Supporters Stress Pragmatism in Nord Stream Debate (10)

Published: 03.09.2012 15:28

Photo: Wikimedia Commons/Samuel Bailey

See Also

Backers of Nord Stream's interest in studying Estonia's territorial waters are calling for the government to stay rational.

Employers' Confederation Chairman Enn Veskimägi said that care still needs to be taken with regard to the environmental impact of submarine gas pipelines. But the political decision has already been made at the European level, he said, as two gas pipelines already lie on the Baltic seabed.

"It is important to avoid the mistakes that were made last time Nord Stream applied for permission to conduct surveys. In that case, things got overly emotional and it wasn't possible to give rational arguments,” Veskimägi told uudised.err.ee.

The gas pipeline would be beneficial for Estonia, he continued. “A gas pipeline partially passing through Estonian waters will make the project significantly cheaper for European Union countries and will at the same time bring Estonia economic gains. It will create jobs and they will use our ports,” said Veskimägi.

Representing the opposition Social Democratic Party, MP Urve Palo also supported granting permission for Nord Stream surveys. Palo warned against politicization and called for a more sober attitude toward Russia in general.

“Like it or not, Russia is and will continue to be our neighbor,” Palo said in an Äripäev opinion article.

Palo pointed to the relatively small share of Estonian exports that get sent to Russia - 10 percent. She said there has been reluctance to increase trade with Russia due to security reasons, but that she has heard no logical argument for why that figure should be the cutoff, Finland having set there exports with Russia at 30 percent.

Nord Stream approached the Estonian government last month, expressing an interest for potentially laying two additional pipelines in the Baltic Sea.

The government, which rejected a similar request in 2007, said it will not take a stance yet because Nord Stream's appeal was “preliminary.” But the head of one coalition partner said he could not currently see any arguments for changing the previous standpoint.

Although fears of environmental disasters and gas supply cuts have not materialized with the existing pipelines, a key argument against the project is Russia's pledge to use military ships to defend its pipeline if necessary, Mart Laar, a high level MP, said last week.

 

Ott Tammik

Comments

For adding comments,enter the ERR website with your user name and password , or use the form below to comment without logging in.


Guidelines for commenting can be found here.

Comments (10)

  • Observer

    04.09.2012 05:42

    Well, building the pipe overland across Estonia would make the project even cheaper for EU countries and provide even more benefits to the Estonian economy, so why is Russia so emotionally against this idea? Why should Estonia endanger its maritime enviroment to pander to irrational Russian complexes?

  • @Observer

    04.09.2012 14:24

    ahm, because it is Russian gas transported and not Estonian gas?

  • @@Observer

    05.09.2012 05:24

    Russian gas delivered to Europe, but not via an EU country?

  • Observer

    05.09.2012 05:42

    Umm, no. It is gas owned by European consumers, they paid for it. Why should Russia care how it is delivered once it leaves Russian borders?

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    05.09.2012 11:17

    "Why should Russia care how it is delivered once it leaves Russian borders?" Due Diligence and Customer Care, for instance. The incidence with the Ukraine might have the biggest impact here, why the Nord Stream gas pipeline was built (alltogether with the potentials of political issues between Russia and the Baltics and Poland at least back then when the decision was made), but I do think that this was rather demanded by their customers in Germany to ensure the highest possible reliability of delivery of the goods. Without align of blame to any side, just think of a situation, where for political reasons the delivery of gas is interrupted long term to Germany. The industry in Germany might suffer hard from that and that is why the route through the Baltic Sea was chosen to avoid these problems that already went critical in the end on the issue with Ukraine.

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    05.09.2012 13:17

    I don't know about the contractual terms of the deal (you gotta call Mr. Schroeder for details), but it might well be that Russia has the obligation to provide the gas until German border. In that case, Russia would have to care even more about how it is delivered once it leaves Russian borders.

  • Observer

    06.09.2012 05:22

    As I recall, the Baltics joined the EU and NATO in 2004, so I don't see what imagined threat would exist to German industry if the pipeline went overland across these countries. I also recall it was at Russia's insistance that the pipeline go under the Baltic Sea, at twice the cost to German consumers compared with an overland route. And now the argument is made that it would be a little bit cheaper if the pipeline crossed Estonian territorial waters. What a joke.

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    06.09.2012 11:17

    The plans of building the Nord Stream pipline started in 2000. I agree, that todays perspectives seem to not justify anymore the decisions made back then from 2000 - 2005.

  • karLcx

    12.09.2012 01:27

    i hope Palo enjoys the pay-cheque from russia for such comments. the fact that such a pipeline or trade increase is not in estonia's economic or security interests hasn't changed, and the reasons for these things are purely down to russia's aggressive attitude.

  • avatar

    knut_albers

    12.09.2012 09:55

    Karl, you need to understand that it was not in Estonia's sphere of influence, on how the gas is transported from Russia to Germany. This was solely negotiated between the seller (in Russia) and the buyer (in Germany), so your comment should go like this, that Estonia was or is still not interested to be a distribution channel of Russian gas on their soil and through their customs, "purely down to Russia's aggressive attitude." That's how your statement could make sense. Although I have sympathy for Estonia's political concerns on Russian Government, economically speaking, to my opinion it is a very bad idea to politicize trade. As a trader, I have the legal obligation to be political neutral and act in the best interest of all business partners involved, especially in the face of investors. I wish our government would have a better understanding about business conduct and integrity. I am afraid, they don't. To the disadvantage of Estonian taxpayers (Estonian by the means of registered tax residents in Estonia).