Home › Forums › Discussion Forum › Climate, the science, politics, economics and anything else › Reply To: Climate, the science, politics, economics and anything else
Pigeon English #79485:
– “Russia wanted to have long time contracts…”
Yes, from the article: “[Russia’s] prolific gas reserves allow Russia to meet much higher overall demand, but this requires time, money, and contractual assurances of offtake. […] Gazprom seems to be reluctant to add new productive capacities on the Yamal Peninsula proactively for fear of idling the investments.”
– “…but Eu forced them to provide part of gas supply on short term/Spot market (more competitive).”
Yes, the EU’s reserves are depleted so the EU can no longer produce fast enough to meet its own peak demand in winter. But the EU wants to have its cake and eat it – it wants to be able to rely on gas from Russia, but also buy from elsewhere if that’s cheaper.
That’s not fair, because to supply the EU Russian suppliers need to drill more wells and construct more pipelines. The EU should recognise this and either negotiate a contract that’s long enough to cover construction of the new infrastructure, or offer to help construct it.
– “Gazprom is honouring it’s contracts but will not provide extra gas to Spot market until they fill up their own reserves”
I absolutely don’t blame them; it gets bloody cold in Russia! And Gazprom is Russia’s state gas company; its first responsibility is to Russians.
– “Were gas providers speculating on Spot market and not getting long term (safer but more expensive) deals?”
I would have thought so, but I know nothing about markets. But try the hashtag #ONGT on Twitter; I think that stands for “Organisation of Natural Gas Tweeters”. A lot of them seem very excited about making lots of money. I find that very distasteful because people’s lives depend upon gas to keep warm, to generate electricity, and to make fertiliser – and to avoid burning more coal with its higher emissions.