| The article mentions 'high energy prices' and 'energy costs' and alludes to 'Kremlin cutting off natural gas supplies' but otherwise provides zero discussion of the overall energy picture in Europe. A couple of major issues they could have addressed: 1. In retrospect, was the German decision to eliminate nuclear power wise? Could they have squeezed another decade of power out of their existing plants, even if they didn't see that as a viable long-term energy source (having to import uranium fuel is not all that better from having to import natural gas, economically speaking)? Granted, nuclear only provides electricty, while BASF needs methane. 2. Russian gas exports to Germany have been replaced by US LNG gas exports, but the cost differential is pretty huge. Looking around, I see this site has discussed it before (Nov 2022): https://www.politico.eu/article/cheap-us-gas-cost-fortune-eu... That's an interesting article, pointing to tight markets being taken advantage of by European energy traders (though Exxon and Chevron shares are up 50% since the price boom, Permian Basin development, booming LNG exports, etc.). It also might explain why some European interests see a finacial benefit in prolonging the Ukraine war (i.e. keeping Russian gas sanctions in place). 3. Somewhat amusingly, if BASF moves a lot of production China, then their natural gas feedstocks will be coming from... Russia's massive Sakahalin 1 & 2 projects (built with extensive help from Exxon and Shell respectively, and ironically)? https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-sakhalin-inv... Maybe blowing up the Nordstream pipeline wasn't such a smart move, after all. |
"The country’s Green transformation, the so-called Energiewende, has only made matters worse. Just as it was losing access to Russian gas, the country switched off all nuclear power."
> Maybe blowing up the Nordstream pipeline wasn't such a smart move, after all.
Or maybe relying so much on a partner which others have warned you about was actually the not so smart move.