The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 246

Is NORD STREAM dangerous for Poland's natural enviroment?


Prince 15 | 590
15 Feb 2009 #151
So, where is 24% of our contracted gas, Mr. Putin?

Exactly, Gazprom one week after the end of Ukrianian crisise has stoped sending gas for Poland. Poland paid for this gas.

According to the geological surveys and prognostics we have a 70 year long supply of gas

Polish situation isn't so good. Anny links ?
Seanus 15 | 19,706
15 Feb 2009 #152
Rather than pointing fingers, have a look at this,
bbjonline.hu/?col=1004&id=46852
There was a long conference on this, posted by RussiaToday on Youtube. Putin is VERY clear on the position. Judge his sincerity for yourselves.

Compensation has been offered which is more than can be said for Bulgaria and Slovakia,
euractiv.com/en/energy/gazprom-refuses-pay-compensation-gas-crisis/article-178808?Ref=RSS

RosUkrEnergo just have to outline their reasons for the failure but the picture is rosy for Poland. Supplies have been upped from 76% to 93%.
Prince 15 | 590
15 Feb 2009 #153
I don't want to imagine what will happen after Nord Stream being build. Our situation would be much worst. It is clear that Nord Stream would be catastrophe for natural enviroment and for Polish safty.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
15 Feb 2009 #154
Poland certainly has cause for concern. I wrote an article about 'scoping' way back in 2000 which is part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process (EIA). Scoping takes place in the preliminary part of proceedings. For more, read up on the Espoo Convention.

I have to read up on the effects on nature but I know that there was a hoo haa at the World Wide fund for nature. Statutes like the Habitats Directive must be cited to the planners like Wingas and DONG Energy.

eng.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=104374

Given that Russia wants to oust Poland, or at least have that option, Poland is right to be uncooperative and non-compliant.

uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL0852440420080708?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0
Poland is right to sound the alarm bells. Environmental concerns should not play second fiddle to business deals.
lesser 4 | 1,311
15 Feb 2009 #155
I bet those two Ukrainians are pulling the strings now, yeah, that's for sure! *smirk*

How do I know? These are some very shady Russian-Ukrainian deals. My point is that Polish side should not automatically assume that this is Russia to blame. They signed contract with RosUkrEnergo and they might sue this company.

You all should remember that Tymoshenko way before orange revolution was named to be "Gas princess". She made a fortune at that time, she know something about this business. I think, I don't need to add that she needed to be involved in such shady deals as well.


No, this euro-socialist mouthpiece. This article is much more objective.

It is clear that Nord Stream would be catastrophe for natural enviroment and for Polish safty.

What a nonsense. :) It is absolutely possible to build it without causing any catastrophes. Of course this is good tactic to maybe even stop this project. However we are not politicians, so we should be more honest.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
15 Feb 2009 #156
Well, Poland joined the EU in May 2004 as we know. Thus, EU Environmental Law applies. It thus has recourse to the integration clause in this sphere/domain. This stipulates that all relevant EIA's will be carried out expeditiously.

I can't remember the exact terminology applied by the ECJ when outlining the sphere of competence of the Commission. Environmental protection became one of the key priorities of theirs, featuring extensively in their remit. It was to permeate through the fabric of the EU. Also, any international agreements are to be congruent with the EU Treaty, Article 10 I think.

Also, the Law of the Sea Convention became annexed to EU Law. After a reading of it, you could conclude that Germany and Russia should be exploring the Polish proposition of taking it away from the seabed and laying it elsewhere.

From a knowledge of EU Law, I can safely say that Poland is on safe legal ground here.
lesser 4 | 1,311
15 Feb 2009 #157
So why the EU put Nord Stream on the list of projects of special priority?
Prince 15 | 590
15 Feb 2009 #158
What a nonsense. :) It is absolutely possible to build it without causing any catastrophes. Of course this is good tactic to maybe even stop this project. However we are not politicians, so we should be more honest.

Even in German newspaper you can find such pictures.

I see that you are natural environment expert as well .... What is sure alternative rout is less dangerous from this point of view. What is more it is cheaper and doesn't cause so many political tensions.

I am not environment expert. That is why I am happy that Swedes decided to check more carefully possible threats for natural environment.

However we are not politicians, so we should be more honest.

To be honest you pretend to be politician I remember you proclaiming political program.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
15 Feb 2009 #159
I'll take that as a rhetorical question, lesser. You know full well what the answer to that is. Do you really think that if two of the smallest states proposed it and was met with objection from bigger players, it would be accepted and approved?

Money talks, BS walks. You want answers, ask a Pole, Marcin Libicki. He is a prominent MEP and a Chairman.
lesser 4 | 1,311
15 Feb 2009 #160
I see that you are natural enviroment expert as well .... What is sure alternativie rout is less dangerous from this point of view. What is more it is cheaper and doesn't cause so many political tensions.

I'm not an expert but I'm aware that we live in XXI century. This is absolutely possible to localize and avoid dangerous areas. Incredible amount of stupidity would be needed to put a pipe directly on some barrel of poison!

To be honest you pretend to be politician I remember you proclaiming political program.

I have some vision of our state but I'm not a politician.
Prince 15 | 590
16 Feb 2009 #161
Experts need to check it. ... the smalest move can cause enormous problems. Both for natural enviroment and for Polish, Swedish, Norwegian ect. tourist industry. Human has killed so many spices on earth that we need to take special care about what we have.

I want my grandchildern to see all this animals and plants I can see these days. Experts need to check and one thing is sure we can't risk.

I have some vision of our state but I'm not a politician.

But you would like to be one ...
jwojcie 2 | 763
16 Feb 2009 #162
RosUKREnergo is also 50% owned by Naftogas which is Ukrainian state owned company. This is classical deadlock. Is the glass half empty or half full? Stop being such a hypocrite.

That is wrong. This 50% is owned by "private businessmans" from Ukraine.

Exactly, Gazprom one week after the end of Ukrianian crisise has stoped sending gas for Poland. Poland paid for this gas.

Heh, guys, you need to read more. Gasprom decided to cut off this "private businessmans" probably because at least one of them is donator of president Yushchenko. After last agreement between Naftogas and Gasprom, Naftogas took over all RosUkrEnergo gas which was stored in Ukraine. Of course now Gasprom says that it wasn't part of a deal... Anyway, legally RosUkrEnergo is responsible, and has no gas.

Of course Gasprom is behind it, but isn't responsible legally. So what can we do?

Again, important question: there is world wide crisis, now in Poland too, production is falling. Maybe after all it is not so bad that we didn't get this 24% of our contracted gas?

I think we didn't pay for it yet. Why do you think there is no alarming articles about it in Polish press? Why there is no alarming posts on internet forums? Why we didn't see directors from Azoty in the media telling as that they could have problems with production?

My hypothesis: we don't need this 24% now.
Ryszard - | 89
16 Feb 2009 #163
I'm not an expert but I'm aware that we live in XXI century. This is absolutely possible to localize and avoid dangerous areas.

The point is such localization hasn't been done yet, and doing them was not included in Nord Stream project. That's why Sweden is opposing it... and you can believe them as they really doesn't have any other business than ecology here.

Incredible amount of stupidity would be needed to put a pipe directly on some barrel of poison!

Just try to imagine yourself how Baltic ground looks like... yuck.
It's not an easy job to do. And it must cost money. Lots of them.
And the investors would have to pay them.
Incredible amount of stupidity? No, just good old greed.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
16 Feb 2009 #164
That info is a little dated. The 76% that was provided was subsequently upped to 93% so only a 7% deficit remains.

The Board of Directors of RosUkrEnergo are Scandinavian or German I think. The guy who runs the show, Mogilevich, is Ukrainian by birth but has Russian citizenship and is more thought of as Russian.
Ryszard - | 89
17 Feb 2009 #165
That info is a little dated. The 76% that was provided was subsequently upped to 93% so only a 7% deficit remains.

Can I have the source of this information?
Prince 15 | 590
17 Feb 2009 #166
Gazprom ows 50% of this company Gazprom is controled by Cremlin.

FIANACIAL TIMES February 16 2009

Polish shortfall rekindles fears of gas crisis

ft.com/cms/s/0/474599ae-fbc8-11dd-bcad-000077b07658.html

Poland is still suffering shortfalls of gas nearly a month after Russia and Ukraine signed a pact to resolve a dispute that left tens of thousands of people across Europe without fuel.

Polish officials say that Russia has demanded a renegotiation of the 1993 treaty that governs gas shipments between the two countries in exchange for making up the shortfalls - a prospect that some fear could result in higher fees or other concessions. Gazprom, the Russian state gas company, was not available for comment.

so it is Russians who have broken long term contracts and blackmail Poland.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
17 Feb 2009 #167
Yes, Richard, look at post 163 above
jwojcie 2 | 763
17 Feb 2009 #168
second month in a row Gasprom is cutting mining by 13% due to falling demand in Russia.
For example production in chemistry sector failed by 30%. As I said before production in Poland is failing too. It seems to me that Russians unintentionally made own goal.

RosUkrEnergo failed? Unnecessarily gas not delivered? we don't have to pay.
Maybe paradoxically one good news in this crisis mess.

PS. Don't forget that now gas is cheaper. I suppose that this gas from RUE was contracted with bigger price.
lesser 4 | 1,311
17 Feb 2009 #169
That is wrong. This 50% is owned by "private businessmans" from Ukraine.

Yes, I confused structure of ownership with UkrGazEnergo company (50% RosUkrEnergo, 50% Naftogaz). These are all political structures. Anyway, this don't change much.

The point is such localization hasn't been done yet, and doing them was not included in Nord Stream project.

Thus I have wrote before that such strategy might even block this project. But this is technologically absolutely possible.
Ryszard - | 89
17 Feb 2009 #170
Yes, Richard, look at post 163 above

That's funny, because from the links you've provided, about the quota of current shortage I could find only this:

Poland has been receiving only 76% of the contracted gas from Russia since Jan 26, when deliveries under a deal with Ukrainian gas intermediary RosUkrEnergo stopped entirely

Seanus 15 | 19,706
17 Feb 2009 #171
My sincerest apologies ma man, here,
finance.yahoo/news/Polish-company-Gazprom-boosts-apf-14286469.html

I hope this enlightens you better than I offered before.
Ryszard - | 89
18 Feb 2009 #172
This time much better indeed, thanks :)
Pohlatohlakas - | 19
12 Mar 2009 #173
Nord Stream Espoo Report
nord-stream.com/en/permitting-portal/international-consultation-process/nord-stream-espoo-report.html

This document should not be considered particularly credible, with several environmental risks (for example, dioxins and dumped munitions) being grossly underestimated.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
12 Mar 2009 #174
Bias of course lying behind it. This is to be expected. A bit like the reports after 9/11 with governmental backing.
Mr Grunwald 19 | 1,542
19 Mar 2009 #175
A report of the norwegian Fridjof Nansen Institute

Proudness :)

Even if Russia is right, or their not to be blaimed I blaim them. :)
I strongly disagree with most cases they come up with! When they stop sending U-Boats to our coastline I will ignore them!
Pohlatohlakas - | 19
28 Mar 2009 #176
Opening Salvos of a New Gas War: Russia Versus the EU and Ukraine
jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34764&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=20f2059ddb

At the heart of the matter are a number of issues vital for Russian interests; maintaining its gas hold over Europe and its geopolitical goal of bringing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence. If the through-put capacity of the Ukrainian pipeline is expanded by almost 60 billion cubic meters there would be no commercial justification for building either the Nord Stream or South Stream pipelines.

Nathan 18 | 1,363
28 Mar 2009 #177
If the through-put capacity of the Ukrainian pipeline is expanded by almost 60 billion cubic meters there would be no commercial justification for building either the Nord Stream or South Stream pipelines.

Absolutely and it is possible and less expensive.

geopolitical goal of bringing Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence

True. This is 90% what Russia is after. They don't need another gas line. They want to build it in order to turn off the gas when Ukraine doesn't behave the way Russia wants. Ukraine doesn't earn a cent when the gas stays undelivered by Russia through the pipe. So it is definately not in Ukrainian interests to switch it off (what for?), moreover it is being supplied by it as well. I am happy to hear the news of new contract being signed by European Union and Ukraine about updating existing pipe-lines. Smart move and billions of savings for EU budget. Poland, thanks for support.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 10,088
28 Mar 2009 #178
Absolutely and it is possible and less expensive.

Better safe with an alternative than sorry...I don't trust the Ukraine to deliver the gas to western Europe when they themselves are freezing because they can't pay the Russians.
Pohlatohlakas - | 19
28 Mar 2009 #179
How gas flows to Europe - Pipeline projects
reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSLN67779120090323

I'd add White Stream and Trans-Saharan gas pipeline, bringing Nigerian gas to the Mediterranean coast and further to Europe.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Stream
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIGAL_pipeline
Nathan 18 | 1,363
29 Mar 2009 #180
I don't trust the Ukraine to deliver the gas to western Europe when they themselves are freezing because they can't pay the Russians.

It is Ukraine, not the Ukraine, btw.
Don't trust. This is not the problem. The problem lies in the fact that instead of diversifying its suppliers European Union was about to sign a contract to build two pipelines coming from Russia which you trust , BB. I completely agree with Pohlatohlakas when he says of some other sources. Great idea. I think Iran or Iraq would be great for EU. It doesn't have to go through Ukraine. It can pass through Turkey and Bulgaria, so you are safe and secure. Norway, Trans-space, Deep-Earth lines, whatever, but diversify. Otherwise, you will have winters like this one again. And , by the way, Ukraine never shut off the gas that was intended for EU. I will find you a link that says about EU delegates who support that. We had a porblem with Russia money-wise, but it doesn't mean they had to cut off your gas, BB. Also don't forget the environmental tragedy these could have caused if built.


Home / News / Is NORD STREAM dangerous for Poland's natural enviroment?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.