Recommended Posts

(edited)

Please get information about new numbers in November 2021

Quote

So #Russia's Gazprom pumped an average of 1.5bcm of #gas a day in November, the highest for the month in a decade and close to peak output, show calculations based on company’s preliminary operating data. #Russia Nov oil & gas results out gas output was up 5% y/y to 66.1bcm in Nov Gazprom producing 1.5bcm/d – close to max cap says VTBC. So little room to increase exports even if wanted to. 

But Gazprom export to Europe is down 24 % in Novermber - lowest numner in November since 2014

So Europe now can say that "Houston we have a problem?"

FFldlhBXwAM4DgL.png

FFldlhUXIAEs6_y.png

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas price windfall makes Gazprom patient over Nord Stream 2 delay.

By Vladimir Soldatkin and Oksana Kobzeva

Quote

 

MOSCOW, Dec 3 (Reuters) - Windfall revenues from high European gas prices mean Russia's Gazprom (GAZP.MM) will not start pumping gas through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline before certification and it will not press Germany to speed up the process, two sources said.

Pumping gas without the German approval would only incur a modest fine, but as Germany gets new political leadership and Russia's ties with the West are severely strained, a source at Gazprom said it was content to wait.

"We don't want to seek faster approval for the pipeline. Now it's Germany that is in charge," the source said on condition of anonymity.

The same source said that Gazprom, Russia's biggest tax payer, and the Kremlin were also keen to understand how ties with Germany's new government would evolve after the departure of Angela Merkel, who supported Nord Stream 2.

The Kremlin has said publicly it does not view as political the certification process, understands it is complex and that Russia must be patient.

The second source said Gazprom was "feeling great" and expected next year's gas market to remain as short of gas as it is now, keeping prices high. Gazprom's additional supplies were not yet onstream, the source said.

INFLATIONARY PRESSURES

Elevated electricity costs have forced some industries to curtail production and European consumers are paying more for home heating as winter approaches, adding to wider inflationary pressures.

The Russian gas export pipeline monopoly, which supplies 35% of European needs, says it is meeting contracted commitments - which top European clients have confirmed to Reuters.

But European politicians, under pressure from consumers who face a jump in winter heating bills, say Russia could supply more and is using gas prices as leverage in a dispute over the Gazprom-backed Nord Stream 2.

Gazprom, which declined to comment on Nord Stream 2, on Monday reported an all-time high quarterly net profit of 582 billion roubles ($8 billion) for the July-September quarter, reflecting high natural gas prices. It said it expected even higher earnings in coming months.

The pipeline, which will double Russian gas export capacities to Europe via the Baltic Sea, is fiercely opposed by Ukraine, which stands to lose lucrative transit fees, and by many Western politicians who say Moscow uses energy as a political weapon, something it denies.

Russia finished building the pipeline in September and filled one of its two lines with gas in expectation of approval from Germany.

But the regulator said in November it was suspending the certification process because the Swiss-based consortium behind the project needed to form a company under German law to get an operating licence.

The suspension could delay the start of operations until March next year, sources have said.

A Gazprom official told a conference call on Monday that the pipeline's operating company, Nord Stream 2 AG, has been in close contacts with the Germany's regulator but declined to provide timing for when deliveries could start.

 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/gas-price-windfall-makes-gazprom-patient-over-nord-stream-2-delay-2021-12-03/

Comment:

Germany imprudently aacording to Handelsblatt offered Russia to launch NS-2 even before the certification is completed, and this would help Europeans not to freeze in the coming winter .

 It turns out that the maximum fine would be only EUR 1 million, and in the form of a one-off.

So pay a million Euro and pump gas at will.

Considering the cost of the gas pipeline, as well as the profits from selling gas, 1 million Euro is a very small amount, so it would seem a good move to pay and pump 

But myself as a the head of Gazprom I  would not play this,

I have several reasons for it:

1. Immediately after the start of the NS-2, gas prices will drop sharply. So Gazprom will have to sell a lot of additional gas to earn what it earns today without launching the NS-2.

2. I have no doubts that with the launch of the gas pipeline without the necessary formalities, antirussian members of European Union  very  will bring Gazprom to court, which will surely pass a conviction, and will impose a very severe financial penalty ;

3. The media in the west would inflate the matter to the point of absurdity. They will not write about the fact that Russia saved Europe from freezing, but about the fact that Russia is a country that does not obey any rules.

Well, I think that there are people who are not more stupid than me, and they will not take advantage of this "opportunity", and they will patiently wait for the NS-2 certification to be completed, and the first gas deliveries via this pipeline will begin only when inventories becomes empty..

This will allow for an increase in gas supplies without a seasonal price cut.

It means that it should be clear what is the profit and loss balance is In November, for Russians.

Gazprom produced approximately 1.5 billion cubic meters of gas per day, which is roughly its peak, according to experts, due to investment restrictions after 2014.

Speaking directly in Russia, gas consumption increased by 10% this year and speaking directly theres is currntly NO ADITIONAL gas for Europe.

 Gazprom made a clean profit of $ 7.8 billion in the third quarter and 21 billion in three quarters, which is a new record for the three quarters

At the same time, in the third quarter the average price was $ 313 per 1,000 for 9 months it was $ 243, and in the fourth quarter Gazprom is very conservatively assuming 550 $.

Why conservatively.

Well, because the TTF spot price according to oilprice is more or less  $ 32 per mbbtu, i.e. on Wednesday only $ 1,160 per 1,000 m3

We count 550 -210 (average export price in 2019)  by more than 45 bcm in Q4 and we get the least and very conservative additional earnings from Gazprom, and how much it is losing on the current status quo..

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2021 at 12:06 AM, ronwagn said:

Will Deutschland follow through on the promise to Biden that they will fully develop LNG import facilities to help themselves and Europe to not be fully dependent on Russia?

This is VERY convoluted.  Huge part of German trade goes through Dutch ports, Rotterdam is perhaps the largest port in the world, and surely larger than any of German ports.  The Dutch surely can import EVERYTHING, including LNG.  Germans can import LNG for sure, some through facilities in Germany, some through Holland.  But what if the shippers of LNG do not want to send ships too Holland?

This is what happened this year.  In summer, the LNG prices in Asia shoot up, and LNG sailed there. Not only that, "Asians" (details are murky, but China, Japan and India were surely involved) signed long term contracts.  EU, in its wisdom, discourages such contracts.  Later NG spot prices doubled again on spot markets because most of the supply was locked in Asian contacts, and EU customers were left mostly with Algerian and Russian gas.

On the pipeline side of the supplies, Ukraine quarrels with Russia and escalates, Belarus quarrels with Poland and both escalate,  Algeria quarrels with Morocco, wouldn't you like a pipeline without any interesting news like that, just a simple, boring pipeline?

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Germany will install a LNG Port but those are rather small. LNG is not able to cover 50 Bio m3 in a year not to mention 200 Bio m3 for Europe. In Rotterdam those LNG Section is mostly empty.

There are about 35 LNG Terminal in the EU I'm sure they find one. Except of Spain most others are not very occupied.

Edited by Starschy
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Dont forget that TTF is consistenly about or above 30 $ per mbbtu.

I think that NS II will pay off even before it starts sending NG. Its one of these investments that give you more money while not working than when its launched.

For the time being Gazprom is satisfied because Poland pays spot TTF price and Ukraine pays Rotterdam+ fomula price (spot  TTF price plus some cash margin for speculators)

In November alone Ukraine paid 780 $ per 1.000 m3 according to newest statistics. Ukraine imports about 12 bilion m3 NG annually.

Poland in third quater 570 $ per 1.000 m3.

Blocking NS II doesnt really seems such a great idea for Poland and Ukraine any longer nowadays.

Edited by Tomasz
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 

7 hours ago, Tomasz said:

 

Blocking NS II doesnt really seems such a great idea for Poland and Ukraine any longer nowadays.

While there are negative aspects of blocking NS II, it remains a great idea.  In setting policies, it is important to avoid the worst possible outcomes.  And there exists a wide consensus, at least in USA, Poland and Ukraine (I cannot easily trace opinion in other countries) that the worst possible outcome is making Putin happy.  For example, in Poland, the ultimate argument in a political discussion is that "you make Putin happy", regardless which side is arguing (with small exception that count as political fringe).  And as Russia insists that blocking NS II is bad, not blocking would make Putin happy.

I guess that Tomasz may rise to the challenge and argue that the delay of NS II, started by Trump but currently in hands of European regulators made Putin happy, because it enabled the most epic squeeze play in recent memory, with Gazprom and Putin on the winner side.  In other words, while there should not be a price tag for freedom, paying that price to your opponent may be a bad choice.

By the way, the price of freedom seems pretty steep for UK too.  At long last, they are free from EU slavery, and now their electricity costs 2-3 times more than in continental Europe.  With pretty woeful ripple effect, like shortage of frozen CO2, while transportation of frozen foods depends on frozen CO2, and ordinary diet nowadays depends on frozen products.  And there must be a lot of products that cannot be produced at such prices of electricity and NG.

It would be interesting to know how things got so bad in UK.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Piotr Berman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

25 minutes ago, Piotr Berman said:

 

While there are negative aspects of blocking NS II, it remains a great idea.  In setting policies, it is important to avoid the worst possible outcomes.  And there exists a wide consensus, at least in USA, Poland and Ukraine (I cannot easily trace opinion in other countries) that the worst possible outcome is making Putin happy.  For example, in Poland, the ultimate argument in a political discussion is that "you make Putin happy", regardless which side is arguing (with small exception that count as political fringe).  And as Russia insists that blocking NS II is bad, not blocking would make Putin happy.

I guess that Tomasz may rise to the challenge and argue that the delay of NS II, started by Trump but currently in hands of European regulators made Putin happy, because it enabled the most epic squeeze play in recent memory, with Gazprom and Putin on the winner side.  In other words, while there should not be a price tag for freedom, paying that price to your opponent may be a bad choice.

By the way, the price of freedom seems pretty steep for UK too.  At long last, they are free from EU slavery, and now their electricity costs 2-3 times more than in continental Europe.  With pretty woeful ripple effect, like shortage of frozen CO2, while transportation of frozen foods depends on frozen CO2, and ordinary diet nowadays depends on frozen products.  And there must be a lot of products that cannot be produced at such prices of electricity and NG.

It would be interesting to know how things got so bad in UK.

 

 

 

 

If you run a bussiness in Poland your current bill would look like that

https://tge.pl/gaz-rdn

Price for 11/12/2021 490 zlotys per MWH - 120 $ per Mwh (1 $ is equivalent of 4,08 zloties)

1 Mwh is equivalent of 91 m3 of  high quality NG  (Gazprom)

You can also use low quality NG (high azotined) 110 m3

Doesnt seem cheap as for today. 

Well, our head of the central bank himself said that we have so much money that no crisis or rejecting our subsidies is not a threat to us. Rather, we will be give loans to  Europe in a moment.

My wife, with a salary frozen for years in the state sector, would not agree with that , but who will forbid the rich.

Assuming such a price for the whole year, Poland imports about 15 billion m3 of gas annually and would spend about 17 billion dollars a year on NG imports.

We also import about 600,000 barrels of crude oil per day, or some 220 million barrels per year.

We count the Ural crude oil for $ 75, which is already rather high price in the last few years, and it is $ 16.5 billion in full year

Only I see the small problem that with such prices, thanks to the master strategy of PGNiG, the total cost of gas imports for a year would be actually higher than the cost of importing all crude oil used in Poland?

 With this additional, very important reservation, we use relatively much less NG than oil as a country of 35-40 million inhabitants located in Europe.

This is due to the civilization backwardness of the country with little gasification and many old cars because 1/3 of Poles are excluded from public transport in terms of communication.

And so, more or less Poland  wants to part with Russian gas but I am afraid that Russian gas is not going to part with Poland

You can also always ask the Americans and propose an even higher price than the Chinese.

Today you have to bid over $ 36 per mbbtu, which is a little over $ 1,300 for 1,000 m3 and the gas of freedom will flow to Poland.

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Poland/Ukraine need are couple more nuclear reactors if they actually want to be free of Russian Gas. 

But I guess admitting they need nuclear power is too rational with the idiot idea that Chernobyl will happen again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 12/11/2021 at 5:07 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

What Poland/Ukraine need are couple more nuclear reactors if they actually want to be free of Russian Gas. 

The polish Energy problem is fare more complex as some EU politicians mean.

First you have to understand that those coal power stations not only generate power -they are producing heat for 71% of the polish households (district heating). Shutting down means freezing.

At the moment all larger Cities there are in lower minus Celsius degrees.

 

https://forum-energii.eu/public/upload/articles/files/Heating in Poland.pdf

Edited by Starschy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 hours ago, Starschy said:

The polish Energy problem is fare more complex as some EU politicians mean.

First you have to understand that those coal power stations not only generate power -they are producing heat for 71% of the polish households (district heating). Shutting down means freezing.

At the moment all larger Cities there are in lower minus Celsius degrees.

I am not sure if "district heating" share is that big, but it can be.  When I lived in Warsaw, only old houses had its own heating, the rest were supplied with hot water from two co-generation power stations, and once one of them went down because of cold.  More precisely, coal supply was interrupted because of blizzards, and the coal heap in one of the power station became too small, so coal powder froze and became hard like a rock.  So in our apartment we had 3 C, no bad! still with running water, so we could survive with extra blankets and sweaters.

However, even in big cities, the co-generation power stations are smallish, the bulk of the power comes from huge power stations, and gradually they can be replaced with nuclear.  Perhaps the best place to start would be Turow where there is a huge open pit mine, and that site is surrounded by Czechia and Germany.  In Europe, annoying neighbors is the most reliable way of reducing internal controversy about the location.  Swedes build one plant as close to Denmark as they could, Czechs next to Austria, Slovaks next to Hungary, and France lined the border with Germany with nuclear plants.  This way it becomes a matter of national pride: e.g. former overlord countries, Austria for Czechs, Hungary for Slovaks, get thank-you gifts for the years of overlordship.  BTW, Belarus located its nuclear power on Lithuanian border.

But in Poland there was a stupid idea to locate nuclear power on the sea cost, favorite for vacations and far from any neighbors.  So it was "very controversial" and abandoned.   Next government tried to balance the budget without increases taxes too much, good idea but investments in energy were pushed to the future.  The current government is populist and "contrarian", so invested in coal power, including a project that was abandoned.  Only very recently they figured that nuclear power cannot be avoided -- EU has a system of CO2 permits that makes coal increasingly expensive.  But which supplier should they choose?

For reasons that elude me, the French lost the expertise to build nuclear power, so the choice was roughly American and Russian.  Hungary and Slovakia went for Russian which is modern and twice cheaper than American.  They even build it on time.  So Poland has to order from Westinghouse.  Combined with military orders and budget constraints, I think that Poland should order something from Russia, perhaps nukes?  Tanks could delayed...  NATO standards make European armies small in my opinion, perhaps beneficial...  Anyway, the current Polish government started with decent ideas, like expanding military with territorial defense (a cheap option), cancelling order for French helicopters, ordering 100 expensive limousines -- look spiffy at a NATO meeting, and compared with tanks and helicopters, saving a lot of money.  But recently they are getting a lot of expensive ideas, quarrel with EU and loosing subsidies, getting wacked because of winning a lawsuit against Gazprom, so investments in nuclear power will be hard.

If there was an intelligent government on the horizon, an affordable solution exists.  Contract Russians or Belarus to buy nuclear power, the power stations would be build across the border, and paid through a contract of fix purchases through 10-15 years.   They actually proposed that, and the conditions could be copied from Russian contracts with Hungary and Turkey.  Because Poland needs more than 10 GW, i.e. at least 10 big reactors, I guess at least 6 should be located within the country, perhaps where the gigantic coal power stations are now -- transmission capacity already exists, and 4 contracted for the faster start,

But if we go for American nukes, the faster start is not possible, the cost doubles, and construction time probably increases too.  

 

 

 

 

Edited by Piotr Berman
typo
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Piotr Berman said:

I am not sure if "district heating" share is that big, but it can be.  When I lived in Warsaw, only old houses had its own heating, the rest were supplied with hot water from two co-generation power stations, and once one of them went down because of cold.  More precisely, coal supply was interrupted because of blizzards, and the coal heap in one of the power station became too small, so coal powder froze and became hard like a rock.  So in our apartment we had 3 C, no bad! still with running water, so we could survive with extra blankets and sweaters.

However, even in a big cities, the co-generation power stations are smallish, the bulk of the power comes from huge power stations, and gradually they can be replaced with nuclear.  Perhaps the best place would be Turow where there is a huge open pit mine, and that site is surrounded by Czechia and Germany.  In Europe, annoying neighbors is the most reliable way of reducing internal controversy about the location.  Swedes build one plant as close to Denmark as they could, Czechs next to Austria, Slovaks next to Hungary, and France lined the border with Germany with nuclear plants.  This way it becomes a matter of national pride: e.g. former overlord countries, Austria for Czechs, Hungary for Slovaks, get thank-you gifts for the years of overlordship.  BTW, Belarus located its nuclear power on Lithuanian border.

But in Poland there was a stupid idea to locate nuclear power on the sea cost, favorite for vacations and far from any neighbors.  So it was "very controversial" and abandoned.   Next government tried to balance the budget without increases taxes too much, good idea but investments in energy were pushed to the future.  The current government is populist and "contrarian", so invested in coal power, including a project that was abandoned.  Only very recently they figured that nuclear power cannot be avoided -- EU has a system of CO2 permits that makes coal increasingly expensive.  But which supplier should they choose?

For reasons that elude me, the French lost the expertise to build nuclear power, so the choice was roughly American and Russian.  Hungary and Slovakia went for Russian which is modern and twice cheaper than American.  They even build it on time.  So Poland has to order from Westinghouse.  Combined with military orders and budget constraints, I think that Poland should order something from Russia, perhaps nukes?  Tanks could delayed...  NATO standards make European armies small in my opinion, perhaps beneficial...  Anyway, the current Polish government started with decent ideas, like expanding military with territorial defense (a cheap option), cancelling order for French helicopters, ordering 100 expensive limousines -- look spiffy at a NATO meeting, and compared with tanks and helicopters, saving a lot of money.  But recently they are getting a lot of expensive ideas, quarrel with EU and loosing subsidies, getting wacked because of winning a lawsuit against Gazprom, so investments in nuclear power will be hard.

If there was an intelligent government on the horizon, an affordable solution exists.  Contract Russians or Belarus to buy nuclear power, the power stations would be build across the border, and paid through a contract of fix purchases through 10-15 years.   They actually proposed that, and the conditions could be copied from Russian contracts with Hungary and Turkey.  Because Poland needs more than 10 GW, i.e. at least 10 big reactors, I guess at least 6 should be located within the country, perhaps where the gigantic coal power stations are now -- transmission capacity already exists, and 4 contracted for the faster start,

But if we go for American nukes, the faster start is not possible, the cost doubles, and construction time probably increases too.  

 

 

 

 

Thats is interesting. I actually thought the opposite - Americans lost their competence and France is far ahead in terms of building nuclear....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gazprom's production from the beginning of the year to mid-December increased by 14.2% compared to the same period last year, to 490.4 billion cubic meters of gas, according to the company's Telegram channel

"From January 1 to December 15, 2021, according to preliminary data, Gazprom produced 490.4 billion cubic meters of gas. This is 14.2% (61.1 billion cubic meters) more than last year." , - the message says.

It is also noted that the company has increased gas supplies from the gas transportation system to the domestic market by 14.5%, or 30.2 billion cubic meters, over the specified period.At the end of August, the company reported that in 2021 it expects the maximum gas production in the last 10 years - more than 510 billion cubic meters. In October, Gazprom clarified that it retains its forecast.

For 11.5 months, Gazprom increased gas exports to non-CIS countries by 4.8% - up to 178.1 billion cubic meters, the company said.

"From January 1 to December 15, 2021, according to preliminary data ... export to non-CIS countries" Gazprom "increased to 178.1 billion cubic meters, which is 4.8% (8.2 billion cubic meters) more than in the same period of 2020, "the company says in its official Telegram channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My calculations show that now 42 million m3 of gas flows through the power of Siberia per day - that is since mid-September, a capacity of 15 billion m3 of gas has been achieved per year (counting 351 transmission days - 2 technical breaks for 7 days).

In mid-September, 5.6 bcm of gas was transported from the beginning of the year.

At the end of November, 9 bcm of gas (13.4 bcm of gas from the beginning of operation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nord Stream 2 is being prepared for the start of deliveries Gazprom starts filling the second string of the gas pipeline.

Quote

 

The operator of the Nord Stream 2 AG project was able to carry out technical certification of the second string of the Nord Stream 2 export gas pipeline. Now the company has announced the start of filling it with gas. But this is still not enough to start deliveries. The operator also needs to be certified as an independent operator, and this procedure, according to the German Federal Grid Agency, can only be completed in the second half of 2022.

Gazprom has begun filling the second string of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with gas , the Nord Stream 2 AG project operator said on December 17. Gas filling of the first line began on 4 October. In fact, the gas filling procedure means that all the conditions for commissioning have been met for the second string of Nord Stream 2, including an independent technical certification.

“Similar to the procedure carried out on the first line, the second line will be gradually filled with gas in order to achieve the required volume and pressure levels,” explains Nord Stream 2 AG.

The company notes that earlier on the second line, commissioning works were successfully completed to control the integrity of the gas pipeline. It can take about two weeks to fill a string with gas.

Let us remind you that the Danish section of the Russian export pipeline on the bottom of the Baltic Sea was the last to be built - the local authorities later than others gave Gazprom permission to lay it. After that, the United States imposed sanctions against pipe-laying vessels, and later against other companies providing services for the construction of Nord Stream 2, including against companies that carried out technical certification. Because of this, the Norwegian certification company Det Norske Veritas - Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL) left the project. Which company carried out the technical certification of the first and second lines was not publicly announced.

At the same time, it is still unclear when gas will start flowing through Nord Stream 2 into the European gas transportation system.

For this, Gazprom also needs to certify Nord Stream 2 AG as an independent operator - without this, according to the norms of the Third Energy Package, the pipe cannot be loaded by more than 50%. The design capacity of Nord Stream 2 is 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year. On the eve of the Federal Grid Agency of Germany announced that it does not expect a decision on the certification of Nord Stream 2 in the first half of 2022.

 

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5139163

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The announcement of the new German Foreign Minister Annalena Berbock that the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline cannot yet be launched, since the German regulator suspended its certification due to “non-compliance with the requirements of European energy legislation,” caused some confusion not only in the public field. but also among market participants. Gas prices in Europe soared by 10%, exceeding $ 1.3 thousand per 1,000 cubic meters. Obviously, some of the traders took the words of the German minister, firstly, for a certain new position, which, secondly, reflects the opinion of the German government, which recently took office.

 

Indeed, Annalena Berbock's statements stand in stark contrast to those of the previous government, Angela Merkel, who were traditionally neutral or even sympathetic towards Nord Stream 2. And as the leader of the Green faction in parliament, Ms. Berbock sharply criticized the project. Now journalists are trying at every opportunity to catch her on contradictions, which, apparently, caused such an incautious statement. But, in essence, the minister did not say anything new: the certification of Nord Stream 2 was suspended a month ago due to bureaucratic formalities. Regarding compliance with legal requirements, the German regulator has yet to make a decision on this issue.

But we must also admit that there is uncertainty around Nord Stream 2. In the past, Germany and Russia entered into an informal deal in which Germany helped Gazprom build a gas pipeline to get rid of transit dependence on Ukraine, and Russia agreed to continue this transit, albeit to a lesser extent. Both sides tried to fulfill these obligations honestly. But due to US sanctions, the construction of the pipeline was delayed, and the guarantor of the deal from Germany, Angela Merkel, resigned as chancellor before Nord Stream 2 went live. The question now is whether the government of Olaf Scholz can actually reaffirm its commitment to the spirit of that agreement and ensure that the pipeline is put into operation. I'm pretty sure it will.

If this does not happen, the consequences, in my opinion, are quite obvious - in 2024 the contract for transit through Ukraine will not be extended, and the Germans will have to choose whether to receive gas through the already built Nord Stream 2 or not to receive it at all. As we can see this year, Europe's dependence on Russian gas has not diminished in the least. And it's hard for me to imagine that any German politician would prefer to deprive his voters of heat and electricity for the sake of abstract obligations to a third country.

 

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5129023

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Export of "Gazprom" is growing by China The company's deliveries to the EU may fall to a minimum since 2015

Quote

 

Gazprom's exports to the EU in 2021 may fall to their lowest level in six years. Deliveries may amount to about 145 billion cubic meters, which is even inferior to the values of the pandemic 2020. Based on the current rate, the company's total exports to non-CIS countries may grow by 3%, to 184.7 billion cubic meters, but will be provided by the planned increase in supplies to China, as well as a sharp increase in gas demand in Turkey in the first half of the year. The decline in supplies to the EU was caused by a 7.5-fold increase in gas prices since the beginning of the year.

_2021d229-09-01.jpg
 

Gazprom's exports to non-CIS countries for 11.5 months of 2021 increased by 4.8% compared to last year, to 178 billion cubic meters, the company said on December 15. The rate of export has been rapidly slowing down in recent months: in January-September, supplies exceeded last year's values by 15.3%, and in January-November - by only 6.6%. At the same time, in December, despite the onset of winter, Gazprom exports on average 440 million cubic meters per day, which is only slightly more than November's 423 million cubic meters per day. For comparison, in 2018–2019, the company's exports in the winter months amounted to 540–600 million cubic meters per day.

At the end of the year, if the current rates of supplies remain, Gazprom will export about 184.7 billion cubic meters, which is in line with the company's forecast of 183-185 billion cubic meters. This will also be higher than the result of the pandemic 2020 - 179 billion cubic meters. At the same time, the excess of last year's level was provided solely by the growth of supplies to China via the Power of Siberia gas pipeline from last year's 4.1 billion cubic meters to, according to Kommersant's estimates, 10.2 billion cubic meters this year. Thus, Gazprom's export to the European non-CIS countries will stagnate this year.

If we take into account only supplies to the EU countries (that is, exclude Turkey), then they will completely decrease to about 145-145.5 billion cubic meters. This is the lowest level since 2015, although far from the lowest in history. Turkey this year, on the contrary, may sharply increase purchases from Gazprom to about 26 billion cubic meters, returning to the average level of supplies in 2012-2017.

The decline in purchases of Russian gas to the EU began in August and has grown rapidly in recent months as spot and futures prices for gas in Europe have increased, which now exceed $ 1,500 per thousand cubic meters. Instead of buying gas from Gazprom at rapidly rising prices, consumers prefer to pick it up from storage ( see Kommersant, December 7). In addition, part of the European industry has reduced the use of gas or stopped altogether, which also affects demand. Nevertheless, Andrey Zotov, Deputy Head of the Gazprom Export Department, said that the company in 2022 does not expect a sharp decline in selections relative to the current level. "Consumers prefer to take gas that was pumped into storage in the summer at a lower price, but this situation cannot last forever and they will have to return to direct purchases from suppliers," Ron Smith from BCS quoted Reuters as saying. This factor may increase Gazprom's supplies in March-April 2022, when storage facilities in the EU are empty.

At the same time, Gazprom's production continues to grow due to the sharply increased domestic demand and this year may reach about 513 billion cubic meters, having increased by 13% by 2020 and repeating the 2011 record.

 

https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5130731

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Tomasz said:

Berbock is not relevant for this case. The head is Olaf Scholz as Chancellor no matter what.

Nordstream 2 is by the regulation Authority.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Volume for Gazprom is this year not that important as prizes are high and Europe is pressing every m3 out of Storage. This will have impact for 2022 the 1st Trimester.

2020. 1000 m3 avg price 250 USD

2021 1000 m3 avg price about 700 USD

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU Commission wants to ban long-term natural gas contracts "to end the reliance on Russia"

The EU Commission is:

-actively sabotaging energy security

-interfering into EU members' supply decisions

-blocking a geostrategic energy alliance with Russia

You'd be forgiven for thinking that the European Union is deliberately trying to push Russia into China's arms.

The EU commission believes their own propaganda so they continue with a strategy that damages Europe more than it does Russia. After 7 years they haven't learned their mistakes so don't expect any changes soon.

At its own long term expense.

Geopolitical hara-kiri.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tomasz said:

The EU Commission wants to ban long-term natural gas contracts "to end the reliance on Russia"

The EU Commission is:

-actively sabotaging energy security

-interfering into EU members' supply decisions

-blocking a geostrategic energy alliance with Russia

You'd be forgiven for thinking that the European Union is deliberately trying to push Russia into China's arms.

The EU commission believes their own propaganda so they continue with a strategy that damages Europe more than it does Russia. After 7 years they haven't learned their mistakes so don't expect any changes soon.

At its own long term expense.

Geopolitical hara-kiri.

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/12/14/europe-plans-to-end-long-term-gas-import-contracts-as-prices-soar

key word:  extended beyond 2049 

imho, this is as much phasing out fossil fuels as anything else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

So now we have a TTF price of 47.37 $ per mbbtu according to oilprice.com and if BNetzA's decision to suspend certification was at least in part political - a nod towards the US - it doesn't appear to have paid off, as Senate will vote before 14 Jan on legislation to sanction NS2, courtesy of Cruz. Certainly an awkward vote for Dems escaped over NDAA 2022.

So tell me how much, according to American politicians, we should pay in Europe for cutting off Europe from trade with Russia?

$ 2,000 per 1,000 m3 is expensive enough?

 Or does America value Europe's independence from establishing trade relations with Russia higher?

At 2.000 $ per 1.000 m3 you may lower your trade deficit  considerably.

The US is just deliberately trying to stir up tensions between Europe & Russia & undermine European stability & prosperity.

 

 

 

FGy9SI-XIAUBI-y.jpg

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, Europeans must finally decide whether buying gas from the Russians is in their interest or is it harmful for them?

In Europe, the resources of this raw material are running out - the Netherlands will not sell it next year, and Norway does not have enough gas to cover the demand of the entire continent.

Other solutions are only temporary.

Russia has 25% of the world's gas resources, the second is Iran 17%, the third Qatar 12%.

Why would Putin want to start NS2 now, if the increase in gas prices has already made Russia pay back the costs of its construction, and the increased gas will only cause a drop in its prices?

Why is Putin to worry that Europeans are complaining about the high costs of heating when European politicians such as Annalena Baerbock or Polish politicians who are fighting this gas pipeline do not care about it?

Putin is doing what he should - he is tightening cooperation with China, including an alternative recipient for Russian gas.

Also in the event that, in response to Western sanctions, it will have to launch counter-sanctions from Russia, i.e. stop exporting its raw materials to the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Tomasz said:

In any case, Europeans must finally decide whether buying gas from the Russians is in their interest or is it harmful for them?

In Europe, the resources of this raw material are running out - the Netherlands will not sell it next year, and Norway does not have enough gas to cover the demand of the entire continent.

Other solutions are only temporary.

Russia has 25% of the world's gas resources, the second is Iran 17%, the third Qatar 12%.

Why would Putin want to start NS2 now, if the increase in gas prices has already made Russia pay back the costs of its construction, and the increased gas will only cause a drop in its prices?

Why is Putin to worry that Europeans are complaining about the high costs of heating when European politicians such as Annalena Baerbock or Polish politicians who are fighting this gas pipeline do not care about it?

Putin is doing what he should - he is tightening cooperation with China, including an alternative recipient for Russian gas.

Also in the event that, in response to Western sanctions, it will have to launch counter-sanctions from Russia, i.e. stop exporting its raw materials to the West.

Hi Tomasz, why did Poland has recent price jump? As far as I know Poland use a lot of coal and its energy prices reletively low (in EU)

 

image.thumb.png.d149ffafe17bc6b412d6728ea429fb62.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dukeNukem said:

Hi Tomasz, why did Poland has recent price jump? As far as I know Poland use a lot of coal and its energy prices reletively low (in EU)

 

image.thumb.png.d149ffafe17bc6b412d6728ea429fb62.png

Simple as it is - a new  gold gold trade for speculators- Co2 emissions.

Do you know famous or infamous Pierrre Andurand?  Yeap you know him. This guy wants 100 euros

Why not  if  he is one of best oil traders in last 20 years?

One goverment get easy money from selling Co2 emission rights  and speculators earn tons of cash

We have relative now one of most expensive electricity prices in the world

Live sucks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.