WSJ: Investigation of sabotage at “SP” may affect the outcome of claims against “Gazprom”

The answer to the question of who was involved in organizing the explosions on the Nord Stream gas pipelines could affect the outcome of multibillion-dollar lawsuits by European energy companies against Gazprom. About it writes newspaper The Wall Street Journal, citing legal experts, former officials and energy consultants.

Lawsuits against the Russian company were filed earlier by the German companies Uniper and RWE, as well as the French Engie. The companies said, according to the WSJ, that the lack of gas deliveries under contracts since the summer of last year – even before the September blowouts – caused them significant damage, which forced them to buy more expensive gas. Ed Crooks, vice chairman of the energy consulting firm, says replacing Russian gas in the second half of 2022 cost European buyers $40 billion.

“The destruction of Nord Stream is likely to be of great importance in arbitration cases over Russian gas supplies to Europe last year,” Crookes told the newspaper.

“Gazprom” has suspended gas supplies through Nord Stream to the point of sabotage, and it is not yet clear whether the parties will use pipeline explosions in their arguments, WJS notes. However, the interlocutors of the publication said that the incident could potentially help support the position of Gazprom, especially if it is proved that a pro-Ukrainian group is behind this.

“In general, if it turns out that any third party – state or non-state – is responsible for the sabotage, this seems to confirm Gazprom’s claim that they can no longer supply gas if the act of sabotage came out of -under their control,” said Fabian Eichberger, an expert at the University of Cambridge in the field of international law and investment arbitration.

The German energy company Uniper announced a lawsuit against “Gazprom” November 30th. Proceedings against the Russian company were initiated due to a shortage of gas since June. The company demanded that Gazprom compensate for the losses incurred, saying that we are talking about the amount of 11.6 billion euros, which, as Uniper expects, will continue to grow until the end of 2024. The press service of Gazprom confirmed the start of the trial, but Uniper’s allegations of breach of contract were denied.

In December, the German energy company RWE demanded after Uniper to compensate for losses due to the lack of gas supplies. Both companies that filed lawsuits against Gazprom had contracts with a Russian company for gas supplies. Since September, however, Gazprom has stopped supplying energy to Europe. This decision was made on August 31 due to the repair of the only remaining gas compressor unit at the Portovaya compressor station. Later, sabotage occurred at Nord Stream, and therefore the operation of gas pipelines is not carried out. Pumping gas through one of the lines of Nord Stream 2, which survived the explosions, is impossible due to the lack of a corresponding decision by the German authorities.

On March 7, The New York Times reported on the appearance of new US intelligence, which refers to the involvement of some pro-Ukrainian group in sabotage at the Nord Stream. Sources of the newspaper among American officials specified that Washington had no evidence of involvement in the blowing up of pipelines by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his subordinates. No “Russian trace” was found in the case either.

Later that day, the German newspaper Zeit, citing a German investigation, stated that a Ukrainian ship, on which traces of explosives were found, could be involved in the sabotage. The Kremlin called the publications a “coordinated stuffing” and questioned the involvement of pro-Ukrainian forces in undermining the Nord Streams.

Prior to this, journalist Seymour Hersh published an investigation into the Nord Stream incident, in which he accused the United States and Norway of being involved in the bombing. The White House and the European Commission called this information unreliable. The Kremlin announced the unwillingness of the West to transparently investigate the Nord Stream case.