The decision to change the route of the North European Gas Pipeline (a.k.a. Nord Stream), which is being built by the Gazprom-controlled Nord Stream AG, may slow the project and increased its expense. Poland has suggested that it be given a second ecological assessment. Formally, Poland has no right to demand that, but it influence Sweden, and the pipeline passes through the waters of that country's economic zone. The initial ecological assessment cost more than $50 million.
Polish authorities have used the change in the Nord Stream route as an excuse to press another claim against it. On Friday, the office of the Polish Minister of Economy Grzegorz Wozniak released an official statement by him. “We demand that repeat conciliation be begun in connection with he convention on possible influence on the environment,” the minister's statement reads. That is the Pole's response to the change announced last Tuesday in the route of the pipeline near the Danish island of Bornholm. The change will lengthen the pipeline by 8 km. and increase its expense, but it will thus no longer cross the Polish economic zone. Under the new plan, Nord Stream will pass through the economic zones of Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and through the territorial waters of Russia, Denmark and Germany.
Mattias Warnig, executive director of the Swiss Nord Stream AG, stated in a letter published on the website of the Polish ministry that “Research has shown that the northern option for the route of the gas pipeline is optimal, since it will be farther from known sites of explosives from the Second World War buried to the south of Bornholm Island. The new route minimizes ecological risks and prevents delays in its construction because of legal questions connected with disputed sea border to the south of Bornholm.” According to Warnig, government offices in all the countries involved were informed of the optimalization of the route at a meeting in Berlin on August 21. Poland now has no formal relationship to the project and cannot influence its implementation. But Wozniak gave assurances that “several countries,” including Sweden, are inclined to demand that Nord Stream undergo a new ecological assessment in connection with the route change.
There has been no official reaction from Sweden yet. A Nord Stream spokesman told Kommersant that Denmark and Germany remain in solidarity with Russia and negotiations with Sweden are continuing. Estonia is supporting Poland. Estonian Academy of Sciences member Endel Lippmaa, in an analysis the Nord Stream feasibility study for the Estonian Foreign Ministry, stated that the construction of the pipeline violates European Union legislation. “Legalization of Russia's ability to guard the gas pipeline with arms will permit it to control all movement on the floor and surface of the Baltic Sea – all underwater and surface vessels,” he concluded.
In addition, Estonian politician and parliamentarian from the Reform Party Igor Gryazin is expected to reintroduce the draft law “On the Sea Border,” which would extend the border of Estonia's territorial waters by 3 nautical miles (5.5 km.). Gryazin said that Estonia and Finland voluntarily left a six-mile neutral corridor between their waters, through which Nord Stream will pass, but international law allows it to be closed unilaterally, and without Russia's consent. Russian gas provides 40 percent of Finland's electricity, so it is not at all clear that it will support Estonia's decision.
Experts say that Poland and Estonia's criticism can cause definite problems for Nord Stream. “The EU supports the project, but with the stipulation of unfailingly strict observation of ecological preservation procedures,” noted Troika Dialog analyst Valery Nesterov. “Therefore, the opponents of the project have taken advantage of this to try to create a number of bureaucratic barriers that will lead to delays, which in turn influence its cost.” Maxim Shein of BrokerCreditService added that the first ecological assessment cost Nord Stream more than $50 million. He estimated that a repeat assessment would cost “less, but a considerable outlay any way” and slow down the implementation of the project.
Polish authorities have used the change in the Nord Stream route as an excuse to press another claim against it. On Friday, the office of the Polish Minister of Economy Grzegorz Wozniak released an official statement by him. “We demand that repeat conciliation be begun in connection with he convention on possible influence on the environment,” the minister's statement reads. That is the Pole's response to the change announced last Tuesday in the route of the pipeline near the Danish island of Bornholm. The change will lengthen the pipeline by 8 km. and increase its expense, but it will thus no longer cross the Polish economic zone. Under the new plan, Nord Stream will pass through the economic zones of Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and through the territorial waters of Russia, Denmark and Germany.
Mattias Warnig, executive director of the Swiss Nord Stream AG, stated in a letter published on the website of the Polish ministry that “Research has shown that the northern option for the route of the gas pipeline is optimal, since it will be farther from known sites of explosives from the Second World War buried to the south of Bornholm Island. The new route minimizes ecological risks and prevents delays in its construction because of legal questions connected with disputed sea border to the south of Bornholm.” According to Warnig, government offices in all the countries involved were informed of the optimalization of the route at a meeting in Berlin on August 21. Poland now has no formal relationship to the project and cannot influence its implementation. But Wozniak gave assurances that “several countries,” including Sweden, are inclined to demand that Nord Stream undergo a new ecological assessment in connection with the route change.
There has been no official reaction from Sweden yet. A Nord Stream spokesman told Kommersant that Denmark and Germany remain in solidarity with Russia and negotiations with Sweden are continuing. Estonia is supporting Poland. Estonian Academy of Sciences member Endel Lippmaa, in an analysis the Nord Stream feasibility study for the Estonian Foreign Ministry, stated that the construction of the pipeline violates European Union legislation. “Legalization of Russia's ability to guard the gas pipeline with arms will permit it to control all movement on the floor and surface of the Baltic Sea – all underwater and surface vessels,” he concluded.
In addition, Estonian politician and parliamentarian from the Reform Party Igor Gryazin is expected to reintroduce the draft law “On the Sea Border,” which would extend the border of Estonia's territorial waters by 3 nautical miles (5.5 km.). Gryazin said that Estonia and Finland voluntarily left a six-mile neutral corridor between their waters, through which Nord Stream will pass, but international law allows it to be closed unilaterally, and without Russia's consent. Russian gas provides 40 percent of Finland's electricity, so it is not at all clear that it will support Estonia's decision.
Experts say that Poland and Estonia's criticism can cause definite problems for Nord Stream. “The EU supports the project, but with the stipulation of unfailingly strict observation of ecological preservation procedures,” noted Troika Dialog analyst Valery Nesterov. “Therefore, the opponents of the project have taken advantage of this to try to create a number of bureaucratic barriers that will lead to delays, which in turn influence its cost.” Maxim Shein of BrokerCreditService added that the first ecological assessment cost Nord Stream more than $50 million. He estimated that a repeat assessment would cost “less, but a considerable outlay any way” and slow down the implementation of the project.
by Vladimir Vodo, Warsaw & Natalia Grib
Found this post useful? Consider subscribing to
