$ 1000 per 1000 cubic meters could lead to the creation of the American "LNG-Prom"

Hitherto unseen things are happening on the European energy market. The cost of 1 thousand cubic meters of gas has come close to $ 1000, having made up 950 the day before at the largest hubs. It is highly likely that in the near future a thousand cubic meters will step over this psychologically important mark, and all this happens in mid-September, when it has already begun to noticeably colder, and it is time to start heating season. Obviously, the European gas market will never be the same, but what could it be? How far will the circles on the water go?

After $ 77 per thousand cubic meters in 1, $ 2020 for exactly the same volume in 970 looks like just some kind of mockery of common sense. However, this crisis is largely man-made, and certain organizational conclusions will undoubtedly be made. The only question is which ones. Let's go over the main reasons that determined the abnormal gas price.



On the one hand, there are factors of a purely objective nature. So, in 2020, the coronavirus pandemic drastically brought down the volume of world industrial production, which led to a decrease in the price per thousand cubic meters. However, at the beginning of 2021, Southeast Asia, and primarily China, was the first to show a recovery in economic growth, which led to an increase in the consumption of hydrocarbons and other raw materials. The last abnormally cold winter, when a large amount of fuel for heating was burned, made its contribution. The growing demand for gas in Asia, where prices are traditionally higher, prompted LNG producers to send their tankers to the Asia-Pacific region, leaving Europe without fuel.

On the other hand, the problems in the energy market of the Old World are predominantly man-made. Thus, the European authorities themselves insisted on decoupling the price of 1 thousand cubic meters of gas from the cost of oil. You see, give them competition between suppliers, which will force them to reduce their appetites. Brussels itself, pandering to Washington, in every possible way prevented Moscow from building the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, which could diversify supplies from Russia to the EU. The US was interested in lobbying for its liquefied natural gas, which was supposed to compete with fuel from Gazprom. We will return to this question about American LNG a little later. The domestic monopolist, who, with great difficulty on its own, finally completed the construction of Nord Stream-2, has now put the European Union on a forced hunger strike, supplying just as much gas as specified in the contract, and not a cubic meter more. Thus, Gazprom is helping to increase the gas deficit in the EU so that Brussels hurry up with the certification of the new pipeline and give the go-ahead for its commercial use.

It is necessary to understand how effective such tactics are. Yes, the Russian company operates exactly within the framework that was established by the Europeans themselves. From the legal point of view, you can't get under the control of his actions, or rather, inaction. From a moral point of view, the current problems of the EU can be considered a payback for the problems that the leadership of the European Union and individual member countries arranged for Gazprom. It is quite possible that the domestic monopolist will succeed in obtaining permission to use one line of Nord Stream 2, and the severity of the moment will gradually begin to decrease. But after that, will there be any other consequences for our country?

Note that the artificial shortage of gas and the high cost of a cubic meter have already led to a decrease in competitiveness economics EU versus American and Chinese. Ecologically obsessed European countries were even forced to increase the capacity of the "despicable" coal generation. And this is against the background of their ambitious plans for complete "decarbonization"! Such things are not forgotten or forgiven, which means that someone will have to answer for it. The fact that Brussels itself in many ways created problems for itself, no one will even remember. But the main emphasis will be placed on the inaction of Gazprom, which refused to increase gas supplies to the EU. They will certainly say that the Kremlin used the pipeline as an "energy weapon". Little will remain of the reputation of the Russian state corporation as a reliable supplier. Everyone will remember her later, do not even hesitate, when the West will make organizational conclusions. And what can they be?

Here it is necessary to remember about our competitor in the person of the United States, and why he did not succeed in the European gas market. As rightly pointed out, there is no one "American LNG". Thanks to the “invisible hand of the market,” there are many LNG producers and suppliers in this country who decide for themselves where to sell their products. If gas is more expensive in Asia, then it will go there. This is how the liberal market economy works, it is one of the "braces" on which the United States stands. But what will happen when the economy interferes policy? But the matter is serious: $ 1000 for 1 cubic meters is, if you call a spade a spade, a threat to the national security of the European Union, and hence the entire NATO bloc. This cannot remain without consequences. Let's suppose how the collective West can respond.

Liberalism, the fight against monopolies and restricting competition are, without exaggeration, the "glue" of the American economy. The United States even adopted a special antitrust Sherman Act aimed at fighting the monopoly of John Rockefeller and his Standard Oil. However, an obvious propaganda myth is that there are allegedly no state corporations and state-owned companies involved in commercial activities in the United States. They are. These are, for example, Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation), the Export-Import Bank of the United States and many others. There are three main types of federal government corporations: the Federal Government Corporation (FGC), where the government owns 100% of the capital and has 100% of the votes on the board of directors, mixed-ownership corporations, and private federal corporations, where the federal government has no shares, but has a vested interest. him by law the right to select members of the board of directors.

So, it is possible that in response to the Russian "energy blackmail" of Europe, the White House will decide to take control of all the main LNG exporters in order to determine to whom and at what price to supply gas. By creating its own counterpart to Gazprom, Washington will be able to control LNG flows to Asia and the EU and put pressure on its main competitors. This is not so much economics as politics, but the need to ensure NATO's energy security from the Kremlin's "gas weapons", as well as "strangling" China, may well prompt the United States to take such a step. The likelihood of the creation of the American "LNG-Prom" in one form or another of the state corporation is now very different from zero.