Financing agreed for Turkish Stream in Greece - minister

What's that? It's silence. Naysayers eating crow!

What's that? It's silence. Naysayers eating crow!
(EU Dude, 2 June 2015 15:20)
Not sure what your point is but if you mean its proof of a done deal?

"Russia has yet to sign a final agreement with Turkey on the first section of the pipeline to the Turkish territory, hoping that the pipeline will start operation in late 2016."

Also remember just months ago the rhetoric and news reports that South Stream was DEFINITELY happening and even reports that construction had started in Serbia, but you have this now-
"The Beta news agency is quoting the Russian press as saying that "several European countries through which the pipeline might be extended after Greece seem restrained, fearing the hostility of the European Union, which has already led to the sudden abandonment of the Russian gas pipeline project South Stream,"

Plus the fact that Greece so far is unable to fulfill its payment commitments and is said to have only 700million in its coffers which is needed to pay for its govt operation.
So irregardless of what your point is, it is too early for anyone to start celebrating it as a done deal, and with the history of South Stream apparently that time will not be until it is actually completed.

Nabucco died long before. Turkstream is already under construction.

Russia doesn't have to deal with Bulgaria, the only EU member of South Stream who refused to take part under pressure from Brussels.

Russia is quite happy to contribute to building further sections such as the TESLA pipeline under normal contracts.

The point is, rather than being held hostage by the weakest link which endlessly delays the project, Russia will present a fait accompli and not repeat long, drawn out negotiations as before. Turkey is already getting a discount and transit fees.

Turkstream willl supply 63bcm, Nordstream is having its capacity doubled, Gazprom has heavily invested in gas storage in central Europe.

Azeri gas for TAP will only provide 10bcm. The Commission announced a couple of days ago* that gas from Algeria is their solution to the Norwegian/Russian duopoly, with LNG from the US & Australia. The volumes simply aren't enough, they are significantly more expensive than piped gas and will not arrive before gas transit across the Ukraine is cut off in 2019. The EU's energy policy is a mess.

Brussels is only making hot hair and funding interconneting pipelines like the new 'East Ring', but no gas and nothing for Serbia. They don't care.


* http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/eu-plans-major-offensive-diversify-gas-supplies-315019

http://arirusila.blogactiv.eu/2015/06/03/turkish-greek-and-tesla-streams-re-routing-energy-supply-in-eastern-europe/

EU DUDE,
"The point is, rather than being held hostage by the weakest link which endlessly delays the project, Russia will present a fait accompli and not repeat long, drawn out negotiations as before. Turkey is already getting a discount and transit fees."

Seriously dude,
There are a lot of news articles out there and I guess you can choose which to believe.
But you claim that Turkey is already getting discounts and "transit fees" for gas that has no pipeline???
Once again the article in B92 states that
"Russia has yet to sign a final agreement with Turkey on the first section of the pipeline to the Turkish territory, hoping that the pipeline will start operation in late 2016."
As far as Serbia getting gas via this route, there is a lot of work to be done before anyone can be counting on that such as agreements to build the necessary pipeline. Do you think Serbia could afford to build it? Will Russia foot the bill, maybe, but at what cost?
Everything may eventually happen just as you say or hope, I don't know, but still way too early in the game for anyone to brag about the final score.

All I am saying is that Russia is moving ahead regardless and supported this with details. They're not following the same old BS again.

Here's what Bloomberg says:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-19/gazprom-revives-saipem-contract-to-construct-black-sea-gas-link

"Saipem said in a May 8 statement that the suspension on South Stream contracts was being lifted and that it should start work on the offshore section of the pipeline in the Black Sea."

That looks like moving forward to me.


Please look in to the quantities of gas the EU requires, and what it can actually get from non-Russian sources. It's chalk and cheese. The gap is massive. Alternative cannot provide reasonable cost, arrive on time OR deliver sufficient quantity.

Turkstream is good for the Turks on many levels including strategically, including boosting its political and economic position against the EU.

Yes, it is early, but the Commission doesn't have the power to make gas come out of thin air.

(EU Dude, 5 June 2015 09:29)
Ah, but the one thing you keep omitting is that every link, every article, every speech by a diplomat that you can come up with on the Turkish stream, has a parallel within the last 2-3 years about the done deal of the south stream which was suddenly abandoned.
Don't get me wrong, I support the Turkish stream and hope it becomes a reality. I do not want to see Russia destroyed nor believe that Europe can function without gas from Russia.
All I am saying is that we are about where we were 3-4 years ago with south stream and you are still counting your chickens before they hatch.

And no matter what you think Russia can or can't do with Serbia, it is currently desperate to get into the EU and that will influence its decisions and even if not, it is totally landlocked by EU and EU wannabe countries. So unless they can figure out a way to get gas miraculously to Serbian soil, the EU is going to be even more influential on Turkish streams final destination than it was on south stream.

Brussels is only making hot hair and funding interconneting pipelines like the new 'East Ring', but no gas and nothing for Serbia. They don't care.


* [link]

[link]/
(EU Dude, 3 June 2015 16:14)

Dude,
Obviously, you have not read, methodically, your referenced links, for if you had, it would be clear that they work against your own arguments. You really should take some time to read those links carefully and thoroughly to avoid making a fool of yourself.

But you claim that Turkey is already getting discounts and "transit fees" for gas that has no pipeline???
###

I mistyped that in haste. Clearly Turkey cannot get transit fees for something not built yet. What I meant to write was, and I think it evident from my comment, that it makes no sense for Turkey to refuse transit fees on a plate if the pipeline is going to be built anyway, which it is in the process of starting.

As for discounts, I forgot to post this link from December 2014:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/putin-declares-gas-discount-for-turkey-scraps-south-stream.aspx?pageID=238&nID=75084&NewsCatID=359

For his part, Putin touched on Turkey's position as Russia’s second top trading partner after Germany. "Regarding our energy cooperation with our Turkish partners, we will make a six percent discount from January 1," he said.
---

& then there is this:

http://rt.com/business/241949-russia-turkey-gas-discount/

" In February, Yildiz said that after complex and lengthy negotiations Russia had agreed to give Turkey a discount of 10.25 percent on gas supplies. Gazprom had only confirmed reaching an agreement on the price, but not on the size of the discount.

A discount was part of last year's agreement between Moscow and Ankara over the construction of the Turkish Stream pipeline under the Black Sea. Turkish Stream will be laid instead of the South Stream pipeline canceled in December 2014. "

Do you think Serbia could afford to build it? Will Russia foot the bill, maybe, but at what cost?"

Sorry, forgot to reply to that bit. I don't know. Who does? I seriously doubt it though considering that Belgrade is cutting economic cloth to fit reality. But, if the Greeks can reach a financing deal with Moscow, then there is no reason to assume that the Serbs cannot and funnily enough, Serbia is still not an EU member stae. If Moscow pays for it by whatever means, then the deal must mean they get their money back, I would hazard a guess at either reduced transit fees, or elevated interest payments on the loan, something that would not be subject to Brussels' rules that it insists Serbia follows as a candidate, not as an EU ms.

One last one which is not new news.


euractiv - Europe’s LNG imports set to double by 2020, IEA says

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/europes-lng-imports-set-double-2020-iea-says-315138

but despite the surge in LNG intakes, Russian gas imports are “not set to be meaningfully displaced” in Europe, the IEA predicted, saying the continent “will remain locked in a 150-160 bcm range”.
---

However you cut it, LNG is still more expensive than piped gas minus other benefits.

What's that? It's silence. Naysayers eating crow!

What's that? It's silence. Naysayers eating crow!
(EU Dude, 2 June 2015 15:20)
Not sure what your point is but if you mean its proof of a done deal?

"Russia has yet to sign a final agreement with Turkey on the first section of the pipeline to the Turkish territory, hoping that the pipeline will start operation in late 2016."

Also remember just months ago the rhetoric and news reports that South Stream was DEFINITELY happening and even reports that construction had started in Serbia, but you have this now-
"The Beta news agency is quoting the Russian press as saying that "several European countries through which the pipeline might be extended after Greece seem restrained, fearing the hostility of the European Union, which has already led to the sudden abandonment of the Russian gas pipeline project South Stream,"

Plus the fact that Greece so far is unable to fulfill its payment commitments and is said to have only 700million in its coffers which is needed to pay for its govt operation.
So irregardless of what your point is, it is too early for anyone to start celebrating it as a done deal, and with the history of South Stream apparently that time will not be until it is actually completed.

Brussels is only making hot hair and funding interconneting pipelines like the new 'East Ring', but no gas and nothing for Serbia. They don't care.


* [link]

[link]/
(EU Dude, 3 June 2015 16:14)

Dude,
Obviously, you have not read, methodically, your referenced links, for if you had, it would be clear that they work against your own arguments. You really should take some time to read those links carefully and thoroughly to avoid making a fool of yourself.

Nabucco died long before. Turkstream is already under construction.

Russia doesn't have to deal with Bulgaria, the only EU member of South Stream who refused to take part under pressure from Brussels.

Russia is quite happy to contribute to building further sections such as the TESLA pipeline under normal contracts.

The point is, rather than being held hostage by the weakest link which endlessly delays the project, Russia will present a fait accompli and not repeat long, drawn out negotiations as before. Turkey is already getting a discount and transit fees.

Turkstream willl supply 63bcm, Nordstream is having its capacity doubled, Gazprom has heavily invested in gas storage in central Europe.

Azeri gas for TAP will only provide 10bcm. The Commission announced a couple of days ago* that gas from Algeria is their solution to the Norwegian/Russian duopoly, with LNG from the US & Australia. The volumes simply aren't enough, they are significantly more expensive than piped gas and will not arrive before gas transit across the Ukraine is cut off in 2019. The EU's energy policy is a mess.

Brussels is only making hot hair and funding interconneting pipelines like the new 'East Ring', but no gas and nothing for Serbia. They don't care.


* http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/eu-plans-major-offensive-diversify-gas-supplies-315019

http://arirusila.blogactiv.eu/2015/06/03/turkish-greek-and-tesla-streams-re-routing-energy-supply-in-eastern-europe/

EU DUDE,
"The point is, rather than being held hostage by the weakest link which endlessly delays the project, Russia will present a fait accompli and not repeat long, drawn out negotiations as before. Turkey is already getting a discount and transit fees."

Seriously dude,
There are a lot of news articles out there and I guess you can choose which to believe.
But you claim that Turkey is already getting discounts and "transit fees" for gas that has no pipeline???
Once again the article in B92 states that
"Russia has yet to sign a final agreement with Turkey on the first section of the pipeline to the Turkish territory, hoping that the pipeline will start operation in late 2016."
As far as Serbia getting gas via this route, there is a lot of work to be done before anyone can be counting on that such as agreements to build the necessary pipeline. Do you think Serbia could afford to build it? Will Russia foot the bill, maybe, but at what cost?
Everything may eventually happen just as you say or hope, I don't know, but still way too early in the game for anyone to brag about the final score.

All I am saying is that Russia is moving ahead regardless and supported this with details. They're not following the same old BS again.

Here's what Bloomberg says:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-19/gazprom-revives-saipem-contract-to-construct-black-sea-gas-link

"Saipem said in a May 8 statement that the suspension on South Stream contracts was being lifted and that it should start work on the offshore section of the pipeline in the Black Sea."

That looks like moving forward to me.


Please look in to the quantities of gas the EU requires, and what it can actually get from non-Russian sources. It's chalk and cheese. The gap is massive. Alternative cannot provide reasonable cost, arrive on time OR deliver sufficient quantity.

Turkstream is good for the Turks on many levels including strategically, including boosting its political and economic position against the EU.

Yes, it is early, but the Commission doesn't have the power to make gas come out of thin air.

But you claim that Turkey is already getting discounts and "transit fees" for gas that has no pipeline???
###

I mistyped that in haste. Clearly Turkey cannot get transit fees for something not built yet. What I meant to write was, and I think it evident from my comment, that it makes no sense for Turkey to refuse transit fees on a plate if the pipeline is going to be built anyway, which it is in the process of starting.

As for discounts, I forgot to post this link from December 2014:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/putin-declares-gas-discount-for-turkey-scraps-south-stream.aspx?pageID=238&nID=75084&NewsCatID=359

For his part, Putin touched on Turkey's position as Russia’s second top trading partner after Germany. "Regarding our energy cooperation with our Turkish partners, we will make a six percent discount from January 1," he said.
---

& then there is this:

http://rt.com/business/241949-russia-turkey-gas-discount/

" In February, Yildiz said that after complex and lengthy negotiations Russia had agreed to give Turkey a discount of 10.25 percent on gas supplies. Gazprom had only confirmed reaching an agreement on the price, but not on the size of the discount.

A discount was part of last year's agreement between Moscow and Ankara over the construction of the Turkish Stream pipeline under the Black Sea. Turkish Stream will be laid instead of the South Stream pipeline canceled in December 2014. "

Do you think Serbia could afford to build it? Will Russia foot the bill, maybe, but at what cost?"

Sorry, forgot to reply to that bit. I don't know. Who does? I seriously doubt it though considering that Belgrade is cutting economic cloth to fit reality. But, if the Greeks can reach a financing deal with Moscow, then there is no reason to assume that the Serbs cannot and funnily enough, Serbia is still not an EU member stae. If Moscow pays for it by whatever means, then the deal must mean they get their money back, I would hazard a guess at either reduced transit fees, or elevated interest payments on the loan, something that would not be subject to Brussels' rules that it insists Serbia follows as a candidate, not as an EU ms.

One last one which is not new news.


euractiv - Europe’s LNG imports set to double by 2020, IEA says

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/europes-lng-imports-set-double-2020-iea-says-315138

but despite the surge in LNG intakes, Russian gas imports are “not set to be meaningfully displaced” in Europe, the IEA predicted, saying the continent “will remain locked in a 150-160 bcm range”.
---

However you cut it, LNG is still more expensive than piped gas minus other benefits.

(EU Dude, 5 June 2015 09:29)
Ah, but the one thing you keep omitting is that every link, every article, every speech by a diplomat that you can come up with on the Turkish stream, has a parallel within the last 2-3 years about the done deal of the south stream which was suddenly abandoned.
Don't get me wrong, I support the Turkish stream and hope it becomes a reality. I do not want to see Russia destroyed nor believe that Europe can function without gas from Russia.
All I am saying is that we are about where we were 3-4 years ago with south stream and you are still counting your chickens before they hatch.

And no matter what you think Russia can or can't do with Serbia, it is currently desperate to get into the EU and that will influence its decisions and even if not, it is totally landlocked by EU and EU wannabe countries. So unless they can figure out a way to get gas miraculously to Serbian soil, the EU is going to be even more influential on Turkish streams final destination than it was on south stream.