That ratio is meaningless indeed.


The EU gets only 41% of its gas from Russia, well down from past peaks. NS 2 won't fundamentally change that.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/...y/bloc-2c.html


Clarification: 41% of imports, so even less of consumption given gas from Italy, Netherlands etc.; but even as that declines, a good forward indicator of the max dependency.

Whenever supply over 45% would not realistic - NS2 makes it within the reach and seeking more hard currency likley is going to push prices down to increase volume sold

gas shortage: https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/eu...65702-article/

Yep. And this would become a systematic in winter without NS2, and likely other lines from the East in future.

As far as gas: that, or overpriced and unsustainable fracking LNG imports. Or long-term peace in the Middle East, but that is the bigger "pipe"-dream.

Climate-wise, the risk here is Poland using this excuse to hang on to its coal plants even longer. These things are nasty.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...read-pollution
https://www.independent.co.uk/climat...-b1826079.html

Please do not forget that gas usage (and costs) vary with time.

So capacity of a certain pipeline is not giving the complete picture. Long, hard winter and increase in industrial production in Europe (ahah, yes, everything is outsourced to China, but in theory it can still happen) and suddenly you would need full gaslines and full retrieval of gas from strategic gas reserves (gas storage infrastructures).

Since demand from EU varies, but offer from Russia can ramp up and down quickly, I keep on seeing NS2 very useful on a practical level for Germany (they do not need to outbid other buyers at peak-demand time, so the costs are lower) while for Russia is political (gas production costs are extremely low, whatever form of foreign currency is brought in is useful, even selling gas at loss can be an option).

LNG, shale gas and all that supposedly green crap (gasification of coals, biogas, gas from algae, etcetc) basically can fix the upper price of gas, which is still more than enough for Russia to make an economic profit out of it.

Yes. Natural gas is not particularly difficult to store, but seasonal and year-to-year variation makes it a challenge to meet peak demand reliably. https://group.met.com/energy-insight...l-gas-stored/7


More pipeline capacity is better for Europe, obviously.

Which means it's bad for the US.

Ironically, Biden confirmed the necessity for NS2 with his ban on new licenses for fracking on federal land and water areas.

Let's say the gas price is not elastic, i.e. when demand is 1 and offer is 1 (saturated) the price is 1, but if demand is 2 and offer is 1, then price is 10.

Russia earns 1, if demand increase to 2 it earns 10, unless ... the US sells shale gas for 1.5, so they get a share of the cake, plus Europe wins the usual slightly imprecise WashingtonPost title "US saves Mediterranean Transnistria from russian gas blockade" (while it may simply be Gazprom giving priority to the best offering buyer, either to enrich stockholders and oligarchs, but the good ones, or to allow Russia to pay back some IMF backed loan from the 90s with hard currency).

Please remember that US shale gas is hyper-subsidized (how come that all the major producer ciclically are going bust?), so it is effectivel sold at loss, while the loss is very effectively hidden in Treasure xls sheets.

So US have a negative gain (loss), or, better said, the US exchange the value of the dollar for some political weight in the world.

More pipeline capacity, demand is 2, offer ramps up to 2, price is 1.
Russia earns 2
US has no gain, but no loss
US shale gas goes nowhere, Biden remove support for shale gas. So he can use the subsidy money not allocated to shale gas production for better things. Like F35 (I am kidding, have a look at the following working paper for technical details Defense spending and fiscal multipliers: it’s all in the variance ).
------------------------------------------

I am always ahnunglos in saying "Europe wins". If the US have not to subsidize inefficient shale gas producer, they are winners as well, on the whole. However US political system (wheter Dem or Rep) is focused in keeping their egemony over the world, with financial blackmailing when not by bombing countries, so ... yes, they are loosing.


Long story short: Europe winning? It depends if we are talking about Oiropa, €pa, or Volkswagen (hey, they are exactly the same!) or Europe as an ideal of uniting very divided people, to help each other avoid the frictions that led to 2 world wars among Europe and across the Urals and the oceans.

Disclaimer: the US, Dem or Rep have to mantain the egemony over the world, there is no moral judgement in my sentence, it's the natural order otherwise they are dead. Who would replace them? ideally a hard-working socialdemocracy like the feet-on-the-ground Scandinavian countries of the 70s, but given how detached they are from themselves they are most similar to Germany of the pre-Hitler times... so they are ready to embrace a new Hitler (thanks Godwin ).

Wow. I have no idea what you are talking about.

In a duopoly, yes. Which the US certainly would like to create by scuppering South Stream and (nice try) NS2. But the reality is quite far. Consider the gas sources for France (Switzerland not being available): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/...etail=1&chart=
Norway > Russia > Nigeria> Netherlands > Algeria > Qatar > US, US with a 3.1% market share.


Better solution for the US: Turn NATO into a Warsaw Pact, with condition-free military "presence" (though other words may come to mind) of the hegemon, paid for by the locals, with monopoly over sales of major arm systems. Most recent example to cave in on both: Norway. Now, that's a racket.


But on gas, NS2 is a win for Europe.

If you check Spain (11% from US) or Portugal (20% form the US) the picture is different. Gas imported from Netherlands will go to 0% very soon, since they decided to stop production. I see the US as a wannabe power related to gas. Maybe they got inhebraited by gas price in Japan when they stopped the nuclear power plants post-Fukushima. After having built up excess production capacity, maybe they tried to find an output that aligned with their politics. Anyhow, it is appaling how much power (often destructive, alway short-term) and how small foresight the US can have.

What is your problem with the US exporting LNG? It's also not "the US" but a bunch of private companies. It is not "subsidized" as you claim. Most of the commercial risk is voluntarily taken by Asian and European majors that want to secure competitive supply. For Europe, it is an alternative source of supply on top of the pipeline infrastructure.

The bunch of private companies enjoyed and still enjoys decades of tax credit, effectively funneling public money into private pockets (most of the R&D that allowed shale gas production, as well as improved production from oil&gas field is provided by public universities and research institutions, with minimal funding from the companies). At the same time, they complain about subsidy to research and alternative energies.

The funding they receive is often backed at the federal level, at the end of chain. And if you think that the bankruptcy of >200 companies will have no impact on public resources, you must be either very rich or out of this world.

Yes, they went bust because prices collapsed. So what?

Many of the provider would have been gone bankrupt much earlier than current price decrease ... if they had properly accounted for environmental liabilities.

They didn't, they still burnt through cash (often giving away cash bonus and cash because of "key employee retention agreements" merely some days before filing for bankrupcy) and they left leaking wells. And huge holes in "too big to fail" banks'budgets, which will be accomodated through tax discount and other dealings at the federal level.

With gas prices as high as they are now, storage levels at 8-year lows and Asia sucking up all the LNG, Europe will pray for Nordstream 2 pumping loads of volume come next winter.

They maybe will but it is irrelevant to Nordstream 2 as existing lines are underutilized.

The winter and the demand spikes in Asia and Brazil certainly have dealt the Russians a very strong hand now to push through Nordstream 2 against the remaining opposition in Europe. So at the moment, it is them who decide what is relevant.

And yes, more pipelines with less transit countries make for a more secure supply.

The electricity generation in Germany is already 40% or more renewables. In Poland it is just 14%. Wind turbines aren't rocket science, they aren't even car industry cut throat competition and mass-manufacturing proficiency.
I blame poor governance behind this unnecessary over-reliance on coal burning for electricity generation. Damn, here Germany is really my role model.

Germany made an absolutely idiotic decision to phase out nuclear because of an earthquake 10000 km away. Now they are also seeing delays in renewable build out. And then if there is not enough wind or solar, they need to use gas and coal.

This winter coal actually regained its leadership in the generation stack in Germany ...

Let's not even start with Poland.