Tuesday, December 24, 2019

Nord Stream 2: German government invented russian-ukrainian gas-deal

In attempt to prevent the announced sanctions against pipelaying companies involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2, a head of deparment in the german State Department claimed thad Russia and Ukraine have found a settlement on the gas transit coming into effect at 2 p.m. next day and therefore sanctions would be unnecessary.

Yet no agreement have been signed between the two parties, only a framework agreement.

German government officials keep claiming that the sanctions would jeopardise the negotiatons between Russia and Ukraine on the gas transit until completion of Nord Stream 2.
However the sanctions made evident, that the sanctions strenghten the negotiation position of Ukraine.
Russia has even payed out an amount of 2,8 bn EUR that has been adjudicated to Ukraine by a Stockholm arbitration court in order to resume gas flow through Ukraine. Something Russia wouldn't have done without this pressure.

For more information see link below:


Sunday, December 22, 2019

Nord Stream 2: sanctions are in effect

As anticipated, U.S. President Donald Trump signed off on legislation allowing Washington to issue sanctions on firms involved in the €10 billion pipeline.

Swiss-dutch pipelaying-company Allseas has immediately stopped their activities on Nord Stream 2 after the entry into force of the sanctions explaining: "Allseas will proceed, consistent with the legislation’s wind down provision and expect guidance comprising of the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from the relevant US authority."

To german government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer the sanctions "hit german and european companies" [n.b. no german company is designated by the sanctions], and "constitute an interference in [our] internal affairs".

U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, views the sanctions as deeply pro-European.

See more information here:



Friday, December 13, 2019

The impact of the EU General Court's OPAL decision

An interesting view by Alan Riley of the Atlantic Council in the OPAL ruling and its possible impact on Nord Stream 2:

"The OPAL judgment from the European Union (EU) General Court will undermine Gazprom’s market dominance in Central and Eastern Europe.
Case T-883/16 Republic of Poland v. European Commission (hereafter the OPAL case) is likely to have far more impact on European energy policy than just limiting Gazprom’s capacity to export natural gas via Nord Stream 1. In the OPAL case, the judges of the EU General Court established and elaborated a broad principle of energy solidarity drawing upon Article 194(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This principle of solidarity, which will require member states, in all their energy market decisions with a potential cross-border impact, to take into account not only their own interests but also those of other member states and also those of the European Union as a whole, is likely to have a significant impact on the development of European energy law over the next decade. It will no longer be possible for member states to develop energy infrastructure while ignoring the vital interests of other member states. The OPAL case will also provide a basis for the European Commission, member states, and other interested parties to bring legal challenges against those member states who infringe the principle of solidarity.
More immediately, in addition to the OPAL pipeline, the OPAL case is likely to have an impact on Nord Stream 2, potentially making the path to full utilisation of the pipeline much less likely than it previously seemed. The OPAL ruling, for instance, makes it more difficult for Nord Stream 2 to pass the process of security of supply certification required by Article 11 of the Gas Directive 2009. That same directive in Article 36 also imposes significant supply security and competition criteria before an exemption could be granted from its liberalisation requirements. Those requirements will be more difficult to fulfil post-OPAL.
The ruling is also likely to make it more difficult for Nord Stream 2’s owner, Gazprom, to deploy legal mechanisms and corporate structures to avoid the application of EU energy liberalisation law to the pipeline. The OPAL ruling will also bear down on the development of Turk Stream 2. As an import pipeline, it will also be subject to EU law on EU territory, and the local energy regulatory authority will be required to apply EU energy liberalisation legislation in the light of the OPAL ruling.
Overall, the OPAL ruling is likely to make it more difficult for Gazprom to do individual deals that benefit individual member states, but may harm other member states. As a result, Gazprom’s capacity to play one EU member state off against another has been limited by this ruling."

You can read the rest of the piece via the below link:


Thursday, December 12, 2019

Nord Stream 2 AG litigates against amended EU gas directive

Nord Stream 2 seeks arbitration in dispute with EU Commission. 

The Russian-owned Nord Stream 2 pipeline consortium filed a notice on Thursday (26 September), asking a tribunal of private arbiters to determine whether the European Union is in breach of its obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).The move marks an escalation in the dispute opposing Nord Stream 2 and the European Commission, which carries risks for both sides. Settlements under the Energy Charter Treaty are sometimes in the billions of dollars.By amending its Gas Directive, Nord Stream 2 believes the EU has breached its obligations under Articles 10 and 13 of the Energy Charter Treaty, a legally-binding treaty originally signed in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In particular, the consortium argues that the amended directive discriminates against Nord Stream 2, in breach of the EU’s Article 10(1) obligation not to take such discriminatory action, and in breach of the EU’s general obligation to guarantee fair and equitable treatment for investors.
See more information here:

Some observers deem that the ECT litigation could be a shot in the foot of the pipeline operator:

"A further problem for NS2 is that the EU is permitted, under ECT rules, to raise legitimate objective justifications for its legislation in its defense. Contrary to NS2’s claims, the EU clearly has legitimate policy objectives in play. For instance, by imposing the same rules on import pipelines as it does domestic pipelines, it aims to create a single regulatory playing field. 
Equally, EU liberalization rules on ownership unbundling regulation, third party access, and tariff regulation, combined with the express supply security assessment required under Article 11 of the Directive, protect legitimate EU interests. These include ensuring additional natural gas supplies, enhancing competition, functioning of the single market, and supply security. They already apply to pipelines within the EU, so it is difficult to make a compelling case that import pipelines are being targeted or expressly discriminated. 
Furthermore, NS2 clearly threatens these legitimate EU interests. The pipeline does not provide any additional gas supplies to the EU; it merely shifts gas flows from the Ukrainian Brotherhood pipeline to NS2. By flooding the west-to-east EU pipeline interconnectors, gas flows from NS2 split the EU gas market in two. With gas flows from NS2 running through CEE states on pipelines controlled by Gazprom and its allies, the company’s market power will be increased across the region. The CEE states currently have some transit security as gas flows from the Brotherhood pipeline flow further west into Western Europe. NS2 removes that transit security.  
Another difficulty with NS2’s ECT litigation is that it invites additional unfortunate (from NS2’s perspective) responses from the EU, particularly that EU law already applied to import pipelines. The underlying argument of NS2 by contrast is that there has been ‘radical change’ in EU legislation: that import pipelines were not subject to EU energy law, and then unexpectedly were. The reality is somewhat different. The EU did adopt an amendment to the Gas Directive 2009, formally extending the Directive to imported pipelines. However, EU law clearly applied to import pipelines before the amendment came into force: the Yamal pipeline, which flows through Russia and Belarus before flowing into Poland, was subject on Polish territory to the full application of the Gas Directive 2009. 
NS2 is an offshore pipeline and Yamal is an onshore import pipeline, but it is difficult to see what turns on this point. Domestic law (absent a lex specialis) applies equally to the soil of the nation, its inland waters, and territorial sea. The new legislation itself makes no distinction between offshore and onshore pipelines, saying in the new Article 2(17) that EU law applies “between a Member State and a third country up to the territory of the Member States… or the territorial sea of that Member State.” Clearly, the Gas Directive applies to both onshore and offshore pipelines."

You can read the rest of the piece via the below link:


Nord Stream 2: as sanctions lie ahead, stakeholders become thin-skinned

The US congress, in a rare bipartisan proceeding, have resolved a legislative package in the framework of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that includes sanctions against companies supporting the construction of controversial gas pipeline Nord Stream 2.
The White House has indicated that US-President Donald Trump is going to sign the legislative package:
"U.S. Senate and House committees have agreed to include a bill sanctioning Russia's new natural-gas pipeline to Europe into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), putting up a potential roadblock to the project’s completion.
The House and Senate are expected to vote later this month on the NDAA, which often becomes a vehicle for a range of policy initiatives, as it's one of only a few pieces of major legislation that Congress approves each year.
The proposal attached to the bill that addresses Nord Stream 2 would impose U.S. sanctions on any companies helping Russia lay the $11 billion pipeline."
Sanctions would include entry bans and revocation of visa for executives and main shareholders of the companies involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2 as well as freezing of financial transactions of the persons concerned.

See more information here:

Meanwhile a polish ecological organisation, the Polski Klub Ekologiczny, has appealed the approval of the danish energy authority that cleared the way for the construction of the last segment of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
The ecological organisation claims that the operator of the pipeline, the Nord Stream 2 AG, didn't establish with a sufficient degree that the pipeline will not harm protected natural areas along the route.


After the resolution of the of the sanctions by US-lawmakers the chairman of the russo-german Foreign Trade Chamber, Mathias Schepp, urged for counter-sanctions.
Schepp is a former "Der Spiegel"-Journalist and former head of their Moscow bureau between 2006 and 2012.

German foreign minister Heiko Maas (SPD) on his part fustigated the sanctions in a tweet, stating that "european energy policy shall be decided in Europe and not in United States. We oppose on principle to foreign interference and to sanctions with exterritorial effects."

See also:


Friday, December 6, 2019

EU: 5 future gas key persons

The "Politico" magazine introduces five personalities that could have an impact on the gas market and setting the course of natural gas in the European Union.
- Kadri Simson, energy commissioner
- Philippe Sauquet, president of Eurogas
- Jerzy Buzek, Polish center-right MEP
- Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, secretary general of Hydrogen Europe
- Ditte Juul Jørgensen, director general at DG ENER

Read more on:


Sunday, December 1, 2019

Can US sanctions still stop Nord Stream 2?

According to sources of german newspaper Bild, the US Senate plans sanctions against companies participating in or are involved in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Primarily this would affect swiss company Allseas that is specialised in submarine pipelaying and deep-sea-cable-laying.
But also german energy groups like Uniper
Those companies would be excluded from the US market if they persist in their activity for Nord Stream 2 and should the sanctions effectively be voted.

Interestingly, the sanctions might be voted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.

The US Congress takes the view that Nord Stream 2 increases the dependency of Germany and Europe from russian gas, that it jeopardises ukrainian security interests and drives a wedge between  E.U.-member states. The EU Commission and most member states oppose the construction of the highly controversial pipeline. Only Germany and Austria are staunch supporters of the project.