The Nord Stream Leaks: A Political, Economic, and Environmental Disaster?
On September 26th, Danish officials were made aware of a series of underwater detonations impacting two pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, in the Baltic Sea. The blasts resulted in four leaks, two on each pipeline, and the subsequent draining of the pipelines’ contents into the ocean. The Nord Stream leaks have created serious political, economic, and environmental consequences. Reactions have ranged in response to the blasts and their aftermath, forcing the question of whether the leaks are being taken seriously enough or being overexaggerated.
The Nord Stream pipelines run between Russia and Germany, transporting gas subseas into the European Union. Nord Stream 1 has been running since 2011 and, until recently, was a major supplier of gas in Germany. Around a month ago, the owner of the pipelines, Gazprom, a state-controlled company from Russia, ceased sending gas via the pipeline, citing technical issues. Nord Stream 2 was set to double the input of gas into Germany earlier this year but was shelved in February by the German government. As such, neither pipeline was actively transporting gas when the explosions hit and contained pressurised methane instead.
The pipes leaked methane into the surrounding waters for a week, stopping on October 2nd. Despite officials knowing about the leaks just after the detonations went off, nothing could be done to stop the methane from leaking, as the pipes had no sealing mechanisms and it was too dangerous for anyone to go into the methane-filled waters. Consequently, no investigation into the pipes could commence until the leaking stopped and the waters naturally cleared of methane. Sweden, Denmark, and Germany have started these investigations but they are yet to be completed.
Politically and economically, the incident raises several problems, mainly concerning attribution for the detonations and potential motivations for the disruption of the pipelines. Soon after the explosions and leaks were revealed to the public, speculation arose over what had led to the underwater blasts. Initial investigations indicated that the pipelines were intentionally sabotaged, and this line of thinking has been sustained in official reports released since. The Kremlin was quick to deny any involvement in the attack after facing public backlash and theorising and instead implicated the United States in the explosions.
Despite the country’s denial, much of the European Union and the world generally view this sabotage as likely stemming from Russia. Gazprom’s decision to stop sending gas has been viewed as a deliberate maneuver against Germany and the EU due to both entities’ continued support for Ukraine. Energy prices in the EU have been unstable since Russia’s attacks on Ukraine began earlier this year, only starting to settle in the past few months. Since the detonations occurred, gas prices have risen nearly 20%. Both the stalling of Nord Stream 1 and the detonations have been theorised to be a warning from Russia, reminding the EU of their dependency on Russian gas. The Nord Stream leaks occurred near concurrently with the opening of a new pipeline between Norway and Poland, leading to speculation that the explosions were meant as a political message.
The environmental impacts of the detonations and subsequent methane leaks are hard to quantify. Gazprom is likely to have the best estimate for the amount of pressurised methane that was present in the pipes at the time of the detonations, but they have yet to release this information. Current estimates range from 100,000 - 300,000 tonnes but the actual number could be dramatically lower or higher. Antoine Rostand, the co-founder of Kayrros, a company that collects data on methane leaks using satellites, estimates that the Nord Stream leaks could equate to one day of global methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector. Others raise that approximate number to be one and a half or two days of emissions. These estimates emphasise how incomparable the leaks are to daily international emissions, with roughly 70 million tons of methane emitted yearly.
Despite the amount of methane released not coming near yearly emissions, the leaks are approximately five times larger than the last ‘largest’ methane leak in Aliso Canyon, California, in 2015 and 2016. The dramatic increase in methane in the Baltic Sea stalled investigations and is expected to negatively affect surrounding waters, plant life, and marine life by reducing the amount of oxygen in the water. Increased methane can also affect ships’ buoyancy, enough to potentially rupture a vessel’s hulls. The explosions themselves also likely harmed marine flora and fauna. Luckily, experts do not anticipate any long-term environmental effects on the area. This major release of methane is also dangerous as it enters the atmosphere. Methane, unlike its greenhouse gas cousin carbon, does not last long in the atmosphere before breaking down. This makes it far more harmful to the ozone and climate change, around 84 times more potent than carbon.
The Nord Stream leaks have prompted both overreactions and underplaying from the media and European governments. With the results of the investigations into the explosions and leaks likely coming soon, the potential political implications of the findings are worrying. Tensions have been high since Russia invaded Ukraine in February and any accusations made towards the Kremlin or another actor could pressurise the situation more, leading to further destabilisation. Similarly, the results of the pipeline investigations will determine the economic outlook for the European Union. Russian gas still powers the EU, so any accusations could lead to the loss of critical energy infrastructure in Europe. Environmentally, the situation has been both over and under-inflated. These leaks have already started having negative impacts on the surrounding environment and are expected to dangerously impact the atmosphere. Just because this record-breaking amount of methane pales in comparison to yearly emissions does not mean that this is any less of an environmental disaster.
Image courtesy of Facts Without Bias 1 via Wikimedia ©2022, some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
