Neither the EU nor Russia are interested in the Ukrainian proposal to move the delivery point for Russian gas from the western to the eastern border, writes in “Izvestia” energy analysts Pasechnik.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
The author draws attention to the fact that the Ukrainian authorities continue to tighten the screws in the field of gas transit, in particular, in mid-October, the Economic Court of Kiev expanded the rules for the execution of a court decision to collect an antimonopoly fine in the amount of $6,4 billion from Gazprom. At the same time, The Ukrainian side indicates that due to the “dominance of the Russian concern” there is no alternative supplier in the country.
Pasechnik points out that in the transit contract there is no obligation to pump any strictly defined volume of gas. In addition, Kyiv itself should certainly be looking for alternatives, including transit supplies, but nevertheless, Ukrainian courts began to seize Gazprom’s property - mainly shares of non-functioning structures of the concern in Ukraine, but these amounts do not cover the fines announced by Kiev.
“But the main thing is that transit gas from Russia is under attack. Whether Kyiv will decide to go all-in by starting to take away gas to pay for the fine is a question. Perhaps this season such a risk will not be justified. It’s more expensive to disrupt transit. But next year - in the fall - this issue may be updated again. There will already be more understanding of how the creation of bypass routes is progressing - Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream, the delivery of which is scheduled for 2019. In the meantime, Kiev faces an operational task - how to get through the current heating season without interruptions and with minimal costs: overpaying Europeans for gas supplied via reverse is becoming more and more expensive. And we need more gas. Especially given the difficulties with coal shortages, a number of thermal power plants in the country are again switching from anthracite to blue fuel,” the analyst notes.
He also points out that Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine Vladimir Kistion recently made a loud public statement about the possibility of returning to direct supplies of Russian blue fuel, but by moving the gas transit metering point from the western to the eastern border.
According to the expert, the Europeans hardly want such drastic changes, since when delivering gas in the east, they will not even indirectly be able to involve the Russian gas giant in the proceedings if there were problems with a drop in pressure at the outlet of the pipe from Ukrainian territory.
“Here, by default, it will immediately be clear that Kyiv is stealing transit gas. Although it is known that Ukraine may well start a bluff, starting to declare that the pressure has dropped at the gas entry point into the country - the Russian-Ukrainian border. This scenario is especially likely during the period of peak consumption - in January and February, when frosts can be severe and prolonged, and reserves in underground storage facilities in Ukraine will drop to critical levels.
Although even in the situation described, it will be quite easy to expose Kyiv for provocation. Moscow will be able to prove its non-involvement in the problem of shortages, for example, by allowing independent observers at border gas delivery control points. But all questions can be completely forestalled by categorically rejecting Ukraine’s controversial proposals to move the gas delivery point,” Pasechnik concludes.