Posts tagged “Russia”
I have seen a number of commentators over the last few days say that the American shale gas revolution means that the U.S. could simply announce new LNG exports and that would undercut Russian gas. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Upton, for instance, said in a statement: “Expanding U.S. LNG exports is an opportunity to combat Russian influence and power, and we have an energy diplomacy responsibility to act quickly.”
Statements like this overstate the influence that U.S. energy can have on this crisis Ukraine. While it is true that a viable, functioning LNG export capacity would provide geopolitical benefits, we do not have it today and we should not think that the U.S. energy boom will help in this crisis.
The U.S. energy boom has already helped reduce Russia’s influence and increased European energy security, without a singe molecule of US Natural Gas landing on the continent. This is because, even if the United States does not directly supply Europe with oil or natural gas, because the U.S. no longer is demanding imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has freed up major suppliers like Qatar or Norway to send supplies to Europe.
Andrew Holland writes about how Europe can change Russia’s behavior by embargoing imports of Russian natural gas.
I’ve been writing, researching, and talking a good bit about Arctic issues recently. You can see my piece in Alaska Dispatch, where I claim that the U.S. is “Failing to Meet the Challenges of a Changing Arctic” and I will have forthcoming pieces in the Georgetown Journal of Security Studies and elsewhere.
What comes across is a great disparity in intentions, ambition, and resources devoted to the region between Russia versus the United States. This is most apparent in the status accorded to the security forces.
The US Navy, when asked what they plan to do about an opening Arctic invariably respond by saying “why should we do anything” or “why would we build a new Navy for a new ocean?” They may have a point – there’s not that much up there to protect, and the international regime governing the Arctic is strong: conflict appears highly unlikely.
Resources, Routes, and Boundaries
The Arctic is considered the last frontier in energy exploration and development. The region catches headlines from time to time — an international maritime boundary dispute between Russia and Norway, the 2007 planting of a Russian flag under the North Pole, and lately, the effect of melting sea ice. The latest Intergovernmental Panel (IPCC) report on climate change will expose how the oceans are literally taking the heat, compared to the atmosphere. This bodes ill for the Arctic, as warming oceans melt sea ice. The U.S.’s Arctic policy, articulated earlier this year by President Obama, is to advance national security, pursue responsible Arctic stewardship and strengthen international cooperation.
Arctic States, and members of the Arctic Council, with land masses contiguous to the Arctic Ocean, are Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the U.S. These countries have the right, up to 200 nautical miles, to claim an exclusive economic zone which allows them exclusive jurisdiction over the natural resources, both in the water column and in the seabed. And, these States will be able to claim additional continental shelf jurisdiction beyond 200 miles. The current international legal framework for which these claims are made, resides under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Iceland, Finland and Sweden have land above the Arctic Circle, and are part of the Arctic Council. Recently twelve countries were given observer status, including China, India, the U.K., Germany, and other large EU states.
In case you missed the story yesterday in the Economist: How long till the lights go out? North Sea gas has served Britain well, but supply peaked in 1999. Since then the flow has fallen by half; by 2015 it will have dropped by two-thirds. By 2015 four of Britain’s ten nuclear stations will have shut and no new ones could be ready for years after that. As for coal, it is fiendishly dirty: Britain will be breaking just about every green promise it has ever made if it is using anything like as much as it does today. Renewable energy sources will help, but even if the wind and waves can be harnessed (and Britain has plenty of both),… Continue»
I have been thinking a lot lately about the impact of $100+ oil prices on the world economy. Like many others, I am trying to work out the probable implications – for the overall economy, for the U.S. economy, for the energy sector, for my personal finances, and for the average person. I believe we have entered an era of permanently higher oil prices, because 1). Supply and demand are in a very tight balance; and 2). OPEC has been very disciplined about keeping a tight reign on supplies. I just don’t see demanding falling enough, nor supply growing enough, to make a major change in the status quo. In the course of doing a little research, I ran across… Continue»