South Stream construction site was launched in December 2012, well before the Russian-Ukrainian conflict on the initiative of Russian Gazprom and Italian ENI group. The objective of the South Stream project was initially to diversify the routes of Russian gas bypassing Ukraine transits through or are currently almost half of Russian supplies to the EU.
South Stream would link about 3,600 kms Russia to Bulgaria under the Black Sea, via Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia and Hungary, arriving in Austria.
The cost of the pipeline which was valued at 23 billion euros by the Russian Gazprom, the majority in the company South Stream alongside ENI and EDF in particular, was finally estimated at 32 billion euros. South Stream was to enter service in 2016. The Chairman of Gazprom
wants to replace South Stream a new pipeline to Turkey, the same capacity of 63 millliards M3 per year.
"The decision was made and announced by Russia, says Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs, teaches us that it is urgent not only diversify supply routes but also sources energy to the European Union ".
Moscow justified in stopping the South Stream stop by Brussels of the opposition to the passage of the pipeline on the territory of its member states, and particularly that of Bulgaria.
This is the last episode of the crisis between Moscow to Western capitals about the future of Ukraine.
Gabor Kovacs, euronews:
We are now in the company of András Deák of the World Economy Institute. Who are the big winners and big losers in the unexpected cancellation of the South Stream project and how does it affect energy dependence?
András Deák:
"Well, it is obvious that if a new project is created with a different orientation than South Stream, then Turkey could be the big winner. The country will increase its gas transit. And Russia apparently changes its dependence transit through Ukraine to Turkey, giving more room for negotiation in Ankara.
The European Commission could, in turn, increase its prestige, convincing Russia to step back, playing on the fact that a compromise would be good for both parties. It would also be necessary that the Commission recognizes the legal procedures that would require Russia. The losers are clearly the central European countries and transit through which the pipeline should have passed. For them until the end of this decade, it remains that the Ukrainian pipeline.
Their situation worsened because these countries need to proceed more slowly in the diversification of energy, for the maintenance or gradual change in gas agreements between Russia and Europe.
euronews:
The past two years, Hungary has been one of the biggest supporters of this project. Why was it so important to her? And the cancellation of the South Stream project she has a political or economic impact for Hungary?
András Deák:
"It is true that this year the Russian-Hungarian economic cooperation has grown dramatically. In January, a nuclear agreement was signed, and in the summer Hungary suspended delivery of gas to Ukraine and months, she staunchly supported the South Stream.
Obviously, we believe that there is a macroeconomic and lucrative reason behind it, something that the Russians have offered the government, but we do not know. The question is: is it worth it to always be on the side of Russia against the European Commission against European solidarity.
This message clearly shows that it is not worth more Catholic than the Pope, or, shall we say, more Russian Moscow. There was no need to support a project that Moscow no longer supports. This will further isolate Hungary. "
No comments:
Post a Comment