The construction of the North European Gas Pipeline was preceded by long and difficult negotiations between all the participating countries, the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, and Scandinavia. Before starting to lay a pipe along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, it was necessary to resolve many issues of an economic, political and environmental nature.
Reasons to start construction
Several major European powers have shown interest in building a new gas pipeline that bypasses traditional gas export routes from Yamal and from Eastern Siberia.
One of the main reasons for the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline was the desire of the importing countries to reduce their dependence on transit states. Russia was also interested in increasing exports of natural gas and increasing stability during transit.
One of the prerequisites for the start of construction was frequent conflicts between gas producers in Russia and Ukraine, which Gazprom has repeatedly accused of unauthorized gas extraction from the pipe and blackmail. The Ukrainian authorities regularly threatened to stop the transit of gas to Europe if the Russian side did not agree to lower prices.
Start of construction
The construction of the North European Gas Pipeline began in 2010. Russia, Germany, the Netherlands, and France took part in the preparation and implementation of the technically complex project. However, full implementation was not possible without consultation with other countries of the Baltic region. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have made several attempts to delay the start of the construction of the pipeline system.
The reason some Baltic countries hindered the process was because the logistics of the North European Gas Pipeline were changing the region’s existing economic landscape.
Finland position
In turn, Finland put forward extremely stringent environmental requirements for projects. Given where the North European Gas Pipeline is located, a number of serious environmental assessments were required.
After observing all the necessary formalities, Finland gave its consent to the implementation of the project. One of the reasons Finland has agreed to the construction of an environmentally hazardous gas pipeline is that natural gas has the lowest carbon dioxide emissions, which means that ultimately the project will become environmentally sound.
The main characteristics of the gas pipeline
From the beginning of its construction, the project involved branches in the Kaliningrad region, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK. The total length of the pipeline is about 3,000 km, but the land part, located on the territory of Russia, does not exceed 897 km.
The main supplier of raw materials for the North European gas pipeline is the Yuzhno-Russkoye field, which is located in the eastern part of the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug.
Although the pipeline is part of a complex European gas transportation system, its main part, called the Nord Stream, is two pipes running along the bottom of the Baltic Sea. This is the most technically complex part of the system.
Speaking about where the North European gas pipeline is located, it can be safely noted that the starting point of the underwater route is located in Portovaya Bay in the Leningrad Region. There is a compressor station, which pumps natural gas into the pipe.
Then the pipe goes under water and is shown on land only in the German town of Greifswald. It is noteworthy that the sea route does not pass through the territory of any state, since it is laid in neutral waters.
Unique infrastructure features
Implementing such an ambitious project was not an easy task. For example, the Portovaya compressor station is considered to be a unique object of global gas infrastructure. Its total capacity is 366 MW.
Thanks to this indicator, it is possible to achieve a pressure of 220 bar at the inlet. At the outlet in Germany, the pressure is already 106 bar, but still remains sufficient to transport raw materials for a hundred kilometers. Thus, thanks to a unique technical solution in Russia, it is possible to supply gas in a non-compressor mode throughout the entire route.
The North European Gas Pipeline, 2 lines of which are capable of transporting 55 million cubic meters of gas per year, is the longest underwater gas pipeline on the planet.
Onshore infrastructure of the Nord Stream
From a technical point of view, the North European Gas Pipeline is the underwater part of a large loop on the Yamal - Europe gas pipeline. Its beginning is in the city of Gryazovets, Vologda Oblast. It was from there that the pipeline to Vyborg was built in 2012. The length of this segment of the North European gas pipeline was 917 km.
In order to ensure the Nord Stream connection with the European gas infrastructure, two new pipelines were built in Europe. OPAL was built in Germany, and the NEL gas pipeline made it possible to transport Russian gas to Northwest Europe.
The full functioning of this project would not have been possible without providing a strong resource base. In order to ensure uninterrupted filling of the pipe, two new fields were developed. The first, Yuzhno-Russkoye, is located in the vicinity of the city of Urengoy. The second is on the Yamal Peninsula, it is called Bovanenkovskoe.
Both of these fields were connected with the Russian common system for transporting natural gas through the construction of the new Bovanenkovo-Ukhta branch, which was 1,100 km long.
Research before construction
Preparatory work for the construction of the underwater section began in 1997. Complex scientific research was carried out, thanks to which it became possible to determine the future of the gas pipeline route.
In 2000, the European Union decided to assign the Trans-European Network status to this project. At the same time, at the initial stage, the cost of research work amounted to € 100,000,000.
Five years later, work began on the territory of Russia on the construction of onshore parts of the North European Gas Pipeline.
Environmental safety and technical difficulties
As soon as European politicians began to publicly discuss a possible transport project, environmentalists expressed significant concern. Besides the fact that the Baltic Sea region is extremely fragile from an environmental point of view, there are also unexpected difficulties such as the consequences of World War II. As you know, at the bottom of the sea in a large number are sunken ships with ammunition, anti-ship mines, as well as burial sites of post-war explosives.
All these factors could adversely affect both the construction of the gas pipeline and its subsequent operation. In the event of an unforeseen detonation of old shells, a gas leak could have occurred at sea, which would have led to a grandiose environmental disaster. Therefore, it took a lot of time to comprehensively study the possible risks in order to prevent them.
The effects of pipeline construction on fish migration were separately investigated. However, as a result, experts came to the conclusion that the pipeline will not have a long-term impact on the number and migration routes, and after completion of construction, marine inhabitants will be able to return to their usual place.
Project extension
Convinced of the safety and effectiveness of the technology for laying pipes along the seabed at the Nord Stream project, the partners decided to increase the transport capacity of the project by laying 3 strings of the North European Gas Pipeline, also known as Nord Stream-2.
It is not surprising that the project, which affects the interests of many countries in the region, has caused widespread public and political discussion. Again the opponents of the project were the Baltic countries, as well as Poland.
One of the main contractors of the project was the St. Petersburg company Logistics of the North European Gas Pipelines, which specializes in the construction and operation of gas pipelines in difficult conditions.
The new project went through the same stages of approval as the first. Once again, the interests of all interested countries in the region in the field of ecology were taken into account. However, some innovative technologies have been applied that contribute to greater operational safety.
The starting point of the new gas pipeline was the port of Ust-Luga on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland. At the same time that the construction of the pipeline began, the construction of Baltic LNG began, for which a 360 km long branch was also built.
Pipe laying technology
The length of the new gas pipeline was 1,200 km. Its construction required more than 200,000 pipes, each of which needed special treatment and protection from the aggressive environment of the Baltic Sea.
An automated platform is engaged in laying pipes on the seabed, the speed of which is about 3 km per day, that is, 1224 km can be laid in about 14 months. This technology involves the automatic laying of finished pipes to the bottom with the connection of their high-precision welding. Shrink sleeves are pulled over the connected pipes.
However, before laying the structure to the bottom, it must be prepared. Even on land, each pipe is covered with a special anti-corrosion layer consisting of epoxy resins, polyethylene and a reinforced concrete jacket.
Criticism of the Nord Stream 2 project
While the first Nord Stream was criticized mainly because of the risk to the ecology of the region, the second part of the project is criticized for its lack of prospects in terms of economic benefits.
Although designers say the pipeline will pay off in eight years, many economists criticize this position. Recently, the world has seen a downward trend in the price of natural gas, as well as decreased consumption of this fuel. All this can lead to the fact that the payback period of the project can stretch to 30 years or more.
However, this statement can be objected to the fact that the payback period of Nord Stream-1 will be no more than 14 years. In addition, although investments in such projects are considered risky, they can also bring significant dividends if successful. And in the situation with the North European gas pipeline, the photo is in the article, the Italian bank Intesa Sanpaolo took the risk.