EU
grants Russian gas giant go-ahead to expand in Europe, politics aside
The
timing is awkward.
By ANCA GURZU AND
SARA STEFANINI 10/28/16, 8:43 PM CET Updated 10/28/16, 8:52 PM CET
Despite deepening
strain between Moscow and the West, the European Commission has given
approval to a Russian gas giant to carry more gas along a pipeline in
Germany — drawing the ire of Ukraine and Poland.
The Commission’s
Friday night green light comes in response to a years-long debate
over whether Russia’s state-owned Gazprom should be permitted to
use more of the pipeline.
Gazprom said the
approval would allow the company to deliver more gas to a region
struggling to make up for waning home-grown energy supplies.
Opponents,
especially in Central and Eastern Europe, counter that it’s a
political move aimed at consolidating Russia’s grip on their energy
markets — especially when coupled with the Commission’s
willingness to settle an antitrust investigation against Gazprom.
“My gut feeling
tells me this is a more of a realpolitik kind of deal rather than a
real willingness to push it through on the Commission’s part,”
said Sijbren de Jong, an analyst at the Hague Centre for Strategic
Studies.
The timing is
awkward.
Granting Gazprom’s
request could hardly come at a more politically difficult moment for
EU officials, with relations between Russia and the West deeply
strained over the Kremlin’s military activities in Ukraine and
Syria, allegations of Russian meddling in European and American
elections and internal tension among European leaders over how to
deal with Moscow and whether to maintain and even expand sanctions
against it.
It also comes just
days after Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager met Gazprom
officials to discuss a possible settlement of the separate antitrust
case in which Gazprom is accused of using its market power to bully
Central and Eastern European gas customers.
Brussels framed its
approval Friday of more capacity along the OPAL pipeline as one that
will provide Western Europe with a replacement for declining supply
from the North Sea and Netherlands, where gas fields are running low
and operations have taken a hit from the oil price slump.
EU officials
stressed that the approval comes with safeguards that could actually
make access to the OPAL line in Germany more competitive than it is
now — if companies are interested in taking it. They batted away
suggestions of any political implications from the decision.
“The extra volumes
Gazprom might ship through Nord Stream 1 and OPAL are needed,” an
EU source said. “There is demand for more gas” in the region.
The countries that
stand to lose because of the approval, including Poland and Ukraine,
don’t see it that way. They worry that giving Gazprom more room to
ship gas to Germany will only increase the company’s dominance in
the bloc.
Polish and Ukrainian
state-owned oil and gas companies objected to the move even before
the Commission announced its decision. Both countries could lose
lucrative revenue if Gazprom sends more gas through the OPAL line
because it would be able to divert the supply it now ships through
their territories.
Poland’s PGNiG
added that it’s also ready to sue both the Commission and the
German energy regulator, on the grounds that the approval violates
the EU’s Third Energy Package of rules barring pipeline operators
from discriminating against rival companies.
In many ways, the
debate over granting Gazprom increased use of the OPAL pipeline was
less a test of European versus Russian interests and more of a
tug-of-war among EU countries over those transit fees.
“I don’t see any
fundamental change in the behavior of Gazprom. It is a company
representing the interests of the state,” said Petras Auštrevičius,
a Lithuanian Liberal MEP. “I wish the European Union were less
dependent on Gazprom and had more diversified suppliers. That’s why
any increase of gas from Gazprom is an increase in that tendency.”
What Gazprom can do
Friday’s decision
allows Gazprom to use nearly all of the OPAL pipeline’s capacity,
which delivers gas from the Nord Stream 1 link with Russia. OPAL can
carry up to 36.5 billion cubic meters of gas. Until now, Gazprom has
been allowed to use up to 50 percent of the pipeline, thanks to a
2009 exemption to the Third Energy Package.
Gazprom will be able
to ship about 10 billion cubic meters of additional gas to Europe.
That’s the same amount the EU wants to draw from Azerbaijan by 2020
along a new pipeline in southern Europe aimed specifically at
diminishing the bloc’s reliance on Russian gas.
The safeguards
Brussels attached to the approval for Gazprom’s OPAL use are
designed to ensure competitors get preferential access to a slice of
that pipeline’s capacity if they want it.
Whether any
companies are interested in using the OPAL line to carry more gas
from Russia to Europe is in doubt, de Jong said.
“In the end,
Gazprom also wanted to show … there is competition. But at the end
of the day, the European Commission should fully understand that in
that part of the European gas market there is just one producer,”
he said.
The EU source also
shot down concerns that the OPAL decision will disrupt the Ukrainian
transit route “in the short- or medium-term,” saying Gazprom’s
gas shipments to Europe are bound by specific routes and delivery
points.
The decision might
also give Gazprom less incentive to build the Nord Stream 2 pipeline,
which is meant to double the capacity of Nord Stream 1, experts said.
The idea has sparked huge controversy in Brussels and Central and
Eastern Europe, worried that Russia would use its gas clout as a
political weapon.
“If the Nord
Stream 1 pipeline becomes fully operational, why would you then need
to double the entire capacity?” de Jong said.
Gazprom, however,
might not see it that way. It has anticipated permission to use more
of the OPAL line since well before it announced plans to build a
second Nord Stream line, a source close to the discussions said.
“The whole idea is
that Nord Stream 2 was always developed with the thought that sooner
or later Gazprom would get more use of Nord Stream 1.”
David Herszenhorn
and Nicholas Hirst contributed reporting.
Authors:
Anca Gurzu and Sara
Stefanini
.webp)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário