Pirani says,
“Nord Stream 2 would have made no difference to the amount of gas, or the amount of Russian gas, available to Germany or anywhere else. It would only have given some commercial advantage to Gazprom, by enabling it to bring more gas to Germany along a shorter, non-Ukrainian route.”
But, again, this is a sleight of hand. Firstly, a pipeline clearly does not increase the amount of gas produced, and available, only the capacity to transport what is available. A train line does not increase the amount of coal produced by coal mines, but if the trains and track lack capacity to transport the coal that can be produced, then that does act to restrict the amount of coal that can be sold, and, thereby, the amount that miners can produce, without it piling up unused. As Wikipedia says,
“The construction of the pipeline started in 2011, to expand the Nord Stream 1 line and double annual capacity to 110 billion cubic metres (3.9 trillion cubic feet).”
In other words, its true that it did not mean an increase in gas production available to Europe, but it did mean an increase in the capacity to transport increasing amounts that were being produced. The second part of Pirani's sleight of hand, is then to argue that, at the time of the explosion, pipeline capacity itself was not an issue. True, but that is because a) since 2014, the EU had been imposing sanctions and reducing supply along Nordstream 1, and b), after the Russian invasion, in 2022, those boycotts had stepped up further, and sanctions had limited supply, as seen with the issue over the turbines, and so on. NATO/US imperialism clearly did see Nordstream 2 as a problem, which is precisely why, even in 2014, it had been trying to prevent it going ahead.
As, again, Wikipedia notes,
“In June 2017, new US sanctions against Russia targeting the pipeline were passed by a 98-2 majority in the United States Senate due to concerns that President Trump would ease existing sanctions on Russia. The sanctions were sharply criticized by Germany, France, Austria and the European Commission who stated that the United States was threatening Europe's energy supplies. In a joint statement, Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern and German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said, "Europe's energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America." They also said: "To threaten companies from Germany, Austria and other European states with penalties on the US market if they participate in natural gas projects such as Nord Stream 2 with Russia or finance them introduces a completely new and very negative quality into European-American relations."”
Pirani's argument is like saying there is no requirement to expand rail capacity, because, measuring capacity during a strike, only 10% is being used! He says,
“at the time of the explosions, neither Nord Stream 1 nor Nord Stream 2 were in use. For three-and-a-half weeks before the explosions, no gas had been transported through Nord Stream 1. This was an outcome of Russian policy decisions.”
As described above, it was not an outcome of Russian policy decisions, but of increasing US sanctions, and EU boycotts under US pressure. Obviously, given the sanctions imposed, especially after the invasion, capacity along Nordstream 1 was not being utilised, but the point is that, were the EU to decide, under pressure from mass protests by workers, to end those boycotts, and decide to allow Russia back into SWIFT, or to pay for its energy in Roubles, especially if that coincided with a cold Winter, and EU industries shutting down for lack of energy, then it would need all the capacity it could get, including via Nordstream 2, and that supply would have meant that global gas prices themselves would not have risen, and, would probably have fallen, as increased production could be transported.
No comments:
Post a Comment