Gas Stoppages out of Russia !

therewillbe

Putin & HIS Russia.

What do you think is happening at present with the situation between Russia and the Ukraine over this "non payment of a gas bill" Is Putin flexing
his muscles with just the ukrainians or is he trying to get at the west ?
Are we in for a very cold winter if the gas supplies stop here in Ireland,where does ours come from ,Scandinavia or Russia?

Ponster

A French newspaper had a graph in this morns edition with a list of countries who may be affected by a 100% stop of all Russian gas to Europe.

In it Ireland is stated as receiving 0% o its gas from Russia and along with Spain, UK, and Denmark would be the only countries 'safe' from a complete blockage.

Is this true? Do we source all of our gas from elsewhere ?

mike65

Well we get our gas from the Corrib field....oh hang on.

therewillbe

It would be nice to think that the corrib gas when it arrives could be ours but it aint , we have to share it .More bad news thismorning with the russians and their neighbours. Back to the topic, Has Putin got motives on this issue ?

mike65

When does Putin not have motives? Not that he's in charge of course *cough*

I dunno what the gas reserves are like in North Africa but they need to be developed.

Latchy

There is a supply of gas from russia running to parts of the uk , maybe not enough to shut the county down but scary to think that russia is the main supplier of gas to other european countries .What's an even stranger is that the UK has it's own gas supply from the north sea but becuse of lack of storage space, they sell it onto mainland Europen countries at a fixed price .The Europeans then sell it back to uk at a higher price and that's why british household gas bills are so high .Only the brits could think that one up .

ejmaztec

mike65 wrote: »

I dunno what the gas reserves are like in North Africa but they need to be developed.

Out of the frying pan into the fire. I thought the Russians represented the gas board from hell, but I think that a North African set-up would be just as bad.

Looks like there's going to be a nuclear power-station building spree.

The Russians are obviously pissed off because the price drop of commodities is going to slow down the military modernisation scheme that they announced a few months ago.

ibh

I think our Gas comes from a combination of the North Sea and Norway. Not sure if it is supplememted by anywhere else, but i don't think we are in any way linked to Russia.
Even if Russia stopped supply, would the line from Uzbekistan not be able to provide enough supply??

P. Breathnach

ibh wrote: »

I think our Gas comes from a combination of the North Sea and Norway. Not sure if it is supplememted by anywhere else, but i don't think we are in any way linked to Russia.

It's all linked up in another sense: there is a big pool of customers in Europe. If supplies from Russia are cut, the market will be bidding for gas from other sources.

Does anybody else think the "Shell to Sea" campaign might not be such a good idea?

murfie

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Does anybody else think the "Shell to Sea" campaign might not be such a good idea?

Agreed, this project is critical and such a boost to the region. The government need to stop pandering to a minority of uneducated people and push this through to completion!

RDM_83

What the EU should be doing is putting pressure on the Ukraine, all Russia are doing is wanting to get paid for their product, nobody complains when the gas company cuts of your supply if you don't pay (its just unfortunate that Germany gets its gas from pipelines which run through the Ukraine)

oscarBravo

RDM_83 wrote: »

What the EU should be doing is putting pressure on the Ukraine...

In theory, it can't: energy security isn't an EU competence.

It would have been, had Lisbon been ratified, but hey...

Pride Fighter

Russia is being hit hard with lower oil and gas prices. It could be a stunt to raise prices and increase revenue when they do turn it back on.

djpbarry

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Russia is being hit hard with lower oil and gas prices.

It would be hit even harder if it chose to cut supply completely. I think the threat of the Russians turning off the taps to the EU is overstated - it would be economic suicide. However, as oscarBravo says, a common EU energy policy would be preferable to a series of bilateral agreements, which is just playing into Putin's Medvedev's hands really. Divide and conquer and all that...

sink

latchyco wrote: »

There is a supply of gas from russia running to parts of the uk , maybe not enough to shut the county down but scary to think that russia is the main supplier of gas to other european countries .What's an even stranger is that the UK has it's own gas supply from the north sea but becuse of lack of storage space, they sell it onto mainland Europen countries at a fixed price .The Europeans then sell it back to uk at a higher price and that's why british household gas bills are so high .Only the brits could think that one up .

I don't think you are giving Irish politicians enough credit!

SeanW

ejmaztec wrote: »

Looks like there's going to be a nuclear power-station building spree.

If we had a lick of common sense, we would have started building nuclear power stations and redoubled our efforts to research and adopt renewable energies the minute this Russian Bear "Pipeline Politics" reared its ugly head with the first cutoffs in 2005/2006, the Estonian problems not long after, the attempted bombing of the BTC pipeline in Georgia and so on.
But we don't so we'll keep on handing over pots of money to Russia and hope they don't f@#+ us over on their way back to Communism while trashing the planet with gas emissions.

sink wrote: »

I don't think you are giving Irish politicians enough credit!

Indeed, after all, these are the crowd that threw heaps of money into the economy in the late 90s and early 2000s with unsustainable, boom time tax cuts and public wage bills, then to deal with the resulting inflation problem, introduced the SSIAs ... remember less than 2 years ago, the government was still paying out on those things ...

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

If we had a lick of common sense, we would have started building nuclear power stations and redoubled our efforts to research and adopt renewable energies the minute this Russian Bear "Pipeline Politics" reared its ugly head with the first cutoffs in 2005/2006, the Estonian problems not long after, the attempted bombing of the BTC pipeline in Georgia and so on.
But we don't so we'll keep on handing over pots of money to Russia...

Your proposed nuclear programme would cost us fewer pots of money?

mumhaabu

I suggest we send the shell to sea activsts to a dingy flat in Ukraine with T-shirts and cold jeans. Then they'd quickly change their tune, commy idiots.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

Your proposed nuclear programme would cost us fewer pots of money?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It would however be a lot more environmentally sensitive and reliable plus we wouldn't be automatically involved with every single quarrel Russia gets into with its neighbors, nor would we be handing the power to turn our lights off to a country that is rapidly backsliding towards Stalinism.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps, perhaps not. It would however be a lot more environmentally sensitive and reliable plus we wouldn't be automatically involved with every single quarrel Russia gets into with its neighbors, nor would we be handing the power to turn our lights off to a country that is rapidly backsliding towards Stalinism.

As I have stated in other threads, I am quite sceptical about the economic necessity for nuclear power in this country. I also have my doubts as to whether nuclear is more environmentally friendly than a gas-fired power plant, all things considered. As for Russia cutting the EU’s supply, I can’t see it happening; as much as the EU relies on Russian fuel, the Russians are heavily dependant on the income from said fuel.

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

As I have stated in other threads, I am quite sceptical about the economic necessity for nuclear power in this country.

It would create a shedload of jobs at all levels of the skills spectrum, provide us with a convenient means of long term energy hedging, and done correctly could be cost-effective.

I also have my doubts as to whether nuclear is more environmentally friendly than a gas-fired power plant, all things considered.

No CO2 emissions, no air pollution of any kind from the power plants, and according to an Oak Ridge National Laboratory report, less radiological emissions than coal.

As for Russia cutting the EU’s supply, I can’t see it happening; as much as the EU relies on Russian fuel, the Russians are heavily dependant on the income from said fuel.

You don't seem to understand the dynamic. Russia may like the cash, but we need the lights to stay on a lot more than they need the moolah. If the Ruskies turn of the taps, Putin has to cancel an order of fighter jets. But we're in the dark, and our economy grinds to a complete halt.
Communists turned Russia into an impoverished authoritarian s***hole before ... Putin is ex-KGB and taking the country back to Communism.

Handing our national security over to this crowd is suicide. Every piece of evidence I've seen over the last few years screams "WTF ARE YOU DOING!"

Russia has a short but scary history of quarreling with its neighbors over the last few years, and there's been an insane amount of pipeline politics going on. The first Ukranian blackout in 2005/2006, the Estonian troubles in 2007 where among other things, all government websites were taken down by a Distributed Denial of Service attack, conspiracy theorists think that had a lot more to do with a pipeline Russia wants to build in waters Estonia claims as its own, the attempted bombing of the BTC (Caspain Sea - Russia Bypass - Turkey) pipeline during the belligerance in Georgia, now they're going at it with the Ukranians again.

This also touches on so many other issues, that missile shield thing, NATO membership for ex-USSR countries, EU memberships far into Eastern Europe if any, any future military quarrels Russia gets into.

The Germans also disagree with your appraisal of the situation as evidenced by a Der Spiegel article.
Caught In The Climate Conundrum
Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants -- Despite High Emissions

Energy security is another argument Gabriel and his colleagues like to invoke: Germany must not become dependent on Russian natural gas, they say.

So the Germans have come to realise that they had to choose between filthy coal and nuclear electricity. Unfortunately, they chose the former another error I'd prefer we not repeat.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

It would create a shedload of jobs at all levels of the skills spectrum…

A shed-load? How many people are needed to man a power plant?

SeanW wrote: »

No CO2 emissions…

Really? None whatsoever?

SeanW wrote: »

…no air pollution of any kind from the power plants…

No air pollution from the plants, no. But let’s not forget about the waste.

SeanW wrote: »

Russia may like the cash, but we need the lights to stay on a lot more than they need the moolah.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The EU depends on Russia for about 25% of it’s gas, but Russia depends on the EU for over 50% of it’s gas sales. It’s also worth noting that Gazprom employs a massive 450,000 people.

Pride Fighter

djpbarry wrote: »

But let’s not forget about the waste.

The latest nuclear power plants can recycle 95 % of its waste back into fuel. It has trace CO2 emissions, less than geothermal power which is one of the lowest rates of emissions I believe.

djpbarry

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The latest nuclear power plants can recycle 95 % of its waste back into fuel. It has trace CO2 emissions, less than geothermal power which is one of the lowest rates of emissions I believe.

Do you have a source?

Pride Fighter

djpbarry wrote: »

Do you have a source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel, (1) which is delivered to a nuclear power plant. After usage in the power plant, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant (2) or to a final repository (3) for geological disposition. In reprocessing 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant

djpbarry

Pride Fighter wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
The Nuclear Fuel Cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel, (1) which is delivered to a nuclear power plant. After usage in the power plant, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant (2) or to a final repository (3) for geological disposition. In reprocessing 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant

I'm looking for a source for your claim that construction, maintenance, fuelling and decommissioning of a nuclear power plant produces only trace amounts of CO2? Somehow I doubt you will find one.

Pride Fighter

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm looking for a source for your claim that construction, maintenance, fuelling and decommissioning of a nuclear power plant produces only trace amounts of CO2? Somehow I doubt you will find one.

The actual production of electricity produces only trace amounts. Construction and mining of uranium produces more CO2 than the production of electricity. It is a better bet than burning oil/gas and coal IMO.

djpbarry

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Construction and mining of uranium produces more CO2 than the production of electricity. It is a better bet than burning oil/gas and coal IMO.

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

Oxford Research Group wrote:

The extraction of uranium from its ores as found in the ground consumes lots of energy, chemicals, materials and equipment. The energy requirements of uranium recovery depend on the ore grade: the lower the grade, the more rock has to be processed, the more energy is consumed, hence the more CO2 is emitted.

If we assume a gas-fired power station emits 100% CO2, then nuclear power using today’s average ore grade of 0.15% would emit approximately 30% CO2. As the ore grade declines, the CO2 emissions increase. At an ore grade of between 0.01 and 0.02% U3O8, CO2 emissions from nuclear power equal that of a gas-fired power plant.

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf

dolliemix

ejmaztec wrote: »

Out of the frying pan into the fire. I thought the Russians represented the gas board from hell, but I think that a North African set-up would be just as bad.

Looks like there's going to be a nuclear power-station building spree.

The Russians are obviously pissed off because the price drop of commodities is going to slow down the military modernisation scheme that they announced a few months ago.

I think the Russians are pissed off because the Ukranians owe them over 2 billion!