Why the Kremlin is Winning the Pipeline War
Guy Chazan of The Wall Street Journal weighs in today with the narrative of Russia's thus-far winning strategy against the U.S. for petro-leverage in Europe. As O and G readers know, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev have not just out-foxed the Bush administration in this important contest for economic and political leverage across Europe. They also have simply worked harder. The result is a huge advantage for Russia's South Stream and Nord Stream natural gas pipelines. As for the West's competing Nabucco pipeline -- to call it stillborn would be charitable.The piece puts together how the Russians, using no strong-arm tactics but orthodox economic incentives, so far have triumphed. But pipeline junkies may be amused that it entirely omits Turkmenistan, the center of the pipeline race. Azerbaijan -- a bit player in this project -- is wrongly identified as the vortex. In addition, Matt Bryza, the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, is inaccurately identified as "a key architect" of Washington's triumphant Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. I like Bryza a lot, and no one in State has stuck to the issues longer. But to be fair to a host of others, in the 1990s he was a junior player.
Book recommendation: I reviewed William J. Bernstein's A Splendid Exchange in Business Week. It's one of those personality-driven works where you can actually get through the sweep of history without much effort, in this case using the prism of world trade.
Photo: Yvonne in Willowick, Ohio
Rights: Creative Commons
Labels: medvedev, north stream, oil, pipeline, Putin, Russia, south stream


3 Comments:
Interesting comments again.
What is your take on the Nordstream project?
The consortium is going full steam ahead and claiming the pipeline will be ready in 2010. This cannot be realistic, can it?
The countries which sea territories the pipeline is going to pass through (namely Finland, Denmark and Sweden) have not even received proper environmental studies about the effects of the pipeline.
Officials are saying it'll take a year minimum to get environmental studies completed and during that time the pipeline cannot be constructed on their sea territories.
Officials in aforementioned countries are saying that five years sounds like an optimistic schedule and that would mean finishing construction at 2013 - at the earliest.
Is this just normal schedule shenanigans and what's the hurry?
Do the players know something about the EU NatGas markets at c. 2011 that isn't yet widely known?
If so, what is it? :)
- Antti K.
Welcome back Antti K.
A shrewd observation. If other pipelines such as CPC and Baku-Ceyhan are any indication, we are looking many years down the road for Nord Stream to be finished. In addition, to a much higher cost.
Thanks, Steve
Well, I expect that what's driving it is that European demand for gas is growing, and Nord Stream/South Stream are the projects closest to actually coming into existence.
The hurry is, the longer European import capacity is constrained in the face of growing demand, the higher the price for Europeans until their import capacity does grow.
So the Balts/Scandinavians should take as much time on environmental studies and demanding alternative routes over land as they want ;-)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home