5 ms·
Although the UK has an appreciable percentage of Europe's LNG re-gasification capacity, while Germany has none, and imports LNG via Belgium and the Netherlands
by rowanajmarshall 4y ago
Although the UK has an appreciable percentage of Europe's LNG re-gasification capacity, while Germany has none, and imports LNG via Belgium and the Netherlands instead. The UK has storage, it's just sitting in ships off the coast.
- blibble 4y agoand a large chunk of UK supply is still domestically produced from the North Sea
- 7952 4y agoAnd the UK has relatively more secure sources in Norway and the North Sea.
- empedocles 4y agoNot sure I would bet on the pipeline from Norway remaining secure. They have increased their level of military alert for a reason.
- teknofobi 4y agoAn attack there is quite high risk, you would have to thread the hybrid warfare needle well to not trigger NATO Article 5.
- Workaccount2 4y agoRussia would be insane (more than they already are) to attack that. It has nothing to do with Ukraine and would likely be considered an attack on a NATO ally. No benefit and lots to lose.
- reitanqild 4y ago(Disclaimer up front: I don't know who cut NS1 and NS2, my bet is on russia, but I can see more than one alternative.) Which would explain the attacks on their own gas pipeline NS1 and NS2: - they are dumb and reckless enough to do that (they weren't used anyway, +plausible deniability) - it signals to NATO the idea that russia can destroy critical infrastructure without actually getting caught for an attack on critical infrastructure
- vkou 4y agoThe cost of betting wrong when you attack your own infrastructure is measured in rubles. The cost of being wrong when you attack NATO infrastructure is measured in war, conventional or nuclear. That's why Russia attacked Ukraine, but only postures and blusters when it comes to NATO. There are red lines that you can't cross, and open conflict with a nuclear adversary is one of the latter.
- hackandthink 4y ago"There are red lines that you can't cross, and open conflict with a nuclear adversary is one of the latter." This is true for NATO powers as well. I can't believe Russia blew it up, it doesn't make sense. But which NATO Country would blow up pipelines and risk a conflict with a nuclear adversary?
- reitanqild 4y ago> I can't believe Russia blew it up, it doesn't make sense. I think lot of what Russia does, doesn’t make sense at the macro scale, only in the context of internal power struggles.
- vkou 4y agoIt can make sense if you think about it in the game theory manner. Sometimes, deliberately limiting your options improves your overall outcome. One theory is that by blowing up the pipeline, Putin is limiting Russia's options. With the pipeline in place, ending the war would immediately cause the flow of gas, and dollars into Russia to resume. Without the pipeline, ending the war would not cause the flow of gas and dollars. This might improve his ability to politically maneuver within the country (As other political agents, who care more about money than the war are less incentivized to push for an end to the war.) It's a similar idea to why the US stations troops around the Korean DMZ. Their job isn't to repel a North Korean invasion, their job is to die in the first few minutes of it, and thus force the US to intervene in any resumed Korean conflict. This very clearly communicates to North Korea how serious the US is about maintaining the status quo. By restricting its freedom of action (Forcing itself to go to war if hostilities resume), the US accomplishes a political objective (preventing hostilities from resuming). --- Of course, this is all speculation. For all we know[1], the pipeline was blown up by Poland/Ukraine/Germany/the US/the Mossad/Morocco/Aliens. [1] It's difficult to trust any information about this, as its impossible to impartially verify it, and everyone involved has their own agenda they want to push.
- empedocles 4y agoUnlike oil, LNG boils off while sitting off the coast, so this is not a long term strategy.
- makomk 4y agoArguably it's a better long term strategy - the rest of Europe doesn't really have a way to refill their storage once it's been emptied over winter.
- rowanajmarshall 4y agoI'm not talking about sitting tankers off the coast, I'm talking about the UK's ability to continually attract new LNG tankers thanks to major existing infrastructure, and being able to afford it. The UK is setup to be able to keep a just-in-time LNG delivery system in place; Germany is not.
- fbdab103 4y agoAt what rate? 1% per day/week? If it takes N weeks to criss cross the Atlantic to refill from the US, maybe it is worthwhile to lose X% off the top to sell when possible. I have no doubt the energy companies have teams of analysts crunching the numbers on a daily basis.