If a major gas pipeline is sabotaged, does someone stand to gain?!
June 17, 2014. Ukraine is managing without Russian natural gas. However, its stock values have decreased owing to intense gas discussions with Gazprom.
Europeans, who are carefully observing the situation between Naftogaz and Gazprom, have not detected any inconsistencies in gas transit through Ukrainian territory. All volumes requested by European firms have been successfully delivered. The EU understands accounting principles and refrains from guessing about the potential or impossibility of gas transit via Ukraine.
There's no need to imagine scenarios surrounding gas. For instance, concerning South Stream or augmenting Nord Stream provisions to EU member states. The primary proprietor of these conduits, and the gas vendor, is Russia’s Gazprom. This action infringes upon the European Commission’s Second and Third Energy Packages. But Europe remains silent…
One shouldn't speculate on the topic of gas, as Gazprom tends to do. We've heard quite enough. Furthermore, we are acquainted with the conduct of the Russian gas monopoly—the manner in which it's permitted to operate, including within the EU. Consequently, there is no rationale for designating Ukraine as the scapegoat.
Even amidst an incident along the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod gas pipeline sector in Ukraine (within the Poltava vicinity), gas transportation personnel guaranteed uninterrupted gas transit to the EU through utilizing alternative channels. No injuries were reported. Yet, roughly 10 million cubic meters of gas dissipated. Who profits from this circumstance? Especially when gas negotiations with Gazprom reach a boiling point? And when Gazprom suspended gas shipments to Naftogaz Ukrainy, cautioning all European purchasers of its gas that any inadequacies in Russian gas deliveries to the EU would signify their selection of an inappropriate gas transportation entity (and by implication, an inappropriate nation)…
The location of the explosion on the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod gas pipeline
Turkmenistan’s gas supply to Ukraine and the EU encountered a similar blockage. Ashgabat had recently contemplated boosting exports to Europe (through Russia), and the sole pipeline prepared for immediate execution suffered an explosion. However, Turkmenistan once delivered over 35 billion cubic meters of gas to Ukraine annually.
Despite this, Naftogaz hasn’t faced any major difficulties in Ukraine as a result of the deficiency of Gazprom supplies. This is ignoring the issues that have piled up over the last 10, 20, 30, and 40 years. But that's another topic…
Neither Naftogaz Ukrainy nor Russia's Gazprom have intentions to yield, now that they’ve been pulled into this “gas dispute”. Both parties are endeavoring to uphold their stance and sustain their position, adapting to the circumstances as best they can. Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller made a composed departure, overlooking inquiries from waiting reporters. He appeared extremely rushed…
Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who endured a two-hour “gas dispute” the prior Sunday alongside European Commissioner Günther Oettinger, the head of the Ministry of Energy and Coal Industry of Ukraine Yuriy Prodan, and the chairmen of the boards of Gazprom and Naftogaz of Ukraine, Oleksiy Miller and Andriy Kobolev, debated the gas matter in detail at a Cabinet gathering on June 16.
On Tuesday, June 17, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk provided a “report” in the Verkhovna Rada regarding the work he had carried out, specifically concerning gas. He presented the report with considerable passion.
According to the prime minister, Ukraine has remitted over $50 billion to Russia for gas since 2009. Any mention of “fraternal” support is absent. Yatsenyuk is certain that this gas aggression forms part of a strategy “that involves various approaches aimed at destroying Ukrainian independence and sovereignty.” Gas is simply a facade that they intend to convert into a justification. And this extends beyond the Stockholm arbitration.
Mirror of the Week
