/ world today news/ The Bulgarian media are prophesying the resuscitation of “South Stream”, and neither Sofia nor Moscow officially confirm or deny this information, Vzglyad writes in an article on Tuesday (January 12) dedicated to the controversy that has erupted around the media speculation about the resumption of the project.
If the negotiations are indeed continued, it will most likely be about a modified version of the pipe so that the European Commission cannot make any legal claims. But the most difficult thing will be to overcome the political reasons for freezing the gas pipeline, writes “Vzglyad”.
Russia abandoned South Stream in December 2014, explaining its decision by the difficulties in the construction of the gas pipeline on the territory of Bulgaria and the non-constructive position of the European Commission (EC). According to the EC, this project violates the requirements of the EU’s Third Energy Package.
Gazprom then said it would build a similar pipeline in Turkey. However, in November 2015, Turkey shot down a Russian Su-24 bomber, which strained relations between the two countries and the TurkStream talks were suspended.
Back in the summer, after plans for a four-branch Turkish Stream stalled, Gazprom decided to “move” two of them north. This is how the “Nord Stream 2” project was born, which, in particular, will solve the problem of the supply of Russian gas to the key market of Italy, without the participation of Ukraine.
When “Turkish Stream” was stopped completely, the question remained of how to supply gas to Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece and the Balkan countries without the participation of Ukraine. Because “Nord Stream 2” does not free these countries from dependence on Ukrainian transit.
“Turkish Stream” cannot be implemented under the current political conditions, but the search for a safe and reliable way to transport gas to South-Eastern Europe,” Deputy Director General of the Russian National Energy Security Fund Alexei Grivach told “Vzglyad”.
Bulgaria has an interest in maintaining at least the current levels of Russian gas supplies for its own needs and the current transit of fuel to Turkey, Greece and Macedonia, which currently passes through Ukraine and Romania.
Of course, the US and Angela Merkel last year said in a direct text that Ukraine should not be deprived of the transit of Russian gas, which brings it $2.2 billion a year. I.e. Gazprom must continue to “feed” its neighbor. But none of them wants to take responsibility for a possible repeat of the gas crisis of 2009, when half of Europe found itself without the Russian blue fuel because of Ukraine (she was stealing gas from the Tarnsite pipeline). All the accusations of the EU were then poured not on Kiev, but on “Gazprom”, which was exposed for not fulfilling its contractual commitments to European suppliers. Because Ukraine was only a transit country, and the contract was executed between Gazprom and the EU countries. In addition, in 2019 the contract signed between Russia and Ukraine in 2009 for the transit of blue fuel also expires.
All this creates prerequisites for the resuscitation of “South Stream”, only in a new, truncated version.
According to previous plans, “South Stream” was supposed to run along the bottom of the Black Sea to Bulgaria and from there to other countries. However, that is out of the question now. But Russia can run the pipeline only along the bottom of the Black Sea to Bulgaria, after which a connection to Turkey and Greece will be built, canceling the construction of the pipeline on the territory of the EU, according to the Fund for National Energy Security of Russia. The distribution of gas will be handled by European companies themselves.
“If we are guided by common sense, then there is not necessarily a burden on the part of the Third Energy Package. Because the Russian gas pipeline will enter the EU (in one country – Bulgaria) and will no longer participate in the redistribution of gas between European countries. The regulation of third-party access to the Russian gas pipeline, for which the Third Energy Package is intended, is inappropriate here,” Grivach believes. EU rules do not only apply to the European category. A parallel can be drawn with Nord Stream, where the point of transmission of Russian gas is located on the territory of Germany. This pipe is built, it does not conflict with the Third Energy Package.
In this perspective, two working projects can be discussed: with one or two branches of the “South Stream”. If the main goal is to guarantee the reliability and security of the Russian gas already available in Bulgaria, Turkey, Greece and Macedonia, i.e. for it to become independent from the Ukrainian transit, it will be enough for “South Stream” to have only one branch with a volume of 15-17 billion cubic meters and for it to be included in the active Bulgarian system. That is how much these countries currently receive from the transit through Ukraine within the framework of the current Gazprom contracts. In this case, Brussels does not even need to build new infrastructure on European territory – the existing one will be sufficient, Grivach believes. Simply, the gas will pass through Bulgaria, not through Romania (through Ukraine), but directly from Russia through the Black Sea.
If we are talking about the idea of Bulgaria becoming a gas hub, as Sofia wants, it may be necessary to build two branches of “South Stream” with a capacity of 30-34 billion cubic meters: one to transport the current volumes of fuel, and on the second – the new ones. However, the implementation of this project implies additional demand from European consumers (contracting for new volumes) and Brussels will have to build a new infrastructure for transporting the fuel on its territory. “This project is much more complex and, in my opinion, unlikely at the moment,” says Grivach.
By the way, even if “South Stream” has only one branch and “Nord Stream 2” is implemented, the volumes currently passing through Ukraine will be fully insured against any excesses from the Ukrainian side, the gas company believes an expert. If the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine is terminated for one reason or another, with the presence of two pipelines, Gazprom will be able to fulfill all its contractual commitments to supply gas to European consumers.
By the way, Bulgaria did not freeze South Stream of its own accord before – this happened under pressure from the EC and the USA. And this time, politics may once again prove to be the main obstacle. Brussels constantly insists on the depoliticization of energy, but in the last two years the level of politicization of the gas issue in Europe has been constantly increasing. At the end of last year, the USA already spoke openly against Nord Stream 2. The State Department practically repeated verbatim what Ukraine claims – the commissioning of this pipeline will stop the export of gas through Ukraine, depriving it of annual income worth $2.2 billion. After that, German Chancellor Angela Merkel repeated the rhetoric of USA and Ukraine: due to the implementation of Nord Stream 2, Ukraine should not lose its role as a transit country for blue fuel. “This is a purely political decision,” Merkel said.
The same story can be repeated with “South Stream”, which de facto cannot in any way contradict the EU’s Third Energy Package, but contradicts political interests. “The issue of Russian gas supplies and infrastructure projects is being deliberately politicized by those countries that have an interest in weakening energy cooperation between Russia and Europe or simply by some competitors. Therefore, it is possible that pressure will be exerted on Bulgaria for this project as well”, Grivach does not rule it out. So even after the resumption of negotiations with Bulgaria, it cannot be said for sure whether this will lead to the realization of the gas pipeline project, the author of the article claims.
#Resuscitate #South #Stream
