Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
/nginx/o/2014/01/20/2761202t1h53dd.jpg)
/nginx/o/2014/01/22/2767858t1h9eee.jpg)
This wasn’t supposed to happen. A month ago, after meeting his Finnish counterpart Jyrki Katainen, Prime Minister Andrus Ansip announced that Brussels would decide if LNG terminal was to be built in Estonian or Finland. Should the countries be linked by pipeline, it would make no difference on which shore the terminal stood.
For Estonians, a terminal would be vital, allowing for gas to be shipped in by boats. In that case, Estonia could cut its dependence on Gazprom which is supplying all our natural gas. From time to time, the Kremlin uses gas sales as an energy-weapon, having insubordinate states dance to its balalaika by closing the gas taps. In selecting the terminal site, European Commission has the upper hand –for the simple reason of having promised to pay up a large part of the bill.
«If the terminal comes to Estonia and the Finns get pipeline connection – that surely would be most favourable for Estonia,» Mr Ansip assured the Riigikogu, yesterday.
Things got confused after a statement, last week, by economy minister Juhan Parts: instead of a large terminal, why not erect two smaller ones, at both sides of the bay, eliminating the need for a pipe beneath the waves. Hearing that, Mr Ansip said via Päevaleht, the daily, that Mr Parts came out «with proposals which differ from the standpoint formulated in government».
Economy ministry counters by claiming that idea issued by Mr Parts is in harmony with governmental views and interests of Estonian state.
Last May, the government decided that Mr Parts hold talks with his Finnish colleague regarding construction of the terminal, and that the location of the terminal be «selected according to procedures prescribed by TEN-E regulation, with participation of third party (read: Brussels)».
«The talks to reach agreement are continuing, as participated by representatives of Estonia, Finland and European Commission,» assured Mr Parts.
Even so, his last week’s statement did surprise many. Amongst the European Commission officials, the question arose if building two small terminals would perhaps cost more than a single big one. Tallinn was gripped by fears if Brussels might interpret Mr Parts’ plans as a new project altogether, requiring new proceedings and therefore dropping out of the near-future distribution of money.
«We may have drifted quite far from the original proposal, should there be no pipeline,» said Aare Järvan, economic adviser to Prime Minister. «In my opinion, the proposal is not good; it will not integrate the markets, the gas markets will be separate even as these terminals are completed,» Mr Ansip told the parliament. «A pipeline between Estonia and Finland would provide for considerable extra confidence for out gas consumers.»
«The position of «we get the terminal, they get the pipeline» is stupid. The Finns would never agree with that,» commented an official. Marti Hääl, chief of Alexela Energia desiring to build a terminal near Paldiski, noted: «A barrel will provide a feeling of security just as fine as a pipe. If you’ve got gas in your barrel and you can pour it into a pipe, no pipe to Finland is needed. The more so that nobody is talking about the costs of keeping a pipeline working. According to our calculations, bringing LNG by ship would be four times cheaper.»
In the minds of some officials, questions arose why Mr Parts defends Alexela’s business interests. For example, the minister wanted to send the Finns a letter containing calculations by Alexela about advantages of building two terminals.
It is not the issue of Juhan Parts and the Alexela majority holder Heiti Hääl being acquainted since childhood days spent in Nõmme, Tallinn. Rather, it is the issue of the LNG terminal not being a public project but private business. The Paldiski project was designed by the very Alexela. «The state is not developing the terminal. The state needs a partner,» noted Mr Parts. But while Estonians and Finns remain undecided about who gets the terminal, Gazprom alone gains from the confusion.