Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tom Kirkman

How much cheaper is Russian natural gas for Germany than LNG from the United States with the NordStream 2 pipeline?

Recommended Posts

Penned by Rudolph Huber, one of my EU LinkedIn connections whose opinions I regularly read.

How much cheaper is Russian natural gas for Germany than LNG from the United States with the NordStream 2 pipeline?

The question supposes that Russian gas by pipeline will, in any case, be cheaper than LNG which is false. The truth is much more complex.

We need to sort out where the Russian gas comes from. If it's from a legacy field like Urengoy and flowing through legacy pipelines, it will surely be cheaper to produce and transport than most LNG. The reason is simple - the investments in those infrastructures are fully written off which means that they operate on breadcrumbs. The kink is that those fields are close to depletion so they cannot be counted on very long anymore.

If on the other side the gas comes from newly developed fields on the Yamal peninsula, they still bear the full cost of development and construction and this was not a cheap resource to be developed so I strongly question the economics behind that.  ...

 

 

... On a pure cost basis, Russia also does not hold the best hand. Once the legacy fields are bye-bye (that should happen between 2022 and 2026) their cost basis swells to quite painful proportions. It's not cheap to develop gas fields in the Arctic.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

But if the Arctic melts.... Siberia is currently spitting methane into the atmosphere like a fat man eating beans.  Natural gas is literally seeping out of the earth and into the sky.  I think you can collect a lot using just bottles.  

Edited by Zhong Lu
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

I would generally suggest spending some time on official site of Oxford Institute for Energy Studies

https://www.oxfordenergy.org

IMHO full costs of US LNG are as mentioned:

- HH Price breakeven price  - lets say 2,5-3 $ per mbbtu, projected to rise to about 4 $ in 2030 by EIA

- additional charge in Chenieres contract 15 % of HH price -0,5 $ per mbbtu

-cost of transport NG to terminal - 0,5 $ per mbbtu  its rather rarely mentioned but it fact you need to spend some money to send your NG to terminal

- cost of condensation - 3 $ per mbbtu, some says you can lower it in a future thank to new technnology

- cost of sea transport to the gas terminal in Europe - 0,6 $ per mbbtu

- cost of regasification 0,5 $ pe mbbtu, but according to some sources in Poland for example about 1,2 $ -it depends on technology

So it means IMHO that full cost breakeven is about 7,6  per mbbtu - 268 $ per 1.000 cubic meters. You can of course resign from additional standard Cheniere charge - it will be about 250 $ per mbbtu.

I dont know what will be future HH gas price but I think that according to EIA about 3 $ raising to about 4 $ in 2030.

 

Russian NG breakeven:

As far as I know according to Kommersant- biggest russian bussiness newspaper breakeven for Gazprom at Bovanenkovo field is projected at about 155 $ per 1000  (4,4 $ per mbbtu)  - it is a source for Nord Stream II. 

I think you can find it rather reliable information because last year Gazprom in a situation of biggest CAPEX in history because of finishing at the same time  both Turkish Stream, Nord Stream II and Power of Syberia still made a profit about 25 bilions dolars for full year. 

Average price for Europe last year was 245 $ per mbbtu this year is projected to be about 213 $.

But during  2015,2016 and 2017 average gas price connected with Brent price in Europe was much lower - about 160-180 $ per 1.000 m3 and Gazprom still made a full-year profit of about 12-15 bilions  with big CAPEX because of building 3 big pipelines at the same time.

For next couple of years Gazprom capex will be significantly lower - GAZPROM is not gonna build another big pipeline in couple of year but instead plan to invest in LNG capacity. 

I think only west pipiline to China is planned- but thanks to developed field and much shorter distance its said be alot cheaper than Power of Syberia

 

But I agree that future LNG can be compepetive with pipe gas- but only in an environment of relatively high oil price

Its believed long-term Gazprom contracts to Europe and China  are about 10-12 % of Brent per mbbtu. I find future Brent price about 70 $ so you can compete with Gazprom

 Its of course a lot more complicated price formula- some part is connected with oil price, some part with spot gas price in Europe but its said to be about lets say from 9% of brent to 12 % of Brent depended which country we are talking about.

So if we take 10 % and Brent price of about 70 $ it means future gas price to Europe and China about 247 $.

Last year Brent was about 71 $ and gas about 245 $ so it looks quite right.

It would mean average European gas price about 9,7 % of Brent.

Average Brent price in 2017 was 54 $ gas price 198 $  - 10.3 % of brent

In 2019 lets say 64 $ and gas price 213 $ maybe a little big higher thanks to late upswing of Brent price in IV quater.   - about 9,4 % of Brent

But it doesnt change the simple reality that Gazprom can sell NG with much lower price even about 160 $ and still make a decent profit and you cant do that because you have a breakeven that is about 100 $ higher.

Its why Russia is sometimes called Saudi Arabia of gas market  or swing producer.

Average cost of production in Russia is nowadays lower than 1 $ per mbbtu especially after rouble devaluation.

I think maybe only Iran also has also such low gas production cost but is under sanctions.

So I think scenario where LNG can really compete with pipe gas is also desired by Russia- its means relatively high oil price and relatively high gas price- higher than after 2014/

Quote

i

Shrinking surplus – the outlook for Russia’s spare gas productive capacity

The concept that Russia has a huge amount of spare gas production capacity has been a key theme for the European gas market since 2012, when Gazprom’s long-anticipated launch of the Bovanenkovo field on the Yamal peninsula coincided with a fall in demand for its gas at home and abroad.  The result was that Russia had at maximum around 200bcm of spare capacity on an annual basis, providing it with huge supply flexibility and a large source of gas available at low short-run marginal cost. However, since 2016 the situation has started to change on the demand side. The rapidly increasing call on Gazprom’s gas in Europe in 2017-18, along with some recovery in Russia’s domestic gas consumption, have increased demand for Gazprom’s gas.  The supply side responded, but the ramp-up of production at Russia’s new gas fields to planned levels and higher output at balancing fields in response to higher demand have reduced the cushion of spare productive capacity.  At the same time, the natural decline of production at older gas fields has been taking its toll, so that by the end of 2018 worries about the availability of Russian gas for meeting peak demand on a seasonal basis have returned. This paper outlines the key dynamics that are changing the balance and assesses the future risks.

 

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/shrinking-surplus-outlook-russias-spare-gas-productive-capacity/?v=9b7d173b068d

Some additional links - there are a lot more on this website so I only choose related to NG and LNG in last year

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/russian-lng-becoming-a-global-force-2/?v=9b7d173b068d

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/russian-lng-becoming-a-global-force/?v=9b7d173b068d

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/short-medium-and-long-term-outlook-for-lng/?v=9b7d173b068d

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/oxford-energy-forum-lng-in-transition-from-uncertainty-to-uncertainty-issue-119/?v=9b7d173b068d

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/oxford-energy-podcast-russian-gas-export-strategy/?v=9b7d173b068d

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/oxford-energy-podcast-lng-supply-chains-development-lng-shipping-fuel-northern-europe/?v=9b7d173b068d

https://www.oxfordenergy.org/publications/oxford-energy-podcast-lng-plant-cost-reductions-2014-18/?v=9b7d173b068d

 

Edited by Tomasz
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that cooling natural gas into LNG takes about 30% of the energy that is stored in the gas itself meaning you are left with 70% or so of the original energy. Or another way to look at it is you need to use 30% of your gas to cool the other 70% into LNG. Storage and transport might also be included in that estimate. I dont have hard numbers.  To a layman such as myself that seems like a pretty big disadvantage right out of the gate. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Keith boyd said:

I read somewhere that cooling natural gas into LNG takes about 30% of the energy that is stored in the gas itself meaning you are left with 70% or so of the original energy. Or another way to look at it is you need to use 30% of your gas to cool the other 70% into LNG. Storage and transport might also be included in that estimate. I dont have hard numbers.  To a layman such as myself that seems like a pretty big disadvantage right out of the gate. 

Probably a lot of people out there who know a lot about this. LNG produces vapors, which naturally raise the temperature in the storage tank--a bad thing. That "boil-off" gas has to be removed to keep the LNG in liquifaction (roughly 160 Celsius). It's usually not nearly 30%. Anyway, the boil-off gas is being used more and more as an energy source to power the LNG transport vessel, which is a pretty good deal for the LNG company. This started out sounding sort of whacky but has emerged as one of the great fossil fuel businesses of all time. To make it even harder to dismiss, the liquifaction process removes the small amounts of sulfur and other unwanted compounds, so LNG is, if anything, even cleaner-burning than regular pipeline gas (less NOX and SOX). Beats the heck out of me why anyone would sign a pipeline contract at this time, as the price for LNG is falling like a stone and isn't likely to surprise on the upside any time soon (the glut of NG is too large).

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What contributors here are forgetting is that gas suppliers are price takers; not typically price setters.  Russia will take whatever price it can get, and absent Russian gas the price will skyrocket to whatever the price is of LNG delivered to Europe from Qatar  (or possibly Libya). 

Now along comes US LNG gas and attempts to penetrate that market.  Well, the gas raw material ex-field has zero cost, it is basically a throw-away product, the producers taking nothing (and sometimes paying) to dispose of the plentiful surplus.  OK, so there is a transit cost to get it to the Henry Hub  [assuming it goes there] and then down to Louisiana or Beaumont to get turned into LNG and loaded.   So you end up with some cost ex-Poland terminal to unload, or perhaps ex-France, and then the question is: what is that number?  And will the local importer buy that US LNG instead of Russian pipe gas?  

If the Buyer goes for the US LNG then it has reliability of supply.  the Americans are not going to cut anybody off from buying surplus gas. 

The Russian is thus faced with a lowered price.  As a price taker he has to meet and beat that price, so the presence of offered US/Libyan/Algerian/Qatari gas puts down pressure on what the Russian can charge.  If those other players with their LNG were absent, the Russian would charge whatever he could get away with - and Russians have done so in the past, charging $15/mmcf.  

So the Buyers of US or other substitute gas are in effect forcing Russia to leave money on the table.  And that is great news, and particularly great news for the US in the effect that it reduces FOREX earnings of Russia and lowers the money available for arms procurement.  Keeping Russia strapped for cash is now a policy element of Western thinking, as when Russia has extra cash, they will start to go invade their neighbors. 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia is NOT strapped for cash right now.   

And the ruble is set to top the pack again in 2020, offering a safe haven amid concerns over the trade war between the U.S. and China, according to a Bloomberg survey of 57 global investors, strategists and traders. Analysts at HSBC Holdings Plc see the currency gaining as much as 7% from current levels, calling it a “beacon of light” in emerging Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

A high interest-rate differential relative to U.S. borrowing costs and ruble strength have combined to yield the best carry-trade returns in emerging markets. In fact, investors profited from ruble assets more than twice as much as the second-best performer, the Egyptian pound, which was floated in 2016.

 
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Yes Russia is strapped for cash

Just look on their falling currency reserves and falling gas exports to Europe

 

 

EL_-vroXsAAWmPM.jpg

Currency reserves

russia-foreign-exchange-reserves.png

russia-foreign-exchange-reserves (1).png

I just want to warn you that the more you push Russia to the corner , the more Russia has absolutely no choice and must bet strategically on China. If truly your dream is the entire Mendelev table in a strategic alliance with China and allow the Chinese to use resources throughout Siberia then keep imposing sanctions and strengthening your greatest strategic opponent.

It so happens that the Russians did very solid research during last couple of years and it turned out that the major geopolitical rivals for Russia are now the West and not China.

Therefore, if the opponent is the West approaching the borders of Russia and China comes into conflict with the West, then you have to bet on China. If it also happens that the world's largest exporter of raw materials has a limit of several thousand kilometers with the largest importer, this is something that this alliance strengthens and does not weaken.

You don't like Nord Stream II and that’s OK. But Russia will have to build the Western branch of the Siberian Force - 30 bilion cubic meters, then one more ESPO oil pipeline.

Meanwhile in the gas deposit for the Forces of Siberia, a large amount of lithium was discovered . As I suspect US wanted to cut off the China from lithium by the coup in Bolivia. So they found lithium deposit in Russia.

In general Russia believes that has now no choice in Cold War with West but to  export whatever China wants and thats also Russian newest military technology which the Chinese will not have for a long time.

The West is still imposing sanctions and is constantly approaching the Russian borders militarily in contradiction to promises made back in 1989. 

If you really want this that’s ok it will happen.

Because the blind is the one who thinks that the weaker Russia is, the better for the West.

The weaker Russia, primarily  the stronger China, and if someone disagrees with me, buy a map of Asia.

It so happens that this is probably exactly what Trump was told by experienced Henry Kissinger but I know that most hysterical US Twitter users will write all the time to defend Ukraine destroy Russia with sanctions and then face China.

But the real problem with this thinking for the West is that if you really destroy Russia with sanctions and deprive it of its independence with China than yes maybe one much weaker rival will disappear, but you will strengthen the much more dangerous one immeasurably.

Because so far Russia is trying to defend against the dominance of China and not allow the Chinese to strategic deposits of raw materials - read some sources = its the reason why Chinese still dont invest in russian mineral resources

But, if your dream is to really starve the Russians ,surround them by NATO bases and snatch even Ukraine and Belarus from the Russian sphere of influence then this country has really no choice but to bet on China and let them completely dominate Eurasia.

Well, unless someone really thinks that in exchange for pulling Ukraine into the Western sphere of influence, Russia is establishing a strategic alliance with China after 2014 is worth the candle.

Because it's like trying to pull Scotland into an anti-English alliance and be surprised that the English don't like it and have allied with Germany.

Edited just now by Tomasz

Edited by Tomasz
  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen no change in the Russian Chinese alliance since WW2 but am no expert. Has Russia ever shown any more inclination to ally with Europe than it has right now? Germany presently seems to be more friendly with Russia than with America. They do not even see the need to have viable armed forces. The rest of Europe looks to the United States with hopes for the status quo. The former Soviet areas know better but do not yet have the economic strength to defend themselves without alliance with the United States IMHO. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2019 at 7:27 AM, Zhong Lu said:

Russia is NOT strapped for cash right now.   

And the ruble is set to top the pack again in 2020, offering a safe haven amid concerns over the trade war between the U.S. and China, according to a Bloomberg survey of 57 global investors, strategists and traders. Analysts at HSBC Holdings Plc see the currency gaining as much as 7% from current levels, calling it a “beacon of light” in emerging Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

A high interest-rate differential relative to U.S. borrowing costs and ruble strength have combined to yield the best carry-trade returns in emerging markets. In fact, investors profited from ruble assets more than twice as much as the second-best performer, the Egyptian pound, which was floated in 2016.

 

 

Please explain your positivity over the ruble. It has dropped to less than half of its 2008 value of 25 rubles to a dollar to a current 67 rubles to a dollar. Not much over a penny. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_ruble

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2019 at 3:41 AM, Zhong Lu said:

But if the Arctic melts.... Siberia is currently spitting methane into the atmosphere like a fat man eating beans.  Natural gas is literally seeping out of the earth and into the sky.  I think you can collect a lot using just bottles.  

Warm up Siberia and increase the real estate value. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America has only debts -oil, gas, gold , silver all engligi;le cmpared to the debt.

If this fact is known Americna banks are  sooon  finished.

 

Russia knows thia. China greedy babrbarians. they want to eat the planet where there is pork an dgold.

And to add to this greed is the  barbbarianss of india. they will swallow even my dog ** if money is there  on the tbale.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please find below short analysis from German point of view.

Natural gas is a vital energy resource, so security of supply and the very existence of long-term capability of supply should be analyzed before jumping to price comparisons.

 

All values are in trillion cubic meters.

 

US reserves are 11.9 that is enough for 14.3 years of 2018 output.

US production increased from 0.47 in 2008 to 0.83 in 2018

US consumption increased from 0.63 in 2008 to 0.82 in 2018.

US was net importer of natural gas till 2016, in 2017 and 2018 achieved negligent surpluses of 0.006 and 0.013.

US surpluses constituted 0.8% of consumption in 2017 and 1.7% of consumption in 2018.

US natural gas consumption is going to increase, because of increase of usage for electricity generation (coal and nuclear is being phased out) and residential consumption.

Majority of US natural gas output is shale gas, wells with very short periods of economic useful life, with extraction rates decreasing fast.

There is a great uncertainty about the level of future output, and even greater uncertainty whether this output would enable exports.

CONCLUSION1: US has negligent natural gas surpluses and cannot be considered a reliable long-term supplier even for small consumers, forget about substitution of 55 billion m3 supply from Nord Stream 2.

Hypotesis: It is possible that if new technologies boosting shale gas extraction will be discovered and developed US will become significant exporter of natural gas in the future.

 

Lets analyze Russia as potential supplier of natural gas for Germany (we already know that it cannot be United States).

Russian reserves are 38.9 that is enough for 58.3 years of 2018 output.

Russian production in period: 2008-2018 stable about 0.6 a year, in 2018 output was 0.67.

Russian consumption in period: 2008-2018 stable at about 0.42 a year, in 2018 consumption was 0.45.

Russia is net exporter of natural gas for over 50 years, in 2018 surplus output constituted 49% of domestic consumption.

Russian natural gas consumption is stable as country still increases nuclear output and has stable coal consumption level. All natural gas output is from conventional fields.

 

CONCLUSION2: Russian stable natural gas surplus of about 0.2 and large reserves, are more than enough for long-term supply of 0.055 by Nord Stream 2.

 

LNG vs Nord Stream pipeline for Germany.

LNG supply cannot be ensured in times of political instability and relies on sea lanes dominated by US Navy. Germany is too weak to act against US Navy or any other strong military adversary (like: China, France, UK, Japan, Russia, India). So again supply of natural gas to Germany could be hostage of third country interests (current pipelines=Ukraine, LNG=US or any other major naval power).

Supply by Nord Stream is politically much safer, as pipeline is a huge investment for Russia, it is vital Russian interest to protect it . Russia is a nuclear power so only Russia can stop this supplies to Germany (US or any other country cannot).

 

CONCLUSION3: Security of supply by Nord Stream depends only on Russia and Germany, LNG on many other actors.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russian pipelines can be destroyed very easily as can anyones. They are virtually indefensible even against small groups of terrorists or whoever. LNG can be delivered just as surely as piped gas. Germany and Europe is greatly weakening itself by cooperating with Russia and not investing in its own military defense forces. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Russian pipelines can be destroyed very easily as can anyones. They are virtually indefensible even against small groups of terrorists or whoever. LNG can be delivered just as surely as piped gas. Germany and Europe is greatly weakening itself by cooperating with Russia and not investing in its own military defense forces. 

Try to prevent flow of  Russian Oil or natural gas you would be first one to do it succesfully in history. It is under Baltic Sea patrolled by Russian submarines. Only state actors have such capabilities. It is simply not worth to start war with Russia or US over pipeline, everybody knows this. It is as vulnerable  as White House or Kremlin but somehow nobody tries.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be winter scenario for Germany after Ukraine 2014 coup if there would not be Nord Stream 1 ?

Germany would be just collateral damage in US vs China&Russia hegemony conflict.

Like US farmers are collateral damage in US-China trade war.

It is that simple, any country could be collateral damage.

I am not trying to defend Russia or Germany here, Nord Stream is weakening NATO and EU, but somehow Germany prioritize its own national interest.

Relations US-Germany has also changed. US is relatively much weaker so it is doing dirty tricks towards its allies, like invoking national security clauses in WTO against German cars (if I remember well, but the clause was invoked, i am sure).

So Germany is hedging their bets.

Also LNG is a volatile market. Chinese LNG demand could skyrocket as the country is becoming richer. We do not know how bitter hegemony war will become.

WIth Nord Stream Germany has 99.99% probability of natural gas supply for the next 30 years. FULL STOP.

There is no alternative with this safety of supply.

Total German consumption of natural gas is at present about 0.5% of German GDP, they can afford to pay even double, or triple this amount 1.0% or 1.5% of their GDP if it is needed, but cannot afford LACK of natural gas for German industry and residential consumers.

 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Germans does not believe in Trump intentions. Blocking Nord Stream 2 just 1 month before completion, when all costs where already incurred is not the way to treat ally. Bona fide reaction would be to block it 2 years ago before undersea part was constructed.

I watched German news recently. It is really sad but German political scene is now UNITED against United States in defense of German energy sovereignty. Merkel is gaining easy points here, I watched her speaking in Bundestag.

I think this will also negatively affect decision relating to Huawei.

We will never the less know soon, in about 30-45 days when both cases: Huawei and Nord Stream 2 will find its resolution

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

 

Even at the height of the Cold War, gas from the USSR and oil flowed continuously in increasing quantities.

We already had a similar precedent when President Reagan did everything to block the transaction gas for pipes.

It so happens that in this situation, even Prime Minister Thatcher spoke on the side of Europe and the USSR, arguing that the Cold War is going on, but Europe needs gas. Even a country so pro-American at the time objected to the US.

I know that history is not always repeated but I would personally advise you to remember that.

 

If only because of the US are now so unpopular in Western Europe as never before.

Edited by Tomasz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no surprise Russia finally meshed its natural resources and its proximity to Europe. But it takes a naive European populace and government to think Russia is a long term solution to anything other than Russia's success. Russia will eventually have a massive hold on Europe's energy security. Russia will eventually do to Europe what it did to Ukraine. Does anyone not believe this is a likely outcome?? And this outcome is exactly what US diplomacy has been fighting against. The odds were very low that the energy resources of Russia and the European demand center could be kept apart. The economics are simply too favorable to stop.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2019 at 9:09 AM, ronwagn said:

I have seen no change in the Russian Chinese alliance since WW2 but am no expert. Has Russia ever shown any more inclination to ally with Europe than it has right now? Germany presently seems to be more friendly with Russia than with America. They do not even see the need to have viable armed forces. The rest of Europe looks to the United States with hopes for the status quo. The former Soviet areas know better but do not yet have the economic strength to defend themselves without alliance with the United States IMHO. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict it was some cooling period in 50's-70's with near war situation in 1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tomasz regarding Gazprom's price formula one of the top managers said few years ago 

Quote

The share of spot contracts in Gazprom’s export portfolio has risen to 35%, while oil-indexed contracts have fallen to 20%, Deputy Chairman Alexander Medvedev said in an interview with Gazprom’s corporate magazine.

The remainder is made up of mixed pricing and fixed prices, he said.

“In general, there is a long-term trend towards an increase in hub-based indexation"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2019 at 12:59 PM, Marcin said:

Also Germans does not believe in Trump intentions. Blocking Nord Stream 2 just 1 month before completion, when all costs where already incurred is not the way to treat ally. Bona fide reaction would be to block it 2 years ago before undersea part was constructed.

To qoute @Tom Kirkman - follow the money. Who benefits from the blocking. Answer : Russian offshore construction companies. Figure out who their friends are and you have answer... 

I know, I know... Biden is way worse. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

To qoute @Tom Kirkman - follow the money. Who benefits from the blocking. Answer : Russian offshore construction companies. Figure out who their friends are and you have answer... 

I know, I know... Biden is way worse. 

Who initiated sanctions to block Nord Stream 2? Ted Cruz..... nothing personal, just business....

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/ted-cruz-wilks-brothers/index.html

Quote

Two low-profile Texas brothers have donated $15 million to support Sen. Ted Cruz, a record-setting contribution that amounts to the largest known donation so far in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaires who made their fortunes in the West Texas fracking boom, have given $15 million of the $38 million that the pro-Cruz super PAC, Keep the Promise, will disclose in election filings next week, according to sources outside the super PAC with knowledge of the giving.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dukeNukem said:

Who initiated sanctions to block Nord Stream 2? Ted Cruz..... nothing personal, just business....

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politics/ted-cruz-wilks-brothers/index.html

 

Yes, This is very sad, cancer of political corruption at highest levels is gradually degrading United States.

The solution, is very simple:

- caps on how much each congress candidate and each presidential candidate can spend for campaign, let people not money vote,

- significant part of financing of political parties comes from federal budget on the basis of results of recent polls,

- low yearly caps on how much each business entity or person can donate for political parties or inidividual candidates (5,000 USD tops),

- easy acces to ballot paper for independent parties and candidates (now actually only Republican and Democratic PArties have easy access), additional 0.03 US dollar you spend on larger ballot paper is worth to preserve democracy and not fall into oligarchy trap.

It is that simple, but IMPOSSIBLE in the United States, this is the major source of US degradation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/29/2019 at 7:06 AM, ronwagn said:

Russian pipelines can be destroyed very easily as can anyones. They are virtually indefensible even against small groups of terrorists or whoever. LNG can be delivered just as surely as piped gas. Germany and Europe is greatly weakening itself by cooperating with Russia and not investing in its own military defense forces. 

Intelligent american conclusion. Yet better that Foxtv

  • Rolling Eye 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.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0