An interesting post at the Oil Drum by Jerome Guillet, writing as Jerome a Paris, on Russia and European energy security, describing the argument that energy liberalisation is an answer to the EU’s dependence on Russian gas as "the usual insane crap." He also had a piece in the FT in February, making the same point in rather more diplomatic language. (FT pieces may require subscription)

As far as I can see, however, he fails to demonstrate his point. How national champions such as GDF and Eni signing long-term supply deals with Gazprom helps ease Europe’s dependence on Russian gas, I really don’t know. On the contrary, it is the UK market, the most liberalised in Europe, that is opening the fastest to new sources of gas from sources including Norway and Qatar. The bottom line, surely, is that history, geography and geology mean that Europe is and will continue to be heavily dependent on Russian gas for the forseeable future. The best it can do is try to give itself as many credible alternatives as possible.

He argues for greater energy efficiency and diversity of supply away from gas and coal, presumably to nuclear and renewables. Those are all excellent ideas. But they can be delivered in a liberalised market. The obstacles to new nuclear build in countries that will really need it, including Germany, Italy, and Spain, are nothing to do with the financing problems created by more liberalised energy markets, and all about politics, as this post on the Nuclear Eenergy Institute blog suggests.

May 2nd, 2007 in Europe, Gas, Russia | Permalink