Natural gas has been fully on the political agenda in recent years. We immediately think of earthquakes, and now also of the climate. But another gas discussion is hardly conducted in the Netherlands: the role that gas can play in potential conflicts.
Via a detour – the poisoning of the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny – that subject is now on the political agenda. Not in the Netherlands, but in Germany, where a discussion has flared up about a controversial pipeline: the ‘Nord Stream’.
This transports Russian gas directly across the Baltic Sea bed to Germany (and on to the Netherlands). The first version is already there, the second is under construction.
That project must be stopped, say critics. The main reason: the gas pipeline could become a linchpin in future political conflicts and divide the European Union (or NATO). But how? And why is it that this discussion is an issue in German politics, but is almost completely absent in the Netherlands?
Why does Russia actually want this gas pipeline?
In order to answer the question whether we should want the pipeline from the perspective of the European Union, it can help to turn that question around: why does Russia want it? It is not as if the country can open up gas fields that were not yet in production with this pipeline, argues Nord Stream expert Rem Korteweg of the Clingendael Institute in a recent opinion piece.
“Because much of the gas for Western Europe still has to go through Ukraine, Moscow has an interest in maintaining somewhat good relations with Kiev. Once that transit dependency is gone, Moscow has free rein. ”
Rem Korteweg, Nord Stream expert
–
–
–
“It is clear that the Nord Stream pipeline will not bring new gas to the European market”, Korteweg told NU.nl. “It is a pipeline that is mainly intended to replace an earlier route. It runs through Ukraine – and that’s where the geopolitical problems started.”
“Because a large part of the gas for Western Europe still has to go through Ukraine, Moscow has an interest in maintaining somewhat good relations with Kiev. Once that transit dependence is gone, Moscow has free rein.”
The Netherlands sees Nord Stream as a commercial project
In Germany, the discussion about Nord Stream has indeed turned to political interests, in which after the military raids in Georgia and Ukraine and a long series of other incidents, such as hacking attempts by German authorities, a growing suspicion of Russia is aroused.
Why then does this discussion not exist in the Netherlands? Korteweg: “The Netherlands is hiding behind the argument that Nord Stream 2 is a ‘commercial project’. But it does have major geopolitical interests behind it – certainly for Russia.”
There is also another way of looking at the project: as a part of the energy supply. Then there are also clear advantages and part of the criticism is put in a different light, explains Coby van der Linde. Van der Linde is director of the Clingendael International Energy Program and professor of geopolitics and energy management at the University of Groningen.
“Germany is a major gas importer. Now that the Netherlands is disappearing as a supplier, Russia and Norway remain. That Russian import is still going through a pipeline through Belarus (ed.) And Poland, and through a pipeline through Ukraine.”
LNG exporter gets involved in discussion, but offers little certainty
This means that Germany also needs greater security of supply. Like the Netherlands, they do not have a port where tankers with liquefied natural gas (LNG) can moor. In addition, they are simultaneously trying to stop the use of lignite and nuclear energy.
“But the reality is that the situation for the Netherlands is not very different nowadays,” says Van der Linde. “Like our neighboring countries, we have become a normal gas importing country.” Small difference: LNG ships can moor in Rotterdam. And that explains precisely criticism of the Nord Stream from another corner: the United States. The US produces shale gas, which the country wants to supply to Europe via Rotterdam.
However, this gas is much more expensive than the Russian gas. In addition, the shale industry is plagued by bankruptcies. That horse therefore offers little certainty. Van der Linde is therefore critical. “Other countries ensure that they have long-term supply contracts. The Netherlands does not.
“We seem to have the attitude that if these problems arise, we already have alternatives available, such as hydrogen. But we leave investment in this to the market.”
Does the Netherlands need a ‘strategic gas reserve’?
Is there another short-term solution? The Netherlands could consider building a larger strategic gas supply, several experts confirm. Then we ourselves will be politically less blackmailable and sensitive to price fluctuations and in a real crisis we may also be able to help neighboring countries out and thus safeguard European unity.
But that, too, just like an accelerated switch to sustainable energy and hydrogen, above all requires political decisiveness. And a substantial financial investment.
– .
