Why Russian gas is critical for the UK - energy storage companies

The Skripal poisoning case has created huge political differences between Britain and Russia (which have been strained in the history of bilateral relations) and is about to undermine the energy relations between the two countries.
The threat of a complete ban on Russian gas imports by the British government will be very short-lived.
A far-sighted step, its harm will take many years to be eliminated.
Unlike the usual rhetoric of "maintaining energy security" and "fighting the Russian influence", London and Moscow have a lot to win from a good energy relationship.
The Skripal case is slowly turning into a whodunit where no one will tell you exactly what is going on and you have to rebuild everything yourself-why is the supposedly lethal nerve drug not so deadly, who poisoned it and how it was done.
Often, when analyzing the scandals of foreign officials, it is important to see who will benefit from this deterioration.
One thing is certain-energy companies will only suffer.
First of all, UK companies may see their mobile space shrinking, especially in the context of Brexit endangering UK compliance with the energy market within Europe.
Even though the May government wants to stay in IEM so as not to risk the $0. 7 billion that may be incurred each year, the situation is worse
The situation of breaking up
Even if disaster can be avoided, the UK will stay, limited or complete --
In IEM, infrastructure funding from EU funds will almost certainly evaporate.
This may be one of the most serious energy consequences of Brexit, as the 16 EU projects of common concern are the UK-
In connection with this, in the absence of funds in Brussels, many fall under the risk category of non-execution.
The continent may become more determined. a-
For example, if demand for Brexit exceeds expectations, it may have reason to question the 9 billion euros invested in UK power and gas projects in 2012 --
Under the auspices of the EIB, 2017 could have been allocated elsewhere.
But the risk of abandoning pan-European trade concessions and investment is not the only ghost that bothers British energy experts.
Read more about oil prices.
Com: WTI violated $70 on Iran and Venezuela. At the same time, after a temporary rebound in 2013, the UK's North Sea natural gas production has entered a terminal decline --2017.
Therefore, imports will inevitably play a more important role in the UK natural gas matrix, because the rate of output decline will exceed the rate of predicted demand decline (it is expected to be balanced at about 60 billion cubic meters per year ).
To make matters worse, Rough, Britain's largest gas storage facility, closed last summer, draining a large portion of the country's potential storage capacity31 BCm).
Judging from the current situation, the UK can only maintain consumption from its storage every year, which requires a thorough rethink of its natural gas imports.
In this complex situation, the flexibility of supply should be the primary goal of British political institutions. Many self-
Energy experts claim that Russia may use its gas supply as an energy weapon, but for Britain there is little risk of this happening.
Russia accounts for 13% of British crude oil imports and 56% of its imports, both of which are significantly behind Norway (20%) and the Netherlands ().
However, crude oil has never been a real key issue, and since the LNG of the recently launched Yamal LNG project struck the docks of grain Island and Milford port, natural gas has kept energy experts in their minds.
However, the situation of UK gas imports is more clear, because 75% of UK gas imports are delivered through Norwegian pipelines, and Qatar also supplies 13% euros in the form of liquefied natural gas.
Russia's energy footprint in the UK is very important-the export of Gazprom is a good example, and according to its statistics, the company provides 16 exports.
Last year, Britain imported 3 m³ of its natural gas imports (accounting for 34% of its imports), without specifying the source of the above-mentioned gas, and without disclosing whether the relevant volume was actually delivered to the UK or exchanged elsewhere.
Keep in mind that Norway and Qatar are satisfied with 90% of UK gas imports (in both cases Russian companies are not involved in the deal) and one can easily think that, any rhetoric about serious energy influence is an exaggeration.
This brings us a key assumption-that Russian oil and gas goods can be of great help to keep the supply in the UK, especially during the winter months, as flexible as possible.
While in the current political environment it is difficult to advocate free trade with Russia and to be labeled as propaganda, it is better not to appear outside the immediate reach of politicians on energy issues
Supervision is one thing, and obstruction is another.
For example, at the end of February, when the UK needed gas in a short period of time, two batches of 164 000 m³ LNG cargo were delivered from Yamal LNG, Russia.
Everyone is happy about it except the political elite.
However, Yamal LNG is only a small part of the whole equation-Baltic LNG is expected to be available halfway
2020, if Norway is excluded, it will be the closest source of LNG for UK consumers.
Let's not forget the original plans for the North Creek pipeline, including the expansion to the bottom of the UK-even without it, Gazprom can introduce more cheap pipeline gas through Balgzand --
Now Groningen is being demolished, the BBL ).
Last but not least, unilateral trade restrictions rarely lead to the desired outcome of the initiator.
For example, will British lawmakers, while pushing for the Russian energy Ban, consider that BP has 19 companies to study possible responses from Moscow.
75% of Russian oil companies, they can be very painful (they are really upset after 2017 BP --
Russian oil and gas supply company.
Therefore, "Open your choice, talk to everyone" is a good motto, and it is slow to ban people who disagree with you and let customers pay for your foreign policy decisions. Five-
Politicians may choose the latter, but it just shows their ignorance of the rules of the energy market.
The article was originally published in oil prices.