Talk:Russia in the European energy sector/Archive 1

Archive 1

Russia–Ukraine-EU

Aren't the Russia–Ukraine gas disputes on of the main reasons the European Union has made proposals to diversify energy supply [1][2][3] and shouldn't this article reflect that? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And in general, the article should concentrate on the energy dependency, why the European countries think it's important and what they want to do about it. Right now the article is being used simply as a coatrack for all kinds of accusations against Gazprom & Co, which have nothing to do with Europe's energy dependency. Some government/analyst might think that Gazprom's transparency is a problem regarding the energy dependency, but the article needs demonstrate why; it's not enough to just mention that "analyst XY thinks Gazprom has a transparency problem." Offliner (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack

This is a very badly written article. It is being used by the creator as a WP:COATRACK for all kinds of accusations against Gazprom and the Kremlin. I'd like remind you that the title is "European dependency on Russian energy", and that is what the article should concentrate on. For example, Gazprom's transparency has got nothing to do with this, and the article does not demonstrate why it is relevant. And why are the accusations against Schröder relevant? Like I said, this is a prime example of a WP:COATRACK article. Offliner (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

First Offliner blanked the article and then has deleted huge parts of the article ([4][5][6]) including substantial concerns raised by Smith's Russia and European Energy Security - Divide and Dominate (2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazpr (talk • contribs) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I explained why they were deleted in the two sections above. You need to demonstrate in the article text why this material is relevant to "European dependency..." It is not enough to simply hang coats on the WP:COATRACK. Also, make you sure you understand WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCATE before you continue editing. If you do not understand these guidelines, your edits will continue to be reverted. Offliner (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Recommendations by various people, groups, and nations to reduce energy dependence on Russia is related to the subject like smoking ban is related to smoking. If you really claim (like you have, twice) that it's not related to European dependence on Russian energy, should we create a new article "Proposals to counter European dependence on Russian energy" and have a link to it? "Russia's use of middlemen to mask activities in European energy markets"? "Interest groups Russia uses to advance European dependence on Russian energy"? Could you explain us how smoking ban is related to smoking, so we could understand what kind of explanation you are asking? --Gazpr (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What you need to say in the article is this "According to XY, transparency of Gazprom/something else is a problem to European dependence on Russian energy, because ...." Now fill in the rest. The burden is on you to demonstrate the relevance. Offliner (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title to "Russia in the European energy sector".

Gas transit shipments via Ukraine drop by 29.9 percent the last nine months

Gas transit shipments via Ukraine drop by 29.9 percent in the last nine months. Not sure if this is because country's buy there energy less from Russia. But it's something to look into. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 16:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is most likely a result of the economic crisis. Shrinking economies mean shrinking demand for gas. This is the case in Ukraine itself right now. LokiiT (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

European energy dependence

Hi. I noticed this article and its pretty good until it gets to the end. I think it is too one-sided, probably written by someone who works in the energy sector. I'm not sure what "Russia in non-energy sectors" has to do with anything here. Some of these things make it look like a laundry list of grievances.

Maybe this article could be less specific and discuss Europe's (or EU - it is not clear which) energy dependence. For example Turkey's accession to the EU could be influenced by the pipelines crossing its territory even though most Europeans oppose it. Another issue is the influence of China which may prevent Europe from finding supplies from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.[7] Basically, Europe is dependent on Russia's supplies, but Europe, Russia, and EU all risk losing access to Central Asia's energy because of the politics of Turkey and China (as well as Iran, Ukraine, and the rest of the transit states!). Europe's pipeline to the Caspian could be rendered useless because of these countries' political aims too.Protozoan29 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

One section that really makes this one-sided is the "Proposed counter measures". For one thing, the section title sounds adversarial. I have heard that Russia will not sign the EU Energy Charter because it will have to let other countries move gas over its territory, making it unable to buy it and sell it as its own. Signing it would cut into its profits and only improve delivery of supplies to the consumers in the EU. One "counter measure" that I have heard experts suggest is to make Russia a bigger stakeholder downstream in exchange for ratification, although that ship may have sailed last August. I will leave it up to others to find sources and write this.Protozoan29 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why so much hostility towards russia and not the muslim oil exporters?

It's meaningless and unbalanced. Apparently it's acceptable to be anti-russian but not anti-muslim. That is double standards. 93.161.107.107 (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Major gas recipients

This paragraph currently states that some countries have a more than 100 % dependency on Russian gas ; this is just not possible, and shows that the actual figures must be different. These figures should be removed, or replaced par serious figures.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

This percentage is a ratio of import from Russia in given year to the total domestic consumption. Consumption is equal to the stock at the beginning of the year + domestic production + import - export - stock at the end of the year. Simplifying that there is no domestic production and export, the import could be bigger than consumption in case if more gas is stored than taken out from storage. Beagel (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, a 108% dependency coefficient is not possible. Maximum is 100%.--Environnement2100 (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is possible for the single year because we should take account stocks at the beginning and at the endo of the year. These stocks are not equal to zero. And, for example, the BBC gives for 2004 quite similar figures (for Slovakia 104% this time). [8] Beagel (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are talking the Russia's share in total gas import, I agree that this share can't be more than 100%. But consumption is a different thing. Beagel (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You are making no sense. Does this mean you take part in the POV pushing in this article ?--Environnement2100 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am just explaining what the import ratio to domestic consumption means and how it is calculated. I am really sorry if this does not make sense for you. As of POV pushing, please give an example which of my edits in this article you consider POV pushing. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok it is clear now that you are in favor of the POV part. I confirm that a dependency coefficient never can exceed 100%. Pretending, as you do, that it can, shows the little concern you have with clarity in Wikipedia. After having a look at the source, I have to realize how biased a source The Heritage Foundation is. Are you also supporting this source, which is full of POV vocabulary ? At least provide a way to avoid the 108% values in the text : any normal person understands at the beginning what kind of article this is. --Environnement2100 (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

From dealing with Beagel in the various Russia–Ukraine gas disputes articles I can say that he never looked a POV editor to me. Please also take into account that we are always looking for consensus on Wikipedia. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the Slovak figures in this news. Just a very simple example. Country X without previous stocks and without domestic gas production imported in year 2005 from country Y 10 bcm of gas. Of this, it consumed 9 bcm and 1 bcm put in the gas storage. The ratio of import to domestic consumption in 2005 is 10:9*100%=111.1%. On the next year, country X had 1 bcm gas stock at the beginning of the year, it imported again 10 bcm of gas and its domestic consumption was 11 bcm. The ratio of import to domestic consumption in 2006 is 10:11*100%=90.9%. However, if we are not looking the export figure on given year and instead of this are looking the country of origin of consumed gas, we could say that country X is 100% dependent of country Y's gas because all the consumed gas is originating from the country Y. So, these are little bit different terms. Beagel (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup and rewriting

To be in line with different WP policies and standards, this article needs extensive cleanup and re-writing. Not sure about the exact structure, but probably it could consist of following sections (exact sections' name should be discussed):

• EU-Russia energy cooperation
• Europe's energy dependence / Russian energy supplies to Europe
• Russian energy investments in Europe
• Russian (external) energy policy
• European policies (energy packages, competition policy)
• Criticism

Any thought? Beagel (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

UK's import

User:Environnement2100 added the UK in the list of the share of Russian natural gas in the member states' domestic gas consumption in 2007 with a value of 0% of import from Russia. It seems problematic for two reasons:

• The list does not included any country without Russian gas import in 2007. The UK started import Russian gas only in 2008 through the Interconnector and BBL pipeline. However, there was no import in 2007.
• If there will be consensus to add also the EU members without Russian gas import in 2007, we have to include all countries (inter alia UK, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus), not only the UK. Adding only one specific country without adding others may contradict the WP:NPOV.

I personally do not see any mean to add the countries with zero import; however, I have no strong feelings if the consensus will be supporting this option. But in this case, all EU member states should be listed, not only the UK. I kindly ask your opinions which one of two options (including only countries with Russian gas import in 2007, or listing all 27 EU member states) will be more appropriate. Thank you for your opinion. Beagel (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As there are no other comments for 6 six days, I will remove the United Kingdom from this list as there was no import in 2007. However, if you would like to add any country with no import to this list, please list all 27 EU member states. Beagel (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Writing your own rules for WP are you Beagel ? You have absolutely no right to remove a sourced info ; what you just did is disrupting wikipedia.--Environnement2100 (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. It was explained above, but I may repeat once more: there is no mean to add the countries without actual import into the list. If there is any specific reason for this, please explain why it should be done. There is also no explanation why the UK should be added to the list without adding other countries which have similar zero import like Spain, Sweden or Cyprus. Please explain what makes the UK so specific in this context. Beagel (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why no mean ? Please justify. OTOH, if you want more countries added to the list, I see no problem there, please do it.--Environnement2100 (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If the country is not listed in the list, that means that there is no import. Please explain what should be the reason for listing countries with 0% values. And if countries with 0% value are listed, ALL countries should be listed. Picking up one specific country and ignoring all other countries may contradict WP:NPOV. Please explain why the UK is so specific that you insist listing its 0% import. Beagel (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, in statistics 0% does not mean there is no import — it means that there is a very small amount of import which is rounded to 0%. In case of no import, hypern should be used instead of 0%. So, does that mean that there was any import from Russia in 2007? Beagel (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Environnement2100, because your actions have been questioned, you have to make rational points in your own support or drop the issue. When you butt in like this while everyone else but you is discussing the issues and sources rationally and calmly, you are the one disrupting Wikipedia. This goes for all the articles you edit.

I personally see no reason to mention countries with a 0% value. I think it would clutter the article. 69.127.56.28 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Environnement2100, you have been asked already three times to explain why should one country (UK) without import to be added to list while you ignoring other countries with similar status (e.g. Spain or Sweden). Instead of continuously adding without any explanation the UK with 0% to the list, please discuss and explain your reason before doing it. Adding also one country and ingnoring other countries with similar status may contradict the NPOV. Your claim that this is sourced information may also be disputable. Actually, there is one single reference for the whole list. For the UK it says: indigenous - 70%, Norway 19%, Netherlands - 7%, Belgium - 2%, Algeria - 1%, others - 1%, so technically it does not say Russia- 0%. And why not in this case to add Spain, which diagram also says nothing about Russia? Or other countries with a similar status? Beagel (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Keith C. Smith

Keith C. Smith is apparently the author of a paper on this matter. Why is he an authority on this topic? His name is mentioned a total of five times, so some explanation may be required beyond a link to a 26 page article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.213.15.37 (talk) 08:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keith C. Smith is employed by a US hawkish think-tank; his findings and reports are biased and have as main, common theme Russia-bashing. Certain points in the report, linked in footnote 8, are factually wrong. It seems to me that the principle employed here, is to throw as much dirt as possible - something will stick. Nobody out there to try to get this article into unbiaed territory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.38.17 (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

Conflict between Russia and the West or New Cold War better covers what the article is about. Georgia's and Ukraine's NATO-membership, Iran, etc. are closely related, but cannot always be included under the title "energy". New Cold War is a commonly used term (more a million hits in Google and a number of books), but conflict would be less dramatic.

Alternatively, we could create a separate article, but much of the content would be just duplicated. Any comments? --Gazpr (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is clearly related to Russia in the European energy sector, and as it stands it already has massive POV/OR/SYN/COATRACK problems; problems which you are aware of from your editing of the article from last year. Georgia and Ukraine membership in NATO belong in their respective articles, Iran nuclear program belongs in its respective article, etc, etc. It is WP:COATRACKish to lump everything together in a WP:SYN type of way to build an article on this alleged New Cold War. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Russavia! It strange how we always end up editing the same articles. I try to stay away from anything related to Russia. This time I was just innocently updating the status on Finland's two future nuclear reactors when I came across this. Well, now its gone.

As for the other issue, we could have an article on the "New Cold War" or the Russian—Whatever information war. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)