Hungary suspends gas supplies to Ukraine
Source: BBC News
Hungary's gas pipeline operator, FGSZ, says it has suspended delivery of gas to neighbouring Ukraine "indefinitely".
Ukraine has been receiving gas from Hungary, Poland and Slovakia since Russia cut off supplies to Ukraine in June in a dispute over unpaid bills.
Ukrainian state gas firm Naftogaz confirmed the stoppage, saying it was "unexpected and unexplained".
FGSZ said it had acted to raise the flow of gas to Hungary, due to an expected increase in demand.
With winter approaching fears are mounting that Ukraine will be unable to heat homes and power industry without Russian gas.
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29374151
Other than ability to pay for prior receipts I have concept what on earth has led to this.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ukraine is facing is really vile.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)gloating over the troubles Russia faces over sanctions is just peachy.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)One should never ever bite the hand that feeds.
bleedinglib
(212 posts)These bastard'os are looking for any way too keep world oil prices up??
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)VIENNA, September 25. /ITAR-TASS/. Hungarys gas operator FGSZ Ltd. has suspended gas supplies to Ukraine for an indefinite period of time, the company said on Thursday.
The decision was made to meet the growing domestic demand for gas, the company said.
Gas supplies to Ukraine were suspended at 18:00 local time on September 25. Gas supplies have been halted for an indefinite period of time, the company said.
In March 2013, Ukraine and Hungary agreed on gas supplies to Ukraine in the amount of up to 6.1 billion cubic metres a year (16.6 million cubic metres a day).
http://en.itar-tass.com/economy/751335
"growing domestic demand for gas" in September ? Budapest, Hungary, weather 16c as I write local time there https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=weather+in+budapest+hungary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=m4glVJPWC-PH8gfnjoHQCQ
Paolo123
(297 posts)Everything the media tells you about Ukraine is a lie.
The Russians are painted as being backwards. The reality is that Ukraine is backwards. Russian GDP is far ahead of Ukraine and it's people live far better lives. Ukraine has gone nowhere since independence as it is a kleptocratic state far worse than Russia is. It's gone nowhere despite cheap oil and gas from Russia.
Then the west supports a coup of an elected government and the people of the densely russian areas say "enough, we want out".
At that point the US and EU start this ridiculous set of sanctions and sabre rattling against Russia. Hungary is wising up and saying "fuck this, we don't need an EU/US bankers war with Russia. We don't want anything to do with this bullshit".
freshwest
(53,661 posts)FWIW, Ukraine should have been exploring alternatives to fossil fuels long before. They have an industrial base and trained, unionized workers.
They could have gone to solar; sustainable hydro (making it possible for fish to spawn); wind; biogas; maybe geothermal power.
In emergencies, they might have used coal burners in homes or businesses. They had nuclear. I think the last two are bad ideas, but look at what they are facing, a brutal winter season.
Ukrainians are educated and they have applied scientific knowledge, they were a nuclear power before they agreed to give it up in exchange for ant agreement cited at DU.
They must know about climate change, and how wild the weather has been recently. They had to know of the danger of relying on another nation for fuels.
I am sorry to see a tragedy for those unable to heat their homes that could have been prevented with foresight. It's cooling fast in our milder climate, but we didn't get any effects from the drunken polar vortex. The winters in Ukraine and Russia look intractable in the steady cold that makes life so hard there. This should not be happening.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Such funds were/are due Gazprom for supplies from Russia direc to Ukraine.
I recall that reverse flow agreements to at least one of the adjacent supply countries who had agreed to do was based on batch supply with each batch supplied following payment for the previous batch. Maybe Naftogas stalled payment.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 26, 2014, 06:26 PM - Edit history (1)
More here on subject from NYT
BERLIN European officials said they had brokered a deal between Russia and Ukraine aimed at ensuring gas flows to keep factories running and homes warm over the coming six months, despite a dispute between Moscow and Kiev over the size of Ukraines outstanding bills.
Günther H. Oettinger, the European Union energy commissioner, met Friday in Berlin with the energy ministers of Russia and Ukraine to urge the two sides to reach an agreement that would resume the flow of natural gas from Russia to Ukraine for a set price during the winter. Russias natural gas giant, Gazprom, cut off supplies to Ukraine in summer after they failed to reach an agreement on how much Kiev owes Russia for past deliveries.
Under Fridays deal, which Moscow and Kiev are expected to approve by next week, Ukraine would pay Russia $3.1 billion toward its outstanding bill, in two separate installments due by the end of the year. In exchange, Gazprom would ensure that at least 5 billion cubic meters of gas are supplied to Ukraine from October to March at the set price of $385 per 1,000 cubic meters, which must be prepaid before delivery.
Mr. Oettinger said the European Union would guarantee a loan from the International Monetary Fund to help Ukraine meet the payments on its debt. The deal foresees an initial installment of $2 billion due by the end of October, with the outstanding $1.1 billion due by the end of December.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/world/europe/russia-ukraine-gazprom-deal.html?_r=0
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 26, 2014, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)
You're continuing to apply the fossil fuel line, but not without cause, living in the UK where one must have some form of heat in the winter. Certainly many in the colder climes of the USA share a sense of ambivalence or hostility about leaving fossil fuels for the same reasons.
My point is, not the money. Nor the agreements. But the direction that Ukraine and others in colder regions have gone in terms of national energy policy, and more important to many Americans, on the level of the individual going off grid. This is frees people from those who would extort them with energy. IIRC, Gerrmany has led the way on this in Europe by their policy.
The UK has adopted new ways of supplying energy, even from wave power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wave_power&printable=yes#United_Kingdom
They seem to have had the greatest success of all those who have attempted it.
While Ukraine may not have a useful source due to their limited coastline, surely they could have weaned themselves off of this. Perhaps until the ruckus this year, they thought they would never have a break with their main supplier, knowing that Russia isn't going out of the fossil fuels industry as long as it can drill, frack or otherwise get the natural gas and oil it needs for itself and to make money from exports.
We've had the debate in the USA since Carter on the necessity of getting away from Middle East oil shiekdom influence, and it has taken both the UK and the USA down a bad path dealing with them for so many years. Every nation should be independent of the other in necessities, as too many compromises that hurt one's own people occur to meet their needs if a country is dependent.
That being said, whether or not people believe in the peak oil meme, even the statistics released in the UK/Scotland vote showed that North Sea oil is not a forever solution for energy and finances. And as a side note, said that wave and wind power were going to be essential to replace it.
I feel the West got involved with the Middle East in order to save its domestic reserves as long as possible. Hopefully, those who think long term instead of the GOP, are making use of the time left before our fossil fuel 'progress' comes to an ugly end.
Even if they were never the best solution for the long haul and the environment, they should no longer be a matter of national security. Defined by many leaders and votes as a matter of what a nation's people need to survive.
Ukraine must have know that this day could come after their history with Stalin, etc., as all informed persons in the world know, and surely they knew its cost to their own environment and their national sovereignty.
The ones who suffer the most will be the more vulnerable members of their society, not the big players in Ukraine.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)htthttp://stanislavs.org/tag/division/p://stanislavs.org/tag/division/
First the wealth of the Ukraine is in the EAST:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/yakov-feygin/ukraine-is-stuck-in-post-soviet-condition-east-vs-west-ukrainian-economy
While the Western Ukraine has coal, the large coal field is in Eastern Ukraine: These also the areas with the largest Oil and Natural Gas Reserves in the Ukraine (Outside Crimean).
http://freemarketcafe.com/2014/04/russias-newest-project-crimea/
As to Hydro Power, the Don is a great river for that, again it is in the Eastern Ukraine (Through the Dnieper, the largest River in the Ukraine, is on the middle of the Country).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper_River
Now, not is all well in the Eastern Ukraine, its Steel Industry is very energy inefficient compared to other Steel makers but much of what you said is the EASTERN Ukraine not the Western Ukraine.
pampango
(24,692 posts)The article explains what led to this action. The reason for this was because more gas was needed domestically.
There may be more to it than this. Hungary is run by a right wing government whose leader considers Putin the foreign leader he respects the most.