This week, apocalyptic scenarios were circulating throughout Europe.
Gas prices continued to rise and inflate the energy expenditures of households of entire countries.
Commentators and citizens were filled with concern that the crisis would not end in injury to the pocket, and that due to the gas shortage residents of the continent would not be able to light and heat their homes this coming winter.
Even if the panic - fueled by mirrors of fuel shortages across the UK - is exaggerated, no one denies the gravity of the situation: gas will star as a key issue at next week's summit of EU leaders.
In the heated debate over how Europe found itself without a basic energy source, three explanations stand out. The first blames Russian President Vladimir Putin and his willingness to turn his country's large and available gas reserves into geopolitical weapons. The Russians want to stop supplying gas to Europe through Ukraine, which they hate, and to flow the gas through a new pipeline, Nord Stream 2. As long as the West, and especially the US, prevents the operation of this alternative route, the Russians will stop supplying gas to European customers Prices.
The second explanation emphasizes the economic aspect: European countries had to worry in advance about the diversity of energy sources, and if they did not, they were stuck with one main supplier, Russia, which would use its exclusivity to rake in profits.
The third explanation identifies the problem of overly reckless giving up the development of traditional energy sources, such as oil and gas, in favor of renewable energy.
All the eggs in the basket of green energy, diagnoses proponents of this explanation, but it is not enough to meet all the global energy needs.
Leonardo Bloody, a renowned expert in energy security from Italy, finds the core of truth in all explanations, and adds to them his own explanation.
"We are dealing with a difficult and unprecedented situation," Bloody told Israel This Week. "The upward trend will continue. In addition to the combination of geopolitical and economic reasons, I attribute this to climate change and the response to it."
Bloody explains that "on the one hand, we experienced a very cold winter and a very hot summer, which increased gas consumption and put the contents of the continent's gas storage reservoirs at only 70 percent. At the same time, the lack of winds and rain in Europe reduced the amount of energy produced by wind turbines On the other hand, the hasty response to climate change has deterred investors and shareholders in the energy sector from investing in gas and oil, out of a desire to paint the energy market green. Less investment means less production. "A more careful and pragmatic approach should have been taken."
In the end everyone takes care of themselves
There are several other aspects that have made it difficult for Europe to compete in the energy market. "Asian countries, which are hungry for energy for their emerging economies, are willing to pay any price for liquefied natural gas, so the producing countries prefer to sell it to the east," Bloody explains. "If the liquefied natural gas reaches Europe anyway, the lack of uniformity in infrastructure will hamper its smooth supply to EU countries. In terms of gas infrastructure, Europe is not united.
Bloody, who until recently served as vice president of government relations for Italian energy giant ENI, knows a thing or two about the interrelationship between energy and politics. He said the EU had made a big mistake when it came to internal regulation, not building a strong purchasing mechanism with gas producers.
In recent days, the union has rolled out two ideas that could mitigate the continent's dependence on external gas supplies: centralized gas procurement and the creation of strategic gas reserves. It is not clear why it was not possible to realize both before the crisis broke out. Had the underground storage capacity of gas in the EU been higher, it would have been possible to buy cheap gas by 2020 and promote the evil.
Concentrated purchasing also has advantages - it makes Europe a huge player capable of asking for and receiving discounts on the price of gas. Does the proposal reconcile with the principles of a free market and with the desire of many EU members to pursue independent economic policies, independent of Brussels? Not really.
European countries that did not want or could not wait for collective decisions, were quick to take care of themselves, "break the discipline" and ask the Russians to negotiate directly and expeditiously to formulate bilateral gas agreements.
Hungary was the first to sign.
In accordance with the terms of the contract entered into with Gazprom, the Russian gas monopoly, Hungary will ensure the receipt of Russian gas by the end of 2036.
Following the Hungarians, Serbia, which is not a member of the Union, also asked Moscow for preferential terms.
According to President Alexander Wojciech, while others are paying a fortune, the Serbs will continue to enjoy a low price of $ 270 per 1,000 cubic meters.
But such a generous assumption would also have a price in the form of Serbia's refusal to join NATO, and continued purchases of Russian weapons and ammunition for its army.
Europe can completely solve the crisis if it only commits to buying the Russian gas that will flow to it via Nord Stream 2, Vučić claimed, and that is exactly what the Kremlin wants to hear.
Leonardo Bloody,
The costly delay
In light of the huge crisis in Europe, many are wondering whether the EastMed gas pipeline, which is planned to flow Israeli and Cypriot gas to Greece and Italy, could have been a complementary solution.
The EastMed venture is geopolitically important and not just economically important, and everyone should participate in it, but on the way to realizing the idea some problems need to be solved.
First, the project needs to be funded by the European Union.
Without subsidies it will not move forward.
Second, it is a technically complex venture, especially in light of the depth of the sea.
It is feasible, but the technical solutions will have to be provided.
Third, it is necessary to remove the obstacle posed by the Turks.
As you may recall, Turkey and Libya signed an agreement to regulate the border between the two economies exclusively, and in practice divided the Mediterranean Sea along its length.
The agreement is illegal under international law, but the Turks sent their navy to enforce it, and the union was reluctant to stand up to them.
To rectify the problem, the US and the EU must put pressure on Turkey and Libya. A general look at EastMed makes it clear that a long time wasted, and more ironic the fact that the day before the project was announced - it turned out that Egypt discovered a huge gas reservoir at sea. Too, and now need to paste the resulting lag.