European Commission
Vice-President for Energy Union Maroš Šefčovič warned today (30 January)
against over-simplifying how much capacity Gazprom could use of the Opal
pipeline, which carries gas via Nord Stream under the Baltic Sea to Germany and
the Czech Republic.
Last December, Poland
appealed to the European Court of Justice over a European Commission decision
to give Gazprom more capacity in the Opal gas pipeline.
Last October, the
Commission lifted a cap on Gazprom’s use of Opal, opening the way for Russian
plans to expand Nord Stream’s capacity and bypass both Ukraine and Poland as a
gas transit route.
Poland, which imports most
of its gas from Russia, criticised the EU executive’smove, saying it
threatened gas supplies to Central and Eastern Europe via Ukraine.
Meeting with journalists,
Šefčovič pointed out that in 2009, Nord Stream was a ‘
project of common interest
’ for the EU, because of the gas
crisis [a dispute between Russia and Ukraine] which during that same year left
several EU countries in the cold.
He explained that this is
how it was decided that the pipeline will get an exception. At that time,
the exemption was that 100% capacity – 33 bcm/y – would be reserved for Gazprom
on the condition that it releases 3 bcm a year as part of the gas release
program, meaning that somebody else could use the pipe.
Although 3 bcm/y is not a
huge amount,
Gazprom refused "as a matter of
principle”
.
So Gazprom never
implemented the condition under which it was allowed 100% access, and because
of that, the 50% limitation was introduced, Šefčovič explained.
"To start with the premise
that there was a 50% limitation from the beginning is not true. It was
something like 10% of the capacity,” he said, referring to interpretations
often relayed by the media.
Šefčovič further explained
that what the Commission proposed was the real opening of this pipeline for
others who would like to transport gas: up to 20% within 3 years, with the
possibility of reviewing the decision.
"The decision was not taken
lightly in the Commission. We are a Community based on law. it took us a while
to study all the legal ramifications, we are confident our decision will be
upheld by the court”, said Šefčovič, adding that it was "very technical and
complex” and represented 42 pages of legal texts.
The Commission
Vice-President said that even more important than this case was how the
Stockholm arbitrage will rule on the dispute between Naftogaz and Gazprom.
Kyiv’s Economic Court
sanctioned a move by Ukraine’s anti-monopoly committee to fine Gazprom $6.6
billion, on the grounds that the Russian company had abused its monopoly
position in the natural gas market, between 2009 and 2015.
Conversely, Gazprom said on
17 January it had charged Naftogaz for gas it did not buy under a take-or-pay
clause covering the second through fourth quarter of 2016, to the amount of
$5.3%. It said Ukraine was required to pay the bill within 10 days.
Take-or-pay requirements
require buyers to pay for gas whether they take physical delivery or not.
Ukraine has not bought Russian gas since November 2015.
Šefčovič said that once
these hurdles are overcome and decided, the parties should quickly get together
and discuss how the Ukrainian transit route would remain in operation and will
continue to serve Europe in the post-2019 period. Gazprom’s contract with
Naftogaz expires in 2019.
"This would calm many of
our concerns regarding energy security,” he said.
It is, however, difficult
to imagine how Russia and Ukraine could ever agree to such things. Ukraine
doesn’t want to import gas from Russia, and actually hasn’t bought any for over
one year. Conversely, Russia doesn’t want to transit any gas to transit Ukraine
after 2019, and plans to deliver its gas to Europe via Nord Stream and its
planned expanded version Nord Stream 2, as well as via Turkish Stream, a
planned pipeline under the Black Sea, to European Turkey.
Šefčovič said there was a
need "to have a close look” what gas transport infrastructure is needed. The
infrastructure used to transport Russian gas to Europe, even this winter, was
used at close to 60%, so there was still the possibility to use it more, he
argued.
"We should avoid paying
billions for something we eventually may not need,” the Vice-President
said.
(EurActiv.com)