for an extended period of time.
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, one senior executive said reversing gas flows would be an extremely complex move. “This is not easy to do. Certainly the Gazprom export pipeline is built to move gas only in one direction, and it would involve a lot of time and money to reconfigure for imports ,” the executive said. “You would also have to get the agreement of dozens of commercial and other organisations. It is not going to happen.”
That’s pretty clear, though they have only the lone anonymous industry voice (you can’t exactly speak freely on this if you work for Big Oil of course, far too many conflicting interests). It seems obvious even to the layman that there are lots of pumps along the hundreds of miles of pipeline, and they’re all configured for one way flow. Logistically, this is a potential nightmare, and administratively too. There are plans these days to reverse flow in a Canadian pipeline from Montréal to Sarnia ON, and that’s hard enough. Doing that across multiple borders with dozens of interested parties and legal entities is quite another thing again.
Europe imported 155 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas from Russia in 2013, about 30% of its overall gas demand, according to Wood Mackenzie, an Edinburgh-based energy consultancy. Ukraine is the key transit route for Russian gas to Europe, with around 50% piped through the country in 2013. [..]
In Washington, there is a growing appetite to retaliate against Russia with a long-term, strategic acceleration in energy exports. [..] Republicans, backed by gas producers such as ExxonMobil, have for years been pushing to dramatically increase gas production to enable export trade, and are using the crisis in Crimea to argue for swift action by the Obama administration.
I’ll get to the “retaliate against Russia with a long-term, strategic acceleration in energy exports” bit in a bit. First, the money quote from the article, one that puts on a very bleak light what madness al these ideas are based on:
US gas production is projected to rise 44% by 2040, according to the US Energy Information Administration, and producers have been pressing the Obama administration to expand exports of natural gas. [..]
A senior US official said the State Department was supportive of introducing substantial gas exports abroad as a move to counteract Russia’s influence. Carlos Pascual, a former American ambassador to Ukraine, who leads the State Department’s Bureau of Energy Resources, told the New York Times that opening global markets to US exports “sends a clear signal that the global gas market is changing, that there is the prospect of much greater supply coming from other parts of the world”.
The EIA is an organization of overpaid cheerleaders that haven’t had one prediction right in forever and a day. It’s perhaps because they have no track record to defend that they issue such double or nothing claims; it’s hardly interesting anymore. That claim that US gas production will be 44% more in 26 years than it is today is simply bonkers, and not supported by anything other than industry interests, loud as they may be.
The train of “thinking” behind it is what’s good to keep in mind: We’ve seen how Shell and BP and Exxon all see their production and reserves and investments fall. These are arguably the world’s most powerful corporations outside of Wall Street, and they’re on the brink of becoming irrelevant. That they, in their present predicament, would seek to go to “war without soldiers” with Gazprom and Putin, is no surprise, it’s desperation.
As we see also in an article by Nafeez Ahmed for the Guardian:
Just one month before Nuland’s speech at the National Press Club [in Dec 2013], Ukraine signed a $10 billion shale gas deal with US energy giant Chevron “that the ex-Soviet nation hopes could end its energy dependence on Russia by 2020.” The agreement would allow “Chevron to explore the Olesky deposit in western Ukraine that Kiev estimates can hold 2.98 trillion cubic meters of gas.” Similar deals had been struck already with Shell and ExxonMobil.
The move coincided with Ukraine’s efforts to “cement closer relations with the European Union at Russia’s expense”, through a prospective trade deal that would be a step closer to Ukraine’s ambitions to achieve EU integration. But Yanukovych’s decision to abandon the EU agreement in favour of Putin’s sudden offer of a 30% cheaper gas bill and a $15 billion aid package provoked the protests.
To be sure, the violent rioting was triggered by frustration with Yanukovych’s rejection of the EU deal, along with rocketing energy, food and other consumer bills, linked to Ukraine’s domestic gas woes and abject dependence on Russia. Police brutality to suppress what began as peaceful demonstrations was the last straw.
But while Russia’s imperial aggression is clearly a central factor, the US effort to rollback Russia’s sphere of influence in Ukraine by other means in pursuit of its own geopolitical and strategic interests raises awkward questions. As the pipeline map demonstrates, US oil and gas majors like Chevron and Exxon are increasingly encroaching on Gazprom’s regional monopoly, undermining Russia’s energy hegemony over Europe.
We’ve already seen that US agents have been heavily involved in regime change in Kiev. Now the picture emerges of the (for now let’s say potential) involvement of Big Oil behind the scenes. They want to break Gazprom’s power monopoly and replace it with their own.
For additional juicy tidbits, let’s take a look at this March 5 piece from Bloomberg.
Ukraine, the subject of a struggle for influence between Russia and the West, plans to cut natural-gas imports from its eastern neighbor and fill the gap with supplies from Europe to reduce dependence on Gazprom. Ukraine will need to import about 30 billion cubic meters of gas this year, of which a third may come through Slovakian pipelines, Energy Minister Yuri Prodan said today in Kiev.
Prodan’s remarks follow a decision by Moscow-based Gazprom, which accounts for most of Ukraine’s gas imports, not to extend a price discount beyond April, citing unpaid debts for supply. Tensions between Russia and Europe and the U.S. have escalated since President Vladimir Putin sent troops into Crimea in a bid to regain influence over Ukraine following the overthrow of Kremlin-backed President Viktor Yanukovych last month.
Ukraine has reached a preliminary agreement with Slovakia to import 10 billion cubic meters of gas a year from various European Union countries through Slovakian pipelines, Prodan told reporters. It also has signed a deal with German utility RWE AG for 5 billion cubic meters a year, he said, without giving a start date for supply. RWE Chief Financial Officer Bernhard Guenther said this week that the Essen-based utility may be able to supply Ukraine in the event of a shortage.
The EU will help Ukraine diversify its imports and provide funding to upgrade its pipelines, the bloc’s regulatory arm said today in a statement. The European Commission also backs the use of “reverse-flow corridors” via Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, whereby pipes that send gas west switch direction, or some fuel earmarked for those countries is sent directly to Ukraine.
Note the timeline: On March 5, Ukraine says it plans to cut gas imports form Russia. A bold enough statement to begin with if you still owe $2 billion worth of the stuff (I think I’ll go buy somewhere else now …), but that aside. I’m thinking it’s perhaps not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because 8 days before, on February 25, Reuters reported this:
Naftogaz, has slashed gas imports from Russia’s Gazprom to 28 million cubic meters per day as of February 24 from 147 million , two Russian industry sources told Reuters on Tuesday. They said Naftogaz had gradually reduced its imports from 147 million cubic meters as of February 1 , but did not offer a reason for the cuts. [..]
In December, Russia agreed to reduce the gas price for Kiev to $268.50 per 1,000 cubic meters, a cut of about one third from around $400 which Ukraine had paid since 2009. Under the deal, gas prices are revised quarterly.
Yanukovych was ousted on February 22. Two days later, Ukraine’s state oil and gas company announces it’s cut imports from Gazprom by over 80% (to be replaced with?!). What’s more, it started cutting on February 1, weeks before the Yanukovych ouster. We can probably only guess as to the reasons behind that, but it’s certainly a noteworthy event. Not least of all because the December deal with Russia that cut prices by a third was still valid and not up for revision by at least another month.
So where is the gas coming from for Ukraine today, and where will it come from in the future? Perhaps this from The Voice of Russia lifts part of the veil:
To be on the safe side, last week, the European Union made a decision to increase the volume of the gas purchased from Russia by 15%. In response, Josh Earnest, who is the US White House Special Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy Press Secretary, hurried to calm Europeans. He says that the American government has no information that would make it possible to conclude that Europe may face any lacks of natural gas in the foreseeable future. However, if such lacks do take place, the US would help Europe with its own liquefied gas, although it would be able to start deliveries of this gas to Europe not earlier than from the very end of 2015.
That is so funny you’d think April Fool’s Day is near. Not that the entire reverse flow story is not, but hey … The EU plans to buy 15% more gas from Russia, which they intend to use to – pretty openly – undermine Russian interests. Through some far-fetched reverse flow scheme it wants to take gas that has been pumped through Ukrainian pipelines, back to Ukraine, which can then continue to refuse to pay its past bills to Gazprom. And if Russia in turn would refuse to go along with such a scheme – and cut supplies – , they can all simply blame Putin.
And even then … :
Directing natural gas from the European Union to Ukraine if Russia stops supplying its western neighbour would fail to keep up with demand for long as capacity between the EU and Ukraine is too small, analysts said on Thursday. Ukraine last year imported around 28 billion cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas from Russia [..]
One of the EU’s key plans to support Kiev in case of a supply cut by Russia is to use reverse flows to send gas to Ukraine, but at the moment the capacity to do so is limited. Ukraine began importing gas through reverse flows from Poland and Hungary in 2012 but analysts said the amounts so far have been equivalent to a mere 2 bcm a year. According to consulting group Wood Mackenzie, Poland has a reverse capacity of 1.5 bcm to Ukraine while Hungary is able to send 3.5 bcm. Romania has the potential for 1.8 bcm but there has been no firm agreement on its use, the consultancy said.
The real issue, however, might not be Ukraine but Europe itself. Wood Mackenzie estimated Europe would need more than 160 bcm of Russian gas in 2014. While Russia has enough gas and can reroute some flows from Ukraine to the Yamal Europe and Nord Stream pipelines, which supply Germany, the consultancy said these alternatives would still leave Europe needing more than 30 bcm of gas via Ukraine.
And we’re not done yet. There are more – and more grotesque – plans in the offing. US House Leader John Boehner apparently buys into the “US gas production is projected to rise 44% by 2040″ number from the EIA (what does he know), and wrote in the WSJ this week that America should build LNG terminals: “The ability to turn the tables and put the Russian leader in check lies right beneath our feet, in the form of vast supplies of natural energy… ”
The Department of Energy has approved for terminals to export liquefied gas, 5 in Texas and Louisiana, and one in Maryland. A further 24 applications are pending and Boehner et al want Obama to speed up the process. It’s of little concern to them in their ignorance that building these terminals (and the LNG tankers required for transport) is very costly and takes years, on both the supply and the delivery side, and that LNG tankers are floating bombs and thus easy targets.
Much of the entire Ukraine story seems to be made up of a different sort of easy targets, those in the western media. We are good and they are bad. It’s almost cartoon like. And so are the “solutions” that sprout from the brains of politicians who are mostly singularly clueless when it comes to the intricacies of the energy industry, and shout out whatever some industry paid spin doctor will feed them.
The reverse flow of gas to the Ukraine is not going to happen (but we won’t know that till much later), because os technical issues, administrative and legal issues, and because Putin and Alexei Miller won’t volunteer for western leaders to make fools of them. Russia may not go to war of Crimea, but it will over control of the pipelines it has longstanding legal rights over. It’s perhaps the most pressing issue today, but that’s not how it’s presented.
Since the American and European political systems have been bought and paid for, we need to ask ourselves every step of the way where in words uttered and events ongoing we can see the footprints and fingerprints of the major shareholders of western financial and energy corporations, who would all kill their grandmas and sell their granddaughters just to pry away control over Russian and Asian oil and gas reserves and revenues from Putin’s cold dead fingers. It may all be presented as bringing freedom and democracy to Ukraine, but come on, who believes that anymore?
The only way the west can gain control over what it’s after, over Ukraine and the pipelines, and Russia and its oil and gas reserves, is to oust Putin. Are you willing to sacrifice your children over that? If not, keep paying attention. Follow the money. Of the most endangered of corporate species, Big Oil. At this point in time, they still have the clout to move governments into war. At that point, it may all be over.