The struggle for gas, the struggle for survival

By Syrializm Analysis

In a fight for raw materials, mineral resources bases and markets for hydrocarbons, the United States is drawing Europe into a confrontation with Russia.

The consistency of the actions of the United States in the past decades is increasingly convincing international experts that there are goals that have nothing to do with Washington’s declared concern about preserving peace and democracy.

The invasion of Iraq, of its false evidence over the weapons of mass destruction there, to the outbreak of the Syrian war, due to Assad’s refusal to provide a corridor for the transportation of Qatari hydrocarbons to the Mediterranean, the creation of conditions for civil confrontation in Iran, which is gaining power, are sticky threads of one global network, which Washington cleverly entangles the world economy in the struggle for oil and gas domination.

The events of recent months in Europe and the Arctic basin only confirm the previously voiced opinion about the true goals and objectives of Washington.

As of the Ukrainian transit, the construction of the new Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia directly to Germany, bypassing transit countries, has caused a lot of controversy.

If the arguments about a possible environmental catastrophe in the Baltic Sea have crashed against the Nord Stream that has been operating for 7 years, the political battles are getting hotter.

First of all, this concerns Ukraine, whose economy is largely dependent on the volume of transit of Russian gas.

Recall that in the first two months of this year, Ukraine contracted almost 14 billion cubic meters of gas under a contract with Gazprom, and the total throughput capacity of the two new pipelines (Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2) should be about 110 billion cubic meters per year – that is, the volumes are quite comparable, even taking into account the rapidly growing needs of the industrial sector in Europe.

Nevertheless, as Dmitry Medvedev, the Prime Minister of the Russia, said, Russia doesn’t intend to completely refuse the services of the Ukrainian Neftogaz.

True, the politician voiced the conditions for the preservation of gas transit through the territory of Ukraine – “advantageous economic and commercial parameters of the transaction”.

As it turned out, the gas transportation system of Ukraine, which has remained since the times of the USSR, needs serious modernization – the cost of pumping gas through worn-out obsolete highways and equipment costs an average of 2-2.5 times more expensive than the Nord Stream.

This is certainly unprofitable for both Russia and gas recipients in Europe, who, even more than the supplier, are interested in reducing the cost of transit.

However, the United States has a different point of view on this matter, which they are trying with all their might to impose on Europe.

Understanding that the introduction of direct sanctions against international companies involved in the financing and construction of Nord Stream-2 can significantly worsen the US relations with the Old World, Donald Trump publicly announced his rejection of this “unproductive idea”.

Thus, with the skill of an experienced manipulator, the following statement reminded the partners about the position of the White House, according to which the Nord Stream-2 project is extremely disadvantageous for Europe, both for political and economic reasons.

Judging by the latest manipulations of the American leader, Trump is even more concerned about the fate of Europe than the Europeans themselves.

“Germans are forced to pay billions of dollars annually for Russian energy resources.

I can tell you that the Germans don’t like it”, the President of the United States stressed-out, addressing his unequivocal message to both European leaders and American oil and gas companies in need of serious sales markets.

It is worth noting that recently American concerns have been intensively increasing the volumes of supplies of liquefied gas to Europe.

In 2016, they provided only 0.6% of supplies; however, according to experts of the publication of the Oil & Gas Journal, by 2030 they will be able to cover up to 20% of the gas needs of the continent.

As far as European prices for shale gas from the United States will be comparable, and Russian, which currently accounts for 40% of the total market, you should not even guess.

If the United States still succeeds in luring to its side or simply intimidating European leaders and squeezing Russia out of this segment, the Europeans themselves will have a hard time – the cost of energy will increase significantly.

Ukraine itself, realizing that in this situation, its position doesn’t particularly interest anyone, prudently preparing for the worst case scenario.

According to the official representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, in case of failure of negotiations with Russia on the possibility of renegotiating the transit contract, which ends on December 31, a package of anti-crisis measures has been developed.

The country’s rescue plan is based on the idea of ​​expanding the functions of the Association Agreement with the European Union in the sphere of Ukraine’s integration into the EU energy space.

As specified by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country, Elena Zerkal, this “plan of relative sustainability” was also prepared under the patronage of the United States.

It seems that Europe will have to believe in Washington’s admonitions about the profitability of such an unfavorable deal…

As for the Arctic Redistribution, and according to experts, the Arctic, which has enormous reserves of hydrocarbons and other minerals, is becoming one of the main theaters of the confrontation between the geopolitical powers and, at the suggestion of the United States, competition, including military, will only increase here.

REFERENCE: According to American experts, about 22% of all unexplored hydrocarbon deposits of the planet are in the Arctic zone: 30% gas, 20% gas condensates and 13% oil.

In accordance with international agreements, the Arctic is divided into five sectors of responsibility between the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark.

However, for a number of objective reasons, the exact boundary of the Arctic has not yet been determined.

According to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, the water area of ​​the state covers only the Arctic shelf, while the outer zone is international.

The coastal waters for 12 miles are considered territorial, and the economic area is the 200-mile zone along the coast.

However, the state may well expand its economic zone, proving that this territory is a continuation of the continental shelf.

To date, three applicants have taken it upon themselves to use this right.