The Nord Stream gas pipeline is more likely to die than survive

The destruction of the Nord Stream gas pipelines occurred due to external factors – most likely due to sabotage. Russia has yet to assess the scale of the accident and understand what needs to be done to restore the pumping of raw materials. The process runs the risk of being delayed: only the preparation for repairs can take up to six months, and the reconstruction itself – several years. Igor Yushkov, an expert at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and the National Energy Security Fund, told MK about this.

– The operator of Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream, announced the unprecedented nature of the destruction on the Baltic gas pipelines. What is behind this term?

– In order to assess the extent of the damage caused, it is first necessary to understand the causes of the accident. Both domestic profile officials and representatives of the European community openly talk about external influence and the possibility of deliberate sabotage.

– Who benefits from the failure of the Nord Stream system?

– Obviously not Russia. Signals are already being heard in the West that our country may be responsible for pipe breaks: allegedly, the damage was caused by a sharp increase in pressure in the gas pipeline system. However, none of the routes was in commercial operation at the time of the accident: Nord Stream 1 cannot start operation, because it has not yet received the necessary pumping turbines from foreign repairs, and Nord Stream 2 has not been put into operation. due to Western sanctions.

In addition, a pressure surge would have been registered at the outlet of the pipe in Germany. Russia is in no way interested in destroying its own complex and labor-intensive project, for the implementation of which so many nerves and investments were spent. Only the sale of technical gas, which continues to flow from Nord Stream, on European exchanges could bring our country up to $2 billion in export earnings.

– But the Europeans are also not enthusiastic about the incident in the Baltic Sea?

– The countries of the European Union, especially Germany, which is the main importer, also do not benefit from a long-term shutdown of pipelines. So far, Germany and other EU members may not worry about energy security, as they have accumulated enough hydrocarbons to get through the winter. But in the event of severe frosts and abnormally low temperatures, Europeans will need more fuel, so at least they cannot do without Nord Stream 1.

The United States can be considered one of the clear beneficiaries of the accident. In the first half of this year, the United States became the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas: US LNG supplies to the world market increased by 12%. The lion’s share of exports went to the EU and the UK. Washington closes almost half of the total imports of liquefied gas in Europe: Qatar, Russia and several other LNG producers, even taken together, cannot provide similar volumes.

By increasing exports to the European Union, the Americans, taking advantage of the difficulties of the countries of the Old World, will not only make good money, but also increase their share in the fuel balance of the continent.

Also, Ukraine may receive an indirect benefit from the failure of Nord Stream, whose pipelines, in fact, in the current conditions remain the main possible channel for increasing supplies to Europe, although no compromise on this issue is expected between Moscow and Kyiv. As well as in relation to the other Yamal-Europe pipe closed due to sanctions.

– Can you estimate the scale of the accident?

– First, you need to wait until the pipelines are empty – gas is pumped out of them, then the repairmen will have to dive to the bottom at the site of damage and visually determine what work needs to be done. Until recently, there have been no such accidents with through damage and significant leakage of raw materials in the world. About ten years ago, a similar incident occurred with the China-Hong Kong gas pipeline Yacheng, but the Asian pipe was half the diameter of the Russian ones, so that accident did not lead to critical consequences.

– What repairs will be carried out to repair the damage to SP-1 and SP-2? Will gas pipelines be “darn”, that is, patch existing pipes, or build parallel branches?

– Apparently, the first option will be chosen. After specifying the exact coordinates and dimensions of the holes, specialized ships will be brought to the repair site, which will lift the damaged pipe sections to the surface and carry out welding operations.

The situation is complicated by a host of unpleasant circumstances. Firstly, winter is on the nose, so the deterioration of weather conditions is obvious. Secondly, after all technical fuel comes out of the gas pipelines, which will take several days, sea water will flow into the pipes. As a result, the transport system will undergo additional corrosion.

The second “stream” is quite new, so the impact of aggressive sea water on it is unlikely to be significant. But Nord Stream 1, which has been operating for ten years now, runs the risk of suffering more.

– Can you guess which ships will have to be used during the repair? Does Russia have the necessary fleet that could be involved in this process?

– Given that a significant distance of both lines of Nord Stream 2 was built by Russian ships, our country already has some experience in laying underwater pipelines. If the damage turns out to be not too serious, then the Fortuna barge, which was involved in the construction of the project, as well as several service vessels, will be enough.

– How long will it take to repair gas pipelines?

– I think that only the preparation for the repair will take up to six months. It will be necessary to conduct a damage survey, assess the scale of the accident, develop a troubleshooting plan, purchase equipment, select special vessels, and so on. Before spring, it will be unrealistic to start repair work directly.

The mentioned Yacheng, the scale of the accident on which was far from the current case, was being restored for four years.

There is another factor of concern, which in particular concerns Nord Stream 1. If the damage to this pipe turns out to be fatal and Gazprom realizes that the financial and energy costs for its restoration are unlikely to pay off even after commissioning, then the monopoly will simply have to cross this project out of the list of its export channels.