Nord Stream: Not Just a Pipeline

Nord Stream: Not Just a Pipeline 11
they are currently considering … [including] efforts to improve efficiency
in energy production and use, [and] increase reliance on non-fossil fuels’
(IEA 2006b: 161). According to this potential development, EU’s annual
gas demand may in fact be 38 bcm less in 2015 and 90 bcm less in 2030
than is projected in the reference scenario (Table 1). Larsson (2007: 28)
therefore suggests that the Nord Stream pipeline may actually be
superfluous, and that increasing the capacity of existing pipelines could in
fact suffice to meet the increased demand.
Table 1: EU Natural Gas Demand (bcm/year) – IEA Projections
2004 2015 2030
Reference Scenario 508 609 726
Alternative Policy Scenario 508 571 636
Difference 38 90
Source: IEA 2006b:112,183
Regardless of the need to scrutinise the figures presented by Nord Stream
AG, few seem to fully deny the need for increased gas supplies to the EU.
In March 2006, the European Commission published its Green Paper on
energy, A European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure
Energy, which acknowledged precisely that in terms of energy supply
there are critical times ahead. Although not using labels such as ‘new
cold war’ or ‘war over natural resources,’ the Green Paper clearly echoes
many of the arguments put forward by Follath and Jung (2006) in Der
neue Kalte Krieg. To handle the upcoming energy security challenges the
Commission sees a need to take several important steps, of which one has
proved especially useful as an argument for Nord Stream proponents:
diversification of supply routes. Although this is but one point from an
exhaustive list of steps the EU should take, it has nevertheless become a
very central argument for the Nord Stream consortium, which posits that
the new direct energy link between the EU and Russia is an important
step on the way to increased route diversification and secure supplies
(Nord Stream 2008g).
To underline this point, it is emphasised that the EU Commission has
given the pipeline status as a priority project under the TEN-E guidelines
(Trans-European Energy Network), 2 which are meant to help increase
competitiveness in the energy market and increase security of supply. By
giving priority to certain projects, the EU aims to ‘accelerate the implementation
and construction of connections and to increase the incentives
for private investors’ (EU Commission 2006b: 2, 2007: 15). Thus, the
TEN-E status is inevitably important for a project of such a scale as Nord
Stream, and according to the company website, ‘The European Union
appreciates Nord Stream as one of the priority energy projects of Euro-
2 Although a ‘correct’ abbreviation would be T-EEN, the abbreviation ‘TEN’ is
used for all Trans-European Networks, followed by a specification of network
type, e.g. TEN-E for Energy, TEN-T for Transport, and so on.