Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
08TALLINN121 | 2008-03-28 15:25:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Embassy Tallinn |
1. (SBU) Summary: In a 3-hour presentation hosted by the German embassy in Tallinn, presenters from WinGas, BASF and the UN Economic Commission for Europe both promoted and defended the NordStream gas pipeline project. They used a variety of arguments to claim that NordStream will be a cheaper, safer, cleaner and more reliable source of gas for Europe than the alternatives. They dismissed renewable energy sources as a viable alternative to fossil fuels, and equally dismissed any on-shore alternatives to NordStream. Participants were skeptical, but the event was at the very least an effort by NordStream consortium partners to repair some of the PR 'disaster' they experienced here after last fall's rejection of the project by the Government of Estonia (GOE). End Summary. 2. (U) At a March 19th seminar titled "Some Key Global Energy Issues and their Relevance for Europe" the German Embassy in Tallinn hosted speakers from several companies involved in the NordStream gas pipeline project. In a format they have taken to the other Baltic countries several times in the past six months, speakers presented scientific literature, economic projections, and forecasts of future EU energy demands in support of the project's safety, viability, and long-term inevitability. RUSSIA: A MORE RELIABLE SUPPLIER THAN...IRAN? 3. (U) In addition to one Swiss Nordstream official, the consortium was represented at the dinner by Dr. Ernst Schwanhold, (former Economic Minister in the German state of Westphalia) now of BASF Corporation which is a 20 percent owner of NordStream, and Dr. Gerhard KQnig of WinGas (a 50/50 joint venture with Wintershall and Gazprom). (Note: WinGas plans eventually to be a downstream customer of NordStream. End Note.) The third speaker, a regular on the NordStream Road Show, was Dr. Sead Vilogorac of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) in Geneva. No one came from Gazprom. The team came prepared to address the gamut of concerns about the NordStream pipeline. Their lines of argument basically went like so: -- NordStream is not just a Russo-German project, it's a European project; -- Building off-shore is cheaper, safer, and cleaner than building on-shore; -- An off-shore pipeline allows higher pressure (180-200 bar) without building compressor stations every 100km, as needed for on-shore pipelines; -- Building compressor stations would add cost, and emit more CO2 in the construction process; -- Gas is cleaner than coal, oil, etc. for energy production; -- Projected future EU demand for gas is so great that Europe will need all the NordStreams it can get, and soon; -- Renewables are nice to talk about, but won't work, are too costly, are basically a pie-in-the-sky proposition; and: 4. (U) In a new twist on the complaint that the undersea route will cut out countries such as the Balts and Poland from access to the pipeline or transit fees, the NordStream team argued that an off-shore route will be "free from individual national interests" and thereby safer. Just for good measure, their final argument was repeated more than once: Where else will Europe get its gas from? Iran? Algeria? Iraq? In the words of Dr. Vilogorac of UNECE, "Only OPEC and Russia are reliable suppliers." "WHAT'S IN IT FOR US?" 5. (SBU) The audience was interested and lively; questioners emphasized the particular concerns of countries in the region. The Polish embassy asked about Yamal II as an alternative to NordStream; the answer: twinning Yamal I on-shore would be more expensive than building NordStream off-shore (see above). The Estonian MFA's energy director asked about the environment impact of possible spills or other accidents during construction. The speakers had no answer other than to speculate that the same legal framework would apply as with any other pipeline in the TALLINN 00000121 002 OF 002 North Sea or the Mediterranean. (Note: The MFA contact later told us he heard no new information from this "propaganda" session, and was unconvinced that WinGas and BASF truly understand the scope of what the NordStream project will entail. End Note.) To the Lithuanian embassy's concern about possible supply interruptions, WinGas and BASF simply said that they have found Gazprom to be a very responsible partner. (Note: WinGas is 50 percent owned by Gazprom. End Note) Finally, the British embassy asked simply: "What's in this for Estonia?" With a straight face, Dr. Schwanhold of BASF replied that "European solidarity" was the main payoff for Estonia, adding that someday there might also be the possibility of a reverse pipeline to carry gas from the terminus at Griefswald back into the Baltics. The sole NordStream official in the group added that there was not one project on the Trans European Network (TEN) list that equally benefits all member states, but nevertheless all should support them for the good of the Union. 6. (SBU) Comment: For all the skepticism among the audience, the forum was productive, and was exactly the kind of open debate that had not happened in the run-up to Estonia's decision to decline permission for an environmental impact study in Estonia's economic zone. WinGas and BASF representatives freely admitted that NordStream badly fumbled the PR aspects of the project last year, and felt that with better optics and communication, could have lessened opposition to the project in Estonia. The companies' arguments - while note entirely convincing - were at least a step towards more dialogue on the issue. 7. (SBU) Comment, cont'd: It was curious that BASF and WinGas did not seek more attention for the event, but instead cloaked it under the guise of an embassy-sponsored discussion of "energy security, energy efficiency and climate protection." This may be an indication of their lingering wariness of public opposition to NordStream leftover from last fall. The German Embassy's Commercial Counselor confirmed that this event went quite well from the German point of view. The questions in Tallinn mirrored the questions that had been asked on stops in Riga and Vilnius. It remains to be seen if NordStream consortium partners, or even Gazprom itself, will continue to make similar, or more ambitious, attempts to address the many persistent concerns in the region with this project. End Comment. DECKER |