Meanwhile, back at the Russian ranch...

[boutons_]

December 21, 2006
Shell: Gazprom Lands Sakhalin - 2 Deal

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:05 p.m. ET

MOSCOW (AP) -- Russian state-controlled natural gas giant OAO Gazprom (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/gazprom/index.html?inline=nyt-org) will take a 50 percent-plus-one share stake in the Shell-operated Sakhalin-2 energy project for $7.45 billion, a Shell spokesman said.

Royal Dutch Shell (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=RDSA) PLC spokesman Maxim Shoop said the deal was signed at a Kremlin meeting between President Vladimir Putin (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/vladimir_v_putin/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and top executives from Shell and Gazprom along with officials from the project's Japanese shareholders.

The deal came after months of mounting pressure from Russian regulators on the project. Environmental official had accused Shell of damaging the fragile environment on the island and had threatened to revoke key licenses.

Under the agreement, Shell and Japanese companies Mitsui & Co. (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=MITSY) and Mitsubishi Corp. (http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=MSBHF) will see their shares halved in the $22 billion liquefied natural gas project on the Pacific island of Sakhalin -- Russia's largest single foreign investment.

A Shell statement said the deal would make Gazprom a majority shareholder and Shell, which will end up with 27.5 percent stake, would ''continue to significantly contribute to the (consortium's) management and remain as technical adviser.''

The statement does not specifically say that Shell will continue as the operator of the project.

''Gazprom is implementing the strategy of strengthening its positions on LNG markets. Entering Sakhalin-2 ... is an important step toward this objective,'' Chief Executive Alexei Miller said.

''We welcome Gazprom's entry ... as a leading shareholder. Our first priority is to get Sakhalin-2 up and running. This is an important step forward,'' said Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer.

==========================

Russia already has Europe's ball's in it hands by suppying gas to Europe. Now, the Russia has effectively kicked Shell out of the Sakhalin-2 project. Don't pay any attention to the pleasant noises from Shell. They have to play nice or lose everything.

I expect Russia will continue to be a major player in the world energy markets, and use the political power probably against European and US interests. The collapse of oil prices in the mid-80s bankrupted Russia (not St Ronnie) when Russia lost most of its hard $$$ to pay for the costs of Afghanistan. Now, oil/gas prices are financing Russia's industrial/military power again.

[johnsmith]

What's your point?

[boutons_]

December 19, 2006

NYTimes Editorial


The Kremlin's Shell Game

President Vladimir Putin believes that a powerful, state-controlled energy sector is the key to Russia's economic future, even if he has to strong-arm foreign investors to get it. But trampling property rights is risky. It is as likely to leave Russia an economic pariah as an energy superpower.

The latest intrigue centers on a huge oil and natural-gas project off of Russia's eastern coast. The project, Sakhalin 2, includes offshore platforms and the world's biggest liquefied natural gas plant. It is also the single largest foreign investment in Russia. Royal Dutch Shell owns a 55 percent stake, but won't for much longer from the looks of things.

It appears that the Kremlin is again trying to muscle an energy company into doing its bidding, this time with environmental regulators. Russian officials have threatened to halt the project by revoking necessary operating permits and warning that they might criminally prosecute Shell employees over supposed ecological violations.

While the project is hardly spick-and-span, industry analysts say the arbitrary enforcement of oft-ignored regulations is a barely disguised power grab for the $20 billion project. Shell refuses to comment publicly, but after months of pressure has offered to sell a sizable, possibly controlling stake in Sakhalin 2 to Gazprom, Russia's state gas giant. Russian authorities have been pressuring other foreign energy companies, including threatening to revoke BP's license for a natural-gas field near China.

This has not sparked the outcry you might expect. The European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has called the pressure on Shell "a matter of concern." Maybe the muted tone has something to do with Gazprom's supplying over a quarter of Europe's natural gas. It hardly seems like sound energy policy to allow a country with so little respect for contracts to supply a critical share of heating and electric needs. Foreign investors, like Shell, also have to ask whether they are going to keep giving Russia a pass just because of its impressive energy reserves. Business deals should look a lot less attractive if the Kremlin decides it can "renegotiate" contracts on a whim.

Russia's leverage * even in an era of tight energy supplies * is not as great as it appears. The country is already facing the very real possibility of declining production and will need the expertise and capital of foreign companies to keep exploiting its natural resources. Western governments and companies should remind Moscow of that vulnerability.

Moscow also needs to be reminded that threatening property rights will eventually dissuade all investments. Even Mr. Putin's allies should remember that without a clear rule of law, their own assets might be threatened if political winds shifted.

[Slomo]

What's your point?It's the newest Putin trick, transforming energy into power. Political power that is. Russia have been re-negotianting (or refused to) quite a few foreign deals involving oil and natural gas exports citing all sorts of resons but resulting in an improved position of power towards their foreign partners.

[johnsmith]

It's the newest Putin trick, transforming energy into power. Political power that is. Russia have been re-negotianting (or refused to) quite a few foreign deals involving oil and natural gas exports citing all sorts of resons but resulting in an improved position of power towards their foreign partners.


I understand that, but what's the point?

[Phenomanul]

go green or go red!
That's been your most witty comment all year.....

[Phenomanul]

December 19, 2006

NYTimes Editorial


The Kremlin's Shell Game

President Vladimir Putin believes that a powerful, state-controlled energy sector is the key to Russia's economic future, even if he has to strong-arm foreign investors to get it. But trampling property rights is risky. It is as likely to leave Russia an economic pariah as an energy superpower.

The latest intrigue centers on a huge oil and natural-gas project off of Russia's eastern coast. The project, Sakhalin 2, includes offshore platforms and the world's biggest liquefied natural gas plant. It is also the single largest foreign investment in Russia. Royal Dutch Shell owns a 55 percent stake, but won't for much longer from the looks of things.

It appears that the Kremlin is again trying to muscle an energy company into doing its bidding, this time with environmental regulators. Russian officials have threatened to halt the project by revoking necessary operating permits and warning that they might criminally prosecute Shell employees over supposed ecological violations.

While the project is hardly spick-and-span, industry analysts say the arbitrary enforcement of oft-ignored regulations is a barely disguised power grab for the $20 billion project. Shell refuses to comment publicly, but after months of pressure has offered to sell a sizable, possibly controlling stake in Sakhalin 2 to Gazprom, Russia's state gas giant. Russian authorities have been pressuring other foreign energy companies, including threatening to revoke BP's license for a natural-gas field near China.

This has not sparked the outcry you might expect. The European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, has called the pressure on Shell "a matter of concern." Maybe the muted tone has something to do with Gazprom's supplying over a quarter of Europe's natural gas. It hardly seems like sound energy policy to allow a country with so little respect for contracts to supply a critical share of heating and electric needs. Foreign investors, like Shell, also have to ask whether they are going to keep giving Russia a pass just because of its impressive energy reserves. Business deals should look a lot less attractive if the Kremlin decides it can "renegotiate" contracts on a whim.

Russia's leverage * even in an era of tight energy supplies * is not as great as it appears. The country is already facing the very real possibility of declining production and will need the expertise and capital of foreign companies to keep exploiting its natural resources. Western governments and companies should remind Moscow of that vulnerability.

Moscow also needs to be reminded that threatening property rights will eventually dissuade all investments. Even Mr. Putin's allies should remember that without a clear rule of law, their own assets might be threatened if political winds shifted.

Ironic that Gazprom is no eco-friendly company. It is actually a poster child for companies that carelessly endanger the environment.

[johnsmith]

Ironic that Gazprom is no eco-friendly company. It is actually a poster child for companies that carelessly endanger the environment.


Not trying to be an ass here, but link please?

[boutons_]

"go green or go red"

red? who's Communist "red" in Russia anymore?

[Phenomanul]

Not trying to be an ass here, but link please?

Inside information one gets while working in the oil industry...... cannot be linked.

[boutons_]

http://www.theodora.com/wfb/russia/rs.gif

[Nbadan]

It's the newest Putin trick, transforming energy into power. Political power that is. Russia have been re-negotianting (or refused to) quite a few foreign deals involving oil and natural gas exports citing all sorts of resons but resulting in an improved position of power towards their foreign partners.

The Russians have learned that it is much more profitable to control resources in former Soviet States with an economic whip rather than tanks and bullets.

[Slomo]

The Russians have learned that it is much more profitable to control resources in former Soviet States with an economic whip rather than tanks and bullets.True

And they're getting real good at it. They are quite forceful about it and it makes a lot of observers uncomfortable since it is reminiscent of some past tactics just with different means.

[boutons_]

The Russian revolution, like the French revolution, arose from extreme inequalities between the royalty/aristocracy and the masses.

While France succeeded, a long time after the Revolution in becoming an open, liberal, democratic society, it seems the Putin's Russia is nothing more than old Russian wine in new bottles.

"All animals are equal, but some (Russian) animals are (eternally) more equal than others (and the other animals better STFU)"

[velik_m]

http://www.theodora.com/wfb/russia/rs.gif

copycats

[smeagol]

What's your point?



The collapse of oil prices in the mid-80s bankrupted Russia (not St Ronnie)

[BIG IRISH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slomo

It's the newest Putin trick, transforming energy into power. Political power that is. Russia have been re-negotianting (or refused to) quite a few foreign deals involving oil and natural gas exports citing all sorts of resons but resulting in an improved position of power towards their foreign partners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
The Russians have learned that it is much more profitable to control resources in former Soviet States with an economic whip rather than tanks and bullets.


True

And they're getting real good at it. They are quite forceful about it and it makes a lot of observers uncomfortable since it is reminiscent of some past tactics just with different means.

YESTERDAY'S actions ^^^^^^and at least they just didn't nationalize it.

TODAYS;

Fears that Russia is using energy supplies as a political weapon increased last night after Moscow forced Georgia to accept a doubling of gas prices.

The deal came within hours of a threat by Gazprom, Russia's statecontrolled energy giant,
to cut off supplies to the former Soviet republic from January 1.

Georgia had called the price increase 'unacceptable' and 'politically motivated'.

Relations between the Kremlin and Georgia's pro-West leadership were already at their worst for a decade after a spy row in September.

The Georgia 'agreement' is another example of what alarmed EU officials see as the Kremlin's heavy-handed tactics in dealing with energy clients.

It came the day after Gazprom took control of a massive oil and gas project from Royal Dutch Shell, which had suffered a long campaign of bureaucratic harassment.

Gazprom has 25 per cent of the EU gas market and is aiming for 33 per cent by 2010. The company is also investing in distribution as well as supply.
Are they going to do economicaly what they couldn't do with their Military?
In the UK, it bought Pennine Natural Gas, a small marketing company, this summer, and there is speculation that it wants to take over Centrica, the owner of British Gas.

While Gazprom insists its motives are commercial, critics say it often acts as a political instrument for Russian president Vladimir Putin.

European analysts said it was clear Russia had used threats against Georgia. Turkey was also said to have been warned not to help the Georgians.

'These signs are all very worrying,' said one EU diplomat in Brussels last night. 'They show Moscow has no qualms in wielding the big stick if it does not get what it wants.' A similar price rise demand led to massive cuts in Russian supplies to Ukraine in January.

This also reduced the amount of Russian gas reaching Europe, prompting some European leaders to question the continent's reliance on Russia as its major supplier.

Gazprom is still involved in a dispute with Belarus, which serves as a transit route for Russian gas to Poland and Germany.

It said yesterday it hopes to solve the wrangle - over prices and control of pipelines - by December 31.

Though the Russians said Georgia had agreed to the new prices for a year, Georgia's prime minister Zurab Nogaideli said it would be for only three months. He said Georgia had planned to import more gas from Azerbaijan, but this had been delayed for several weeks due to technical problems.

'We are forced to buy from Russia; it is just a short-term solution,' he told a news conference in the capital, Tbilisi.

Georgia has also been hoping it can take some of the gas Azerbaijan currently supplies to Turkey.

President Mikhail Saakashvili went to Ankara this week to try to persuade Turkish leaders to agree, but without apparent success.

Turkey receives most of its gas from Russia and an industry source in Moscow said: 'Turkey has been told it would not get additional gas and could face price increases if it decided to help Tbilisi.'

Yup Russia is moving and shaking while America is tied down in IRAQ and
not watching.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=424434&in_page_id=1811

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lmao at the Russian's doing things the American way

[boutons_]

The New Threat To Europe

By Jackson Diehl
Monday, December 25, 2006; A29

This year began with a European energy crisis caused by Russia's cutoff of gas supplies to Ukraine, where a democratic government not to the liking of Vladimir Putin had taken power. Because Russian gas passes through Ukraine on its way to Western Europe, the pressure also dropped in Paris and Vienna and Rome -- and Europeans suddenly realized they were dependent for electricity and warmth on an autocracy that was prepared to use energy as a tool of imperialism.

It looks like the year will end the same way. Georgia and Azerbaijan, two other Russian neighbors that have chosen not to kowtow to Putin, are scrambling to find gas supplies by Jan. 1 to make up for Russian cutbacks or to avoid a huge and predatory price increase. So, oddly, is Belarus, which until now has been a Kremlin client -- but which has resisted a Russian demand that it turn over ownership of a key gas transit pipeline. Western energy companies that have invested in Russia are meanwhile reeling from a crude campaign of bullying designed to force them to give up majority stakes in oil and gas fields to Kremlin-controlled companies. Shell has already caved, allowing Gazprom to take a 50 percent stake in a huge offshore gas field.

It would be nice to report that in the intervening months Western governments have taken steps to ensure that Russia, which supplies anywhere between 30 and 100 percent of the gas consumed by European Union countries as well as much of their oil, is not able to use this leverage for political or economic extortion. Sadly, the opposite is true: Though "energy security" has become a favorite topic for discussion at E.U. and transatlantic summits, next to nothing has been done about it.

( The Repugs, maninpulated by oilman dickhead, will NEVER do anything that impinges upon US oico profits, no matter what the damage the protecting the oilco's wreaks on the USA )
That's partly because solutions aren't easy. Weakening Russia's hold over European energy supplies requires measures that would be costly and difficult, such as building new terminals for importing liquefied natural gas or new pipelines to carry oil and gas from Central Asia and the Caucasus to Europe.

There's a less excusable problem, however: the failure of European Union governments to agree on either a common energy strategy or a policy for responding to Russia's growing aggressiveness. Some politicians, like German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, propose a new Ostpolitik that would entice Russian cooperation with offers of economic and strategic partnership. Others say the E.U. should refuse to renew an expiring economic pact with Russia unless it stops trying to monopolize European energy supplies.

Though it has a vital stake, the United States (ie, the Repug WH) has been mostly missing from the discussion. That's one reason a recent speech by Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was intriguing. Lugar has been a pioneer of some of the most farsighted U.S. policies toward the countries of the former Soviet Union, including the Nunn-Lugar program for securing and dismantling nuclear weapons and materials.

Now he's proposing that the NATO alliance formally adopt "energy security" as one of its central missions. NATO, he told a German Marshall Fund conference alongside the recent NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, is "used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare between nations. But energy could become the weapon of choice for those who possess it.

"A natural gas shutdown to a European country in the middle of winter," he added, "could cause death and economic loss on the scale of a military attack."

NATO, Lugar said, should resolve to treat "an attack using energy" the same way it would a land attack by conventional military forces -- that is, an attack on one country would compel a response by all. That doesn't mean military action, he said; "rather, it means the alliance must commit itself to preparing for and responding to attempts to use the energy weapon against its fellow members."

Lugar pointed out that NATO used to hold exercises to prepare for the logistical and supply challenge of responding to a Soviet attack. A new exercise, he said, "should focus on how the Alliance would supply a beleaguered member with the energy resources needed to withstand geo-strategic blackmail." This wouldn't be easy, he acknowledged: In fact, "the energy threat is more difficult to prepare for than a ground war in Central Europe." Guarding against an energy cutoff by Russia will mean massive investments in new supply lines and reserve supplies, as well as the means to distribute them in a crisis.

That sounds daunting at a time when NATO has its hands full trying to fight a war in Afghanistan. But the energy threat goes to the alliance's historic purpose: defending democratic Europe from attack by the autocratic and belligerent power on its Eastern frontier. And, as Lugar pointed out: "The use of energy as an overt weapon is not a theoretical threat of the future. It is happening now."

[boutons_]

December 25, 2006

CORRECTED: Russia's Rosneft Adds 862 Mln Bbl Reserves in 2006

By REUTERS

Filed at 9:51 a.m. ET

MOSCOW ( Reuters) - Russian state oil company Rosneft (ROSN.MM) said on Monday it had added 862 million barrels of new oil reserves in 2006, or 46 percent more than its forecast production.

Rosneft, which turned into a state champion from a mid-sized oil player in 2004 following a forced state auction of the key oil unit of bankrupt company YUKOS, already has proven reserves of 18.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent.

( Yukos was another autocratic power play that abused tax laws to bankrupt Yukos and dump Yukos into the autocracy's hands )

Its reserves include 14.9 billion barrels of liquids, making Rosneft the world's 11th-largest company on the list of oil reserves holders, on a par with Mexico's Pemex.

The firm enjoys strong state support and has won a number of licences for lucrative deposits in the past years.

The company said new reserves in 2006 were confirmed at its Vankor field in East Siberia and deposits developed by the former YUKOS unit, Yuganskneftegaz.

Rosneft expects its oil output to reach 80.6 million tonnes (1.6 million barrels per day) this year, or 8.2 percent more than in 2005. The company plans to raise production by a further 11.7 percent to 90 million tonnesnext year.

[Pero]

:lmao at the Russian's doing things the American way

:lol That`s why I don`t quite see why some people are getting upset, nothing new in this world.

[boutons_]

December 27, 2006

Memo From Moscow

Putin’s Assertive Diplomacy Is Seldom Challenged

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

MOSCOW, Dec. 26 — Inside the Kremlin last week, the executives of three major international companies — Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsubishi and Mitsui — heaped praise on the man whose government had effectively forced them to cede control of the world’s largest combined oil and natural gas project.

( Putin bent them over and raped them. And the whores are now saying the love it )

“Thank you very much for your support,” Shell’s chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, told President Vladimir V. Putin during a meeting that ended a six-month regulatory assault on the project, Sakhalin II, but only after the companies surrendered control of it to the state energy giant, Gazprom. “This was a historic occasion.”

It was also a telling one, with lessons that extend beyond energy policy to such disparate matters as the killings of Alexander V. Litvinenko, a former K.G.B. agent in London, and Anna Politkovskaya, a prominent journalist.

Mr. Putin’s Russia, buoyed by its oil and gas riches, has become so confident — so arrogant, its critics say — that it has become impervious to the criticism that once might have modified its behavior. And those who might have once criticized, from investors to foreign governments, have largely acquiesced to the new reality.

( aka appeasement by the oilco/energyco owners of the Repug party )

The Kremlin is now dictating its terms with greater assertiveness than it has at any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union — which was 15 years ago Monday, to be precise. Many hoped that Russia’s presidency of the Group of 8 industrial nations this year would temper Mr. Putin’s diplomacy, but it has not.

Russia began 2006 by making good on a threat to cut off natural gas to Ukraine to get a higher price for Gazprom. The shutoff, though brief, provoked concern in Europe about dependency on Russian energy, and now Russia is ending 2006 by warning Belarus of the same fate.

Vice President Dick Cheney famously leveled the harshest criticism of the Kremlin to date when he accused it of using oil and gas as “tools of intimidation or blackmail.” That was in May, but since then American policy toward Russia has changed imperceptibly, with one significant exception: the Bush administration gave its approval for Russia’s long-coveted membership in the World Trade Organization.

( the WH bends itself over to keep the US oilcos happy and let Putin have his fun )
“Russia since last year has been enjoying some feeling of euphoria, that feeling that we have so much money, so many resources that we can do what we want,” said Fyodor A. Lukyanov, the editor of Russia in Global Affairs.

The United States and Europe have little leverage beyond persuasion. And persuasion no longer works, as the Kremlin’s campaign against Sakhalin II, the largest foreign investment project in Russia, showed. The campaign was so transparent that it seemed comical, beginning with surprise inspections by a little-known environmental inspector who threatened to fine the project’s developers for every tree they cut down.

As the campaign unfolded, analysts issued warnings. Western diplomats and their governments protested. But in the end the Kremlin got what was clearly its goal: state control of a lucrative project that opens the gas market to Asia.

The three companies with the most to lose said nothing critical as they sold 50 percent plus one share of Sakhalin II for what some analysts called a discounted price, $7.45 billion. Mr. Putin immediately declared that the project’s environmental problems could “be considered resolved.”

“Experience has disappointed many foreign investors in Russia,” said Valery Nesterov, an energy analyst at Troika Dialog, an investment firm in Moscow. And yet when it comes to energy or other investments, it does little to deter them. “The attraction is so large,” Mr. Nesterov said, adding that companies like Shell still held out hope of winning access to Russia’s other oil and gas fields in the future.

The Sakhalin affair has revived memories of the government’s assault on Yukos Oil and its founder, Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, in 2003 and 2004. When it all started, even Russia’s supporters worried about the potential damage to the country’s reputation, especially among investors.

If damage was done, it is hard to quantify now. The company is a rump of its former self, under bankruptcy receivership with its major assets now belonging to the state oil company, Rosneft. Mr. Khodorkovsky, once the richest man in Russia, remains in a Siberian prison on charges of fraud and tax evasion, and he is reportedly facing a new round of criminal charges.

Although Russia’s stock market plunged 21 percent in the month after Mr. Khodorkovsky’s arrest, with the Russian Trading System Index dipping below 500, it is now above 1,800.

The international response to the killings of two prominent Kremlin critics — Mr. Litvinenko in exile in London and Ms. Politkovskaya here in Moscow — also underscores the new reality.

There is as yet no evidence directly linking anyone in Russia to the killings, even if critics have been quick to say so, reviving some of the worst fears about the country Russia has become.

In the wake of Mr. Litvinenko’s death, The Daily Telegraph of London declared flatly, “Russia is rotten to its heart.” A recent cover of The Economist showed Mr. Putin dressed like a gangster, holding a gasoline nozzle as a machine gun.

The British government, by contrast, has said nothing so critical, even after British detectives who came to Moscow were confronted with strict limits on their ability to question witnesses.

Wealth has emboldened Mr. Putin and those around him. At a roundtable interview this month, the first deputy prime minister and chairman of Gazprom’s board, Dmitry A. Medvedev, brushed aside questions about the company’s management, its corporate philosophy and its investments in newspapers and other ventures seen as political. He suggested that the Kremlin, perhaps, had been right, and all of its critics wrong.

“The value of Gazprom in 2000 was $9 billion,” Mr. Medvedev, often cited as a potential successor to Mr. Putin, said. “Today it is between $250 and $300 billion.”

Others warn that Russia is ignoring the consequences of its behavior, that the monopolistic policies of Gazprom, the erosion of political competition and the easy dismissal of critics blinds the Kremlin to the dangers of the overly centralized system Mr. Putin has created.

Mikhail A. Kasyanov, Mr. Putin’s prime minister from 2000 until 2004 and now one of his biggest critics, said the foreigners who rushed to join Russia’s boon were equally complicit. “Investors are very shortsighted,” he said in an interview.

[Winehole23]

Italy, Austria and France, among others, reported cuts of some 30 percent. After originally blaming neighbor Ukraine, Russia’s energy giant Gazprom admitted that it had cut the gas supply as a result of the unexpected cold spell, which has seen temperatures in some parts of Russia fall to below minus 40 degrees Celsius. As a result, Moscow was forced to give priority to keeping its own citizens warm. Given that current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is only a few weeks away from a presidential election where he may face a real fight for survival, with waves of protest rocking his boat, the last thing he needs is for Russians to have something else to complain about.


Indeed, the cold weather in Europe and concerns about the reliability of Russian gas supplies have resulted in a price increase in different places around Europe including in my own country, the United Kingdom, where prices are at a level not seen since 2006. Prices in Germany and France have also increased by some 20-25 percent -- very unwelcome in a period of economic crisis.
http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-271136-gas-is-cut-while-europe-freezes.html

[The Reckoning]

nvm