Nord Stream 2 is politically dead. Expect Huge Problem Now.

I have stickers of President Trump pointing and Biden Did That!

Amazon has them

Just an FYI



HONK HONK!!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2
The pipeline closure may be temporary, but the knowledge that Germany just decided unilaterally to shut down an $11 billion investment over a political difference is permanent. One does not undo the consequences of such an action, even if that action is just a temporary bluff.

The pipeline is _not_ closed, both the ukrainian and the NordStream 1 are up and running.

The application for a grant of production is what is being stopped, and that only for Nord Stream 2 (the new parallel line to NS 1). The pipeline itself is completed and a test filling had been conducted, it is only a regulatory issue that keep the NS 2 pipeline from running.

The exact regulatory issue is this:

EU law forbids a compay to run a pipeline AND distribute gas in it, there must be 2 different companies. So, the NS company have set up a second company in Germany - and whether or not this complies with the regulation, that is ALL that is keeping the pipleline from operating.
The regulation authority (a subset of the german ministry for economy) is investigating this for a couple of months now and has, as of yesterday, been advised by the minister to stop the investigation for the time being. In other words: The investigation process can be continued at any time from this point on - and will end in an operation license - or it can remain stopped forever and will then not yield a license.

a reply to: carport

Thank you for the information.

Correct is that not the EU, but a group of companies from Germany, Austria and France paid 49% of the price, while 51%, which is the share of Gazprom in this company, is paid by the Russian company Gazprom.

My information said it was a 50/50 partnership, but close enough. I'll bow to your knowledge on this minor point.

It may be individual companies who are backing this pipeline, but it is the EU which needs the gas. And Russia needs the revenue from Gazprom. This is more than an industry disagreement; nations and national security are involved.

Sweden, Poland and other countries pointed to security risks, for example. In fact, almost none of the EU countries was or is happy with it.

Of course not; it doesn't make unlimited energy out of thin air. The EU seems to be fixated on that pipe dream, and willing to ignore the realities of physics in their zeal. Just my observation.

Unhappy is one thing when there is heat and power; it becomes something else entirely when there isn't enough heat or power.

But the real problem came up when 2005, Russia closed temporarily the Ukraine pipeline (Soyuz//Bortherhood - which continues into the EU) because Ukraine allegedly had not paid their bills. NordStream 2 was meant as a replacement for the Ukraine pipeline, so Russia could shut it down (and the EU would get gas anyway) - The Nord Stream has, in this regard, ties to the Russia-Ukraine situation.

That is some info I wasn't aware of. Thank you for the history of why this pipeline was started, although it appears to me the energy demands in the EU might be increasing.

I was aware of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline.

Of course Nord Stream is considered highly political in Germany and only to a lesser degree economical.

Economics drives politics. As I said, all these political arguments are fine when the heat and lights are on; turn them off and the politics will change. Politics is controlled by people, and my experience is that people have this serious aversion to freezing to death in the dark.

Neither Germany nor Russia are contract partners with Nord Stream, therefore neither one can break the contract with the other.

If you are telling me that they spent $11 billion dollars on a project with no expectation of using it, I'm going to call BS. That simply doesn't happen. Gazprom and the EU companies spent that money so Gazprom could sell gas and so the EU companies could buy it. That expectation existed, therefore there was a "contract" between them.

Since I am sure this project required some serious government support (red tape) to implement, that contract also applied to the two governments. Gazprom was essentially the "front man" for Russia, while the EU companies were "front men" for Germany/the EU.

A contract need not be written on a piece of paper in legaleeze. They typically are, at least at the commercial/personal level, but that is simply to avoid a "he said/she said" situation in the courts. On an International level, every promise made between world leaders is a contract. Break those contracts, those promises, and the other party will not trust you any more.

The "stop" is nothing else that policy makers having stopped this process (which can be taken up again at some time in the future ... or never).

The stop order is being presented by the German government as a response to Ukraine. To be honest, I do not trust what we are being told by the US/Germany about the situation in the Ukraine.

During my college career, I took some classes with Russian nationals and even dealt directly with others as advisors. I have gotten the story on Ukraine from their point of view. All of them told me that the Ukraine situation was one of a civil dispute between East and West Ukraine... East Ukraine has closer ties to Russia, while West Ukraine has closer ties to the EU. Western Ukraine, however, tries to suppress those who feel close ties to Russia. The country, according to my sources (Russian nationals in academia), should be two separate countries and this has caused the conflicts.

Yes, because they have to maintain the ukrainian pipeline now to fulfill contracts.

But if I understand you, they are claiming Ukraine has already failed to pay for their pipeline use, voiding the contract. If so, Russia is completely within their rights to shut it down.

There is no way for Germany to step back, the whole policy and economy is going this way. And the problem is not so much that it was impossible, but that Germany started too late with the change. The electric energy is now covered by 50% already, only fuel is still at 10% - but this will increase within the next years by a huge amount.

*sigh*

No.

There is no magic. Germany will not be able to produce sufficient energy from renewables alone. They can improve, certainly, but their attitude of "no fossil fuels" in the face of technology that cannot compete with the energy density and availability of fossil fuels is nothing short of foolhardy. The technology simply cannot do what they are claiming it does.

I am a degreed electrical engineer. I know of which I speak on this issue... but I am not going to argue it further. On this point, you can believe what you want; it will not matter in the long run. Experience has told me that debating this subject with those who believe the hype is inherently unproductive.

TheRedneck

Perhaps time to put up notices in all countries that are a source of "migration" and human trafficking to northern countries: "Please bring your own gas, or you might really freeze in the winter"!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carport
It may be individual companies who are backing this pipeline, but it is the EU which needs the gas. And Russia needs the revenue from Gazprom. This is more than an industry disagreement; nations and national security are involved.

I can understand why you, from a distance, think this way. It does not macth, however, the discussion of the last years in Germany and other EU countries (discussion news in the media).

BTW, from the homepage of NordStream AG: "Leading German energy companies Wintershall Dea AG and PEGI/E.ON hold 15.5 percent each, and the Dutch natural gas infrastructure company N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie, along with the leading French energy provider ENGIE, each hold a 9 percent stake." = 49%, Gazprom owns the rest

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Of course not; it doesn't make unlimited energy out of thin air. The EU seems to be fixated on that pipe dream, and willing to ignore the realities of physics in their zeal. Just my observation.
Unhappy is one thing when there is heat and power; it becomes something else entirely when there isn't enough heat or power.

Well, some EU contries have their own gas fields and can supply neighbours as well. Then there are 3 pipelines through Ukraine and 1 through Belarus. Two more are projected through Italy. The southern EU members have the advantage of a lot sun and less strong winters. Then we have in the north of the EU a lot of energy production by wind and water - and France have their atomic plants.

Without the conflict in the Ukraine, there would have been problems as well, but minor ones. The real problems will start when Russia cuts the Ukraine/Belarus/NordStream1 pipelines and will mostly affect the middle european countries.

Here another interesting fact: There is storage for gas in Germany, but who owns it? Yes! It is Gazprom, and right now and the months before, the storage is filled well below 50% ... which can, of course, just be a coincidence, how could Gazprom get the idea of filling up the storage... :-)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
If you are telling me that they spent $11 billion dollars on a project with no expectation of using it, I'm going to call BS. That simply doesn't happen. Gazprom and the EU companies spent that money so Gazprom could sell gas and so the EU companies could buy it. That expectation existed, therefore there was a "contract" between them.

Of course they wanted to make money - but it wasn't Germany or Russia, but a consortium of companies (mostly energy providers) plus Gazprom owning 51%.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Since I am sure this project required some serious government support (red tape) to implement, that contract also applied to the two governments. Gazprom was essentially the "front man" for Russia, while the EU companies were "front men" for Germany/the EU.

Nope, almost all of the pipeline runs under the sea, outside territorial waters even, it comes out right in Germany and goes under in Russia. For the 2nd degree territorial waters, Sweden, and the Balticum had to give their ok, though. From what I remember, the whole process went strictly legal (which is also why Russia had to step in when the US threatened to sanction German companies). Actually, Russia was never in the forefront in negotiations. It was fromer Bundeskanzler Schröder (who has a seat in at Gazprom) - and this was, and is, strongly critisized.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The stop order is being presented by the German government as a response to Ukraine. To be honest, I do not trust what we are being told by the US/Germany about the situation in the Ukraine.

Yes, that is the official speak. But the truth is that a minister decree stopped the process of getting the (pipe)line license in Germany. It had been deputed before even, slowed down because of the critics, the process is running now for 3 months already and it was communicated that the license would not be granted in the first half of 2022. So, the absolute truth is that the "Germany sanction" is just propaganda for the masses. The pipeline would not have become operational before July 2022 anyway.
IMportant to know also that it was during the time of the OLD government which ruled for 16 years when the project was started, the new government (election 09/2021) became operational by November. Now, the old government was right/socialist and the new government is green/socialist/neocon and the first 2 parts of it have not been in favour of NS2 (Green party: it should never have been built in the first place). For the green and socialists, the ukrainie conflict is the ideal patsy to bring down the project.
Additional Information: what Germany calls "socialist" and "green" would be, in the us, "very left socialist" and "very left green" - the US democrats would be, in Germany, a right-conservative party. :-)

Now you might understand why the stop of NS2 is not much of a real, I mean, people-commoting, issue in Germany, definitely less than it had been in the US. :-)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
During my college career, I took some classes with Russian nationals and even dealt directly with others as advisors. I have gotten the story on Ukraine from their point of view. All of them told me that the Ukraine situation was one of a civil dispute between East and West Ukraine... East Ukraine has closer ties to Russia, while West Ukraine has closer ties to the EU. Western Ukraine, however, tries to suppress those who feel close ties to Russia. The country, according to my sources (Russian nationals in academia), should be two separate countries and this has caused the conflicts.

Well, Russians have sometimes a unique perspective on things. With the very same argument, Germany could invade Kaliningrad (Königsberg) which had been "temporarily occupied" by the Russians. :-)

But the truth is that, much as in other parts of Europa and the world, states are multinational. Read about the history of Ukraine, it is a very vivid example (plus the territory moved around quite a bit...). It is also a history of the Kossacks and Tartars, both sensible topics in Russia.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: carport

*sigh*
No.
There is no magic. Germany will not be able to produce sufficient energy from renewables alone. They can improve, certainly, but their attitude of "no fossil fuels" in the face of technology that cannot compete with the energy density and availability of fossil fuels is nothing short of foolhardy. The technology simply cannot do what they are claiming it does.
I am a degreed electrical engineer. I know of which I speak on this issue... but I am not going to argue it further. On this point, you can believe what you want; it will not matter in the long run. Experience has told me that debating this subject with those who believe the hype is inherently unproductive.

I am not a fanboy of renewable energies, but I can read statistics and projections (being a science academic). I do not think that a 100% goal can be achieved, but it will be, and not in the distant future, 80% and more. For electricity, it is now over 50% (20 years ago it was 10%).
The only real proble in Germany is the storage of energy, right now, energy is being distributed within the EU network, when Germany produces too much, it will go in, when Germany produces too litle, it comes out.

Have a look at the Fraunhofer Institue for up to date numbers:
energy-charts.info...

You probably have no idea how much effort Germany is putting into the energy change. For example, gasoline costs 3 times the price of the US, electricity about double the price of California. High prices are only due to high and further increasing taxes. Gasoline cars will not be produced anymore starting 2026-2030 (imagine the impact on the german car industry), electric cars are heavily subsidized and loading stations (not from Tesla, they come on top) spring up everywhere. Coal ovens are forbidden, wood ovens will come next. Gas heatings have to replaced every few years with ever increasing efficency. House isolation (inside and out) is mandatory even for old houses, new houses must fulfill 0-45% energy limits (mandatory warming pump, isolation, solar panels, etc.).

But still, Germany wouldn't be able to reach 100% renewable energy, and for that it needs gas OR storage facilities. The gas consumption in Germany has remained quite steady in the past 5 years, though, even when coal and atomic plants are switched off all the time. Concerning storage facilities, there are a lot of scientific projects going on, unfortunatey, Germany has almost no natural options (sea water, pump plants, etc.).

But anyway, most Germans seem to be in on all this and you can see, compared to 10 years ago, masses of electric bicycles, electric transport bikes, electric cars and even electric motorbikes becoming more and more frequent, this all is definitely noticeable (they lately even cut in towns streets in half to have more space for bicycle lanes and build bicycle highways (yes, they do exist!). The push for electricity and saving energy is really massive, and, like I said, most people play along.

Do also not forget that in Germany, social care is unlimited in years and age. Those, who do not earn enough, will get, up to a certain limit, cash money, housing costs, heating costs, full health insurance and more - and when you are of retiring age, you will get the same. Child care and education (incl. university) is free, if parents do not earn enough, university students get money from the state, same for vocational training ... and so much more. In this regard, there won't be people who cannot "afford" it, only people who will have less luxury than others. For example, no matter what the heating gas will cost, you will never be unable to pay it (you may not be able to have 2 automobiles then, though).

Personally, I am all for energy saving, but not when it means less comfort. Climate change is, for me, not man made - but polluting less, is, I think, a brilliant idea nevertheless. But then again, I am not 20 anymore and people my age will, in a couple of years, have disappeared. And what comes then? Don't know - don't care. :-)

originally posted by: halfoldman
Perhaps time to put up notices in all countries that are a source of "migration" and human trafficking to northern countries: "Please bring your own gas, or you might really freeze in the winter"!

I actually saw, with my own eyes, one migrant family running an open wood fire in their living room. However, most migrants of the past years get social care anyway, so they won't have to pay for heating. :-)

a reply to: carport

IMportant to know also that it was during the time of the OLD government which ruled for 16 years when the project was started, the new government (election 09/2021) became operational by November. Now, the old government was right/socialist and the new government is green/socialist/neocon and the first 2 parts of it have not been in favour of NS2 (Green party: it should never have been built in the first place). For the green and socialists, the ukrainie conflict is the ideal patsy to bring down the project.

That is a quite important consideration. And it would further concern me, should I be in the position of Merkel or Putin, that the makeup of those who have to approve the final completion has shifted radically. It could, in fact, be a partial reason for Russia's newfound interest in Ukraine as well. I do believe Putin longs for the "good old days" of the USSR, and if a people were to express interest i rejoining a Russian-led alliance, he would be sympathetic.

That is one of the hindrances we are experiencing in the USA. The shift of government positions from right to left and the extreme positions often taken after such a shift make it highly risky for any project that might need government approval after a few years. And of course, our present government has final approval over pretty much every aspect of business now. Compare that to China, which has a very stable governmental position and thus provides an environment conducive to long-term industrial investment. It's little wonder that China is beating us economically.

Additional Information: what Germany calls "socialist" and "green" would be, in the us, "very left socialist" and "very left green" - the US democrats would be, in Germany, a right-conservative party. :-)

Good to know... but a bit scary from my perspective. The USA's versions of "socialist" and "green" are quite sufficiently intense for my tastes, thank you very much. I much prefer reality, even if it can be harsh at times.

Russians have sometimes a unique perspective on things.

Oh, certainly! As do Americans, Japanese, Chinese, Ukrainians, Germans, South Africans, Brazilians... every culture is biased toward the needs of their own culture. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle of the various ethnic positions... closer to one side, perhaps, but always in the middle somewhere.

That is why I brought up my experiences. It's not that I give the Russians i have known 100% credibility; it is that I want to understand the issues from their point of view, as much as such is possible, so I know where to look for the truth. I already know the USA's official position (at least in so much as it is publicly presented).

Unfortunately, my experience with German or Ukrainian nationals is pretty limited. I did have a Ukrainian instructor once, and did some work for him, but he was pretty tight-lipped about anything other than his projects.



Since I had to split that reply, I will include your next post here.

I am not a fanboy of renewable energies, but I can read statistics and projections (being a science academic).

I am a "fanboy" of renewable energies. Power production/distribution is one of my fortes, and while oil/gas has proved quite beneficial for mankind (and I believe will continue to do so for some time to come), it has also been the object of many wars and much corruption. For that reason alone, I would prefer renewable energy to what we have now.

I simply cannot ignore the physics of the situation. At this time, we have nothing that will come close to replacing the need for hydrocarbon fuels. Our energy dependency is far too great, and while significant improvements have been made (LED lights for one, IMO one of the greatest energy savers in recent time), the numbers are not there.

Wave energy excites me. It will do little for inland locales (like mine), but most of the world's population lives close to a coast. Wave energy, unlike wind power, pulls wasted energy from the environment; winds drive weather and climate, and thus can cause unexpected and unwanted consequences if used to extreme. Unlike solar, wave energy uses proven hydroelectric technology instead of being a low-efficiency emerging science. I like nuclear power, although Fukushima and Chernobyl both taught us the tremendous importance of maintaining strict compliance with common-sense regulations... Fukushima ignored those through greed and corruption (I'm talking to you, TEPCO) while Chernobyl showed us the folly of pushing nuclear advancements too quickly. It is certainly a potentially disastrous technology, although one I believe can be used safely as we advance methodologies for handling the waste products.

I do not accept the present theories on Global Warming. My own analysis of historical data (1950 to present) shows no significant deviation from "normal" that appears attributable to carbon dioxide levels. That analysis is open-ended, but I would expect to see something significant after 70+ years.

You probably have no idea how much effort Germany is putting into the energy change.

No offense, but that is irrelevant. Mankind worked for centuries to develop alchemy, a way to turn lead into gold. By the time we succeeded, we realized that the process was many times more costly than simply buying gold.

The one silver lining is that the German people are quite intelligent and resourceful; it is quite possible they will improve efficiency and increase our technological capabilities in their quest. Those are good things. Their stated goal, however, is foolhardy. If pursued with too much zeal, it could seriously harm a lot of people. That is not a good thing IMO.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carport

I can understand why you, from a distance, think this way. It does not macth, however, the discussion of the last years in Germany and other EU countries (discussion news in the media).

Well, I can only go by the reports I see here on ATS and my own attempts to find out more about the situation. I am to the point that I simply do not trust anything said by the media. The biggest advantage ATS has is that individuals living in the various regions can speak together and share perspectives without all the International propaganda our respective governments want to feed us.

That is why I value your insight. I am assuming you live somewhere close to all this?

Well, some EU contries have their own gas fields and can supply neighbours as well. Then there are 3 pipelines through Ukraine and 1 through Belarus. Two more are projected through Italy. The southern EU members have the advantage of a lot sun and less strong winters. Then we have in the north of the EU a lot of energy production by wind and water - and France have their atomic plants.

The issue with that is that in times of emergency, when power requirements are strained, those closest to the source generally tend to hoard what power is available.

I live near a hydroelectric plant. In 2011, when this area was devastated by tornadoes, both power plants that normally supply us were damaged. The nuclear plant lost all outside power when a tornado hit it dead on and erased the power lines from existence, while the old coal-fired steam plant was heavily damaged. It took an entire week for power to be restored, although the local power grid was back in place within 48 hours. During those 5 days, the hydro plant (which normally does supply backup when needed) refused to provide power to this area, because they claimed it would impact their ability to provide for local customers.

I can't really blame them; if the situation were reversed, I'm sure the plants that supply us would have done similar. But it does illustrate my point: that should there be a widespread energy disparity, neighboring areas should not be counted on.

I'm not sure how it works in Europe, but how is power distributed across country borders?

There is storage for gas in Germany, but who owns it? Yes! It is Gazprom, and right now and the months before, the storage is filled well below 50% ... which can, of course, just be a coincidence, how could Gazprom get the idea of filling up the storage... :-)

It would be interesting to see how that came about politically. Obviously Gazprom saw an opportunity and took it.

Also, it seems obvious that the low capacity at present is more than coincidence.

Of course they wanted to make money - but it wasn't Germany or Russia, but a consortium of companies (mostly energy providers) plus Gazprom owning 51%.

Governments always back the larger companies under them. Some, like China, have such a close relationship that it is hard to know where the government stops and the company starts. Others, like the US, at least make an effort to maintain the illusion of separation. However, all countries rely on their largest industries for their very existence and power. Thus, it is foolhardy to believe that the German and Russian governments were not intimately involved with the pipelines, just as it is foolhardy to believe that the US government is getting involved in the Ukraine situation purely out of humanitarian concerns.

Your own mention of Bundeskanzler Schröder indicates a strong government tie. The fact that the German government has to formally approve what the various companies involved have obviously already approved does so as well. If the Nord Stream 2 project was not intricately tied to the governments, there would be no need for such an approval process.

Nope, almost all of the pipeline runs under the sea, outside territorial waters even, it comes out right in Germany and goes under in Russia. For the 2nd degree territorial waters, Sweden, and the Balticum had to give their ok, though.

Perhaps you misunderstood me; that is exactly what I was referring to. Every country is charged with protecting their own borders. To do otherwise is to abandon the country and allow it to cease to exist. Anything coming into or going out of a country's borders becomes inherently government-controlled and subject to government oversight and control. Where there is no national security interest, such exchanges are typically allowed to continue with minimal interaction, but the respective government always has authority should an issue arise.

Yes, that is the official speak. But the truth is that a minister decree stopped the process of getting the (pipe)line license in Germany. It had been deputed before even, slowed down because of the critics, the process is running now for 3 months already and it was communicated that the license would not be granted in the first half of 2022. So, the absolute truth is that the "Germany sanction" is just propaganda for the masses. The pipeline would not have become operational before July 2022 anyway.

No large projects operate in the now; they all operate in the future. That is, completion points do not happen without prior commitment, sometimes for years. However, all that is taken into account when the viability of the project is first analyzed, before construction ever begins. The approval process was known before the first section of pipe was ever laid, and the time required was allowed for in the analysis. Had the analysis showed that the approval time was unacceptable to viability of the pipeline, you would never have heard of Nord Stream 2. It would have been no more than a few figures scribbled onto a piece of paper rotting in a landfill somewhere.

So anything that delays this approval is a problem. It introduces not just a delay, which can equate to billions of dollars per day in extreme cases, but also a concern over viability after the costs for the project have been paid. The pipeline might not have been intended to open before July, but will this delay, this freeze in the approval process not extend that farther into, say, August? September? 2023 even? If not, then it is indicative that the approval process itself was being delayed before, and that becomes an issue of trust between industry and government.

There's really no way to shrug this delay off from that perspective. Either it is an extension that was unaccounted for, or the original dates were inflated for no good reason. Neither is a good thing.

More to come...

TheRedneck

a reply to: carport

My apologies; the two preceding posts are in reverse order.

TheRedneck

a reply to: carport

There is no way for Germany to step back, the whole policy and economy is going this way. And the problem is not so much that it was impossible, but that Germany started too late with the change. The electric energy is now covered by 50% already, only fuel is still at 10% - but this will increase within the next years by a huge amount.

It’s all part of agenda30 it has nothing to do with saving the environment it’s about capitalising natural resources. In the U.K. they want to make gas if not illegal then totally unaffordable and it’s going that way already. All countries that signed up to the NWO agenda21 policy in Rio in 1992 are in lockstep, carrying out the same policy.

It’s almost as if the WEF and the banksters that own them are actually running the world...