Russia-Europe Energy Thread

[Sampanviking]

I would love to join in this discussion, but its seems to be bouncing around so much and with so many posts, its just lost me.

In terms of Europe's Gas imports from Russian companies and via Russian pipes, main media figures I read are put between 30 - 50 % ( much of which is probably to former Soviet republics that have always relied on this supply and the rest to Germany and Italy, who have been long term customers.

Regarding Exports

Obviously the vast majority is by ship as this is the cheapest way to many and only way to reach some destinations. Long distance rail Freight is due to increase with major (New Silk Road) Road and Rail links being built from Western China through Central Asia and on either through Iran and Turkey or Russia to European Markets.

Back to Oil however, Oil is not Oil is not Oil and each field has specific characteristics that increase or decrease its general or specialist desirability. Does anyone know the properties of much of Russia's crude output?

 

[swerve]

90% of World trade cannot be on Ships. u need rail and trucks to move from ports anyway. for Oil and Gas there is Pipelines. So ships are not the only method of transportation. Mexico/Canada are US largest trading partners. Similarly China will become largest trading partner of Russia and India this year. Overland routes have special advantages.
u need Potash and other fertilizer for Agriculture..

International trade. Pipelines carry only a small percentage of international traffic in oil & gas, & much of what they do carry ends up on a ship. E.g. the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline ends at the port of Ceyhan.
More Mexican-US trade is by sea than directly over the border. At least 99% of India-China trade is by sea (have you looked at the cross-border transport links?). Etc., etc.

World largest Industrial nation was untill this year was US. Now It is China. So EU combined will be still less than US/China alone. Much of ur Industrial value input is trading among EU nations. so higher currency values comes into Play. EU Car and truck market is smaller than US and China alone. And Russia is EU largest car and truck market. Number of truck demand shows the trading power of nation.
Similar is the case of Steel production. Russian owns now 15% of US steel production and have huge inland expansion going on..

He spoke of industrial production, not trade. Counting at PPP doesn't affect the picture much: at PPP, EU industrial output is greater than Russian total GDP, by a large margin, & larger than US industrial output - which is still more than Chinas industrial output, when you measure it properly, i.e. at value-added (Chinese output is relatively higher at gross value than value-added, because it does a great deal of assembly of imported components), at value-added rather than expenditure PPPs, & at the appropriate sectoral rather than whole-economy PPP. BTW, if you don't know the differences, you're not qualified to debate the matter.

 

[Jon K]

I took 100% and subtracted can and mex - they're the only two countries with land borders to the USA. The rest can only be traded by sea - hence the "at least", they're minimum figures "by sea" as there is also trade by sea included in the mex and can numbers, I just cannot see how much.

One should remember, though, that large land borders do not necessarily mean that trade is conducted via land transportation which is always expensive. Consider Finland - by first look it would seem that maritime traffic would be insignificant, but even the oil between Russia and Finnish oil refineries is transported via sea.

As for the US-Canadian trade, the largest amount of Canadian maritime traffic is transborder, ie. between Canada and the United States. Of course not all that is via sea due to Great Lakes. I would expect Mexican statistics to be fairly similar.

What should be also considered is the fact that a large amount of US domestic traffic is via water routes.

Land traffic is visible, but not that important in many areas. Consider Trans-Siberian railway, it carries about 20 000 TEU per year. M/V Emma Maersk, built in Grand Danois Land, carries 11000 TEU in a single trip...

 

[eckherl]

Here in the UK we have plans for new coal-fired stations. We still have coal underground, & if prices of alternatives get too high, or supply becomes unreliable, production could be increased quite fast. At present, open-cast mining is limited by environmental & legal restrictions, not economic or physical. Also, there's a lot of coal that we can import without Russia being able to influence it in the slightest.

Question for you,

The state of Alaska supplies oil to the UK, do you have a rough estimate on the percentage that this assists in UK supply and demand.

Very interesting and educating thread, to all of you, thanks.

 

[kato]

Germany still needs peteroleum for its chemical and transportation industry. and it also needs whole alot of minerals from Russia.

For perspective... :

out of total German import (2005), mix:
0.35% - coal
0.75% - ores and minerals
0.80% - electricity
1.95% - gas
3.50% - petroleum products (fuel)
4.55% - oil

Roughly 40% of German oil and gas is sourced from Russia, don't have it broken down between both.

And when energy from Russia at the moment accounts for what? 10% of the total?

For Germany: Oil and Gas from Russia accounted for 2.7% of overall import value as of 2007 (20 billion out of 730 billion Euro). Russia as a whole accounted for 3.9% of imports, in 2005 it was 2.7% total (partially due to risen cost of oil and gas of course).

Consumption... meh, would have to actually research. Too lazy.

The two main consumers in absolute volumes, Germany and Italy, is unlikely to expand much beyond what they have now.

Gas? Well - easy answer: Germany uses most gas in either: a) energy production or b) residential consumption. Both have rather stable throughput.

Let's have a look at Germany: much of their coal fired capacity was built 50 years ago!!! It has an average electricity generating efficiency of 37%, whereas a modern coal fired plants have an efficiency of 47%!!! (and with central heating or using the excess energy for industrial co-gen it goes up to 65%)

If you look at the map rather closely, you'll notice that the bulk of coal-fired plants are located in:
a) places without local nuclear or hydro power
b) places with industry concentrations

In places where both exist (e.g. in Baden-Württemberg), the coal-fired plants often are used in a large capacity to provide central heating for their region.

So a strategy of nuclear/modern coal/renewables/alternative import is viable. There is great potential and opportunity.

Just as an example: They've been drilling around here for the past couple years looking for viable geothermal power sources, primarily to provide central heating, not so much as a power source. Problem with that is that localized oil and gas fields have been getting in the way.

Also, there are uranium mines in Germany btw, the Wismut sites. Were closed down in 1991, for environmental and political concerns. Used to be the third-largest source of uranium worldwide (7000 t/year peak), although it was rather pricy to mine there.

Consider Trans-Siberian railway, it carries about 20 000 TEU per year.

... and at maximum usage as established in Germany, as a cargo line with the usual security measures, it could in theory carry that same amount per day. Easily.
Railways simply scale far better than shipping.

 

[swerve]

Question for you,

The state of Alaska supplies oil to the UK, do you have a rough estimate on the percentage that this assists in UK supply and demand.

Sorry, no idea. I didn't know we bought any Alaskan crude, & I'm rather surprised we do, because of geography. The only reason I can think of is for a better refinery mix.

 

[eckherl]

Sorry, no idea. I didn't know we bought any Alaskan crude, & I'm rather surprised we do, because of geography. The only reason I can think of is for a better refinery mix.

Apparently the majority of oil coming out of this region is going to the UK and to Japan, a small percentage of it goes to U.S consumption.

With our oil reserves with in the country and off of both coastlines it has been stated that the U.S has enough oil for at least 100 years and most likely beyond that. The U.S population is finally pushing capitol hill and individual states to override some of the Environmental programs/restrictions so that we can start tapping into it, I do not see why the U.S cannot assist Europe in cutting their dependance of Russian oil even more, I suspect that this may be the case in the future. Isn`t it ironic that as soon as the U.S starts mentioning the possibility of cutting our oil dependance from Middle Eastern countries that the prices start dropping per drum, this should help ease the pain for Europeans to import oil also I would think.

 

[Todjaeger]

Apparently the majority of oil coming out of this region is going to the UK and to Japan, a small percentage of it goes to U.S consumption.

With our oil reserves with in the country and off of both coastlines it has been stated that the U.S has enough oil for at least 100 years and most likely beyond that. The U.S population is finally pushing capitol hill and individual states to override some of the Environmental programs/restrictions so that we can start tapping into it, I do not see why the U.S cannot assist Europe in cutting their dependance of Russian oil even more, I suspect that this may be the case in the future. Isn`t it ironic that as soon as the U.S starts mentioning the possibility of cutting our oil dependance from Middle Eastern countries that the prices start dropping per drum, this should help ease the pain for Europeans to import oil also I would think.

It was my understanding that the bulk of Alaskan petroleum went to Japan & Asia. Part of the reason AFAIK that there was not much domestic consumption was that the bulk of the US refining capacity is located in the Gulf of Mexico or northern New Jersey (which stinks btw). The other major reason I have heard bandied about is that the quality of the petroleum that is extracted from Alaska is lower than that imported from Venezuela or the Persian Gulf.

I do not know if this means that there are additional impurities which need to be removed or refined out, or if the energy density of the petroleum is lower. Or it could also mean that the properties of Alaskan petroleum are more appropriate for other uses (diesel/fuel oil vs. light sweet crude, etc). :unknown

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

It looks if we don't import anything significant from Alaska.
UK oil imports 2006, % approx

Middle East - 2
Western Hemisphere - 4 (of which 3% Venezuela)
Africa - 7 - (of which 4% Algeria, 2% Libya)
Russia - 13
NORWAY - 72
Other - 2

http://stats.berr.gov.uk/energystats/dukes07_ag.pdf - scroll down to table G.4, on page 16. The USA is lumped in with "other" in sources of imports, totalling 2.0 mn tons in 2006. The UK exported 11 million tons of oil to the USA that year. Total 55 mn tons imports, 49.15 mn tons exports.

 

[roberto]

For perspective... :

out of total German import (2005), mix:
0.35% - coal
0.75% - ores and minerals
0.80% - electricity
1.95% - gas
3.50% - petroleum products (fuel)
4.55% - oil

Problem with ur figure is it belongs to 2005 and we are in 2008. Future Germany prosperity is depended on Russia alone simply because of Market size and access to Asia both Air and Land.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aybRDZEFX.bo&refer=europe
Taking Advantage

Germany is taking advantage of that demand. Europe's largest economy had a record trade surplus in June as exports jumped more than economists forecast. Munich-based Siemens AG, Europe's largest engineering company, last month reported third- quarter earnings that beat analyst estimates on increased orders from Russia and China.

Hochtief AG, Germany's largest builder, on Aug. 14 raised its full-year forecasts on rising demand for construction and mining work in Australia and Asia. Audi AG, Volkswagen AG's luxury-car brand, said its worldwide deliveries rose 2.5 percent in July, led by growth in China and Russia

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=2864
Special Relationship between Russia and Germany

When u have such economic Weakness. u receive threats before summit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...lBrandChannel=0
Russia's NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin warned on Monday post-Cold War cooperation with NATO had been damaged by the alliance's support for Georgia and could deteriorate further if Georgia gained NATO membership.

He said Moscow would be closely watching the NATO meeting and warned: "If these decisions are in fact taken on behalf of the Georgian aggressor, we will not be able to maintain the quality and the schedule of our relationship with NATO."

We have a serious temptation to bring all our potential cooperation with NATO under question," he said, adding that this included Russia allowing NATO to cross its territory to reach Afghanistan, where the alliance has a major military operation

And here is the end result of those threats. Pretty weak response.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2378850,00.html
Russia shrugs off Nato threat
19/08/2008 17:43 - (SA)
Moscow - Russia's envoy to Nato on Tuesday dismissed the alliance's response to the conflict in Georgia, saying it showed threats made against Russia were only "empty words", Interfax news agency reported.

"The document itself is restrained," the agency quoted Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian Ambassador to Nato, as telling a Russian television network, in reference to a statement approved by Nato foreign ministers on the conflict.

"On the whole, all of these threats that have been raining down on Russia turned out to be empty words," he said. He used an idiomatic expression to compare Tuesday's Nato meeting to a "mountain that gave birth to a mouse".

Rogozin spoke after Nato foreign ministers agreed that the bloc "cannot continue business as usual" with Russia, calling for the immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia.

"The Alliance is considering seriously the implications of Russia's actions for the Nato-Russia relationship," the 26 Nato foreign ministers said in a joint statement following crisis talks in Brussels.

So conclusion can be drawn that EU cannot live without Russia.

 

[Preceptor]

Proof of claims is required

Roberto,concern has been expressed about both the style and content of posts made by you.

For the following post...

Russian companies have built global alliances. it does not matter where they increase production . West is completely dependent on Russia. They dont need to increase there own production to maximise profits. Show me even a single country outside West that is against Russian policies. infact hardline policies of Russia with respect to resoruces giving more bargaining power to resource producing countries.

Please provide clear and conclusive evidence or proof that the claim, particularly the bolded portion is accurate, or retract it.

Similarly, when making a claim or disputing the accuracy or relevance of information another poster provides, include proof of the claim or reason for the dispute. The following are viewed as problematical posts.

Problem with ur figure is it belongs to 2005 and we are in 2008. Future Germany prosperity is depended on Russia alone simply because of Market size and access to Asia both Air and Land.

AND

So conclusion can be drawn that EU cannot live without Russia.

The upper portion of your post was in response to this post.

For perspective... :

out of total German import (2005), mix:
0.35% - coal
0.75% - ores and minerals
0.80% - electricity
1.95% - gas
3.50% - petroleum products (fuel)
4.55% - oil

In disputing the information provided the date of 2005 was an issue. Up to date statistical information of this nature is often difficult to come by, with data frequently lagging by a few years as information is compiled and cross-referenced. Examine information and dates available from a source like the CIA Worldfact book to see when sections were last updated, as well as dates for some blocks of information. More importantly, no information, none at all, was provided to support your claim, nevermind providing better or more up to date information.

For the last line, you used this article about a Russian reaction to the NATO response to the Georgian conflict to draw a conclusion that the EU cannot exist without Russia. Support and explain such a claim with relevant evidence. The article used does not do that, particularly when the EU and NATO are two different entities with entirely different purposes. While many of the same countries are involved in both, not all EU members are NATO members, and not all NATO members are in the EU members.

Accurate and factual information, from legitimate sources (not Wiki, etc), is required for the claims that Europe, the West, the EU, etc al. is dependent on Russia. If alternate sources for potential markets, sources of rawmats and resources are discounted, explanation must be given particularly with the level of ongoing global trade and multiple suppliers of goods, services and materials.

This follows a discussion amongs the moderators as to whether the behavior is that of a troll or not. At present Roberto, you are being given 24 hours to either provide the proof or retract the claims. Failure to either provide the required information or retract the claim within the 24 time period, and/or continued posting with unsupported claims or unsupported dismissal of contrary information will result in banning.
-Preceptor

 

[eckherl]

Thanks Swerve and Todjaeger for the information,

I was watching a special program a couple of weeks ago on the oil crisis hosted by Fox news and that was something that was stated by one of thier guests on the show inregards to UK recieving oil from Alaska. It will not be the first time that some of their information has been false, not saying that other news channels are not prone to mis information also.

 

[roberto]

Roberto,concern has been expressed about both the style and content of posts made by you.

For the following post...



Please provide clear and conclusive evidence or proof that the claim, particularly the bolded portion is accurate, or retract it.

Similarly, when making a claim or disputing the accuracy or relevance of information another poster provides, include proof of the claim or reason for the dispute. The following are viewed as problematical posts.



AND



The upper portion of your post was in response to this post.



In disputing the information provided the date of 2005 was an issue. Up to date statistical information of this nature is often difficult to come by, with data frequently lagging by a few years as information is compiled and cross-referenced. Examine information and dates available from a source like the CIA Worldfact book to see when sections were last updated, as well as dates for some blocks of information. More importantly, no information, none at all, was provided to support your claim, nevermind providing better or more up to date information.

For the last line, you used this article about a Russian reaction to the NATO response to the Georgian conflict to draw a conclusion that the EU cannot exist without Russia. Support and explain such a claim with relevant evidence. The article used does not do that, particularly when the EU and NATO are two different entities with entirely different purposes. While many of the same countries are involved in both, not all EU members are NATO members, and not all NATO members are in the EU members.

Accurate and factual information, from legitimate sources (not Wiki, etc), is required for the claims that Europe, the West, the EU, etc al. is dependent on Russia. If alternate sources for potential markets, sources of rawmats and resources are discounted, explanation must be given particularly with the level of ongoing global trade and multiple suppliers of goods, services and materials.

This follows a discussion amongs the moderators as to whether the behavior is that of a troll or not. At present Roberto, you are being given 24 hours to either provide the proof or retract the claims. Failure to either provide the required information or retract the claim within the 24 time period, and/or continued posting with unsupported claims or unsupported dismissal of contrary information will result in banning.
-Preceptor

I am not saying that data provided by Kato is inaccurate. It maybe pretty old. So current decision makers in EU countries are not relying on this kind of data. and u can see from there behaviour.

http://mathaba.net/news/?x=603049
Talking at a routine weekly press briefing in Berlin, deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg stressed his country had 'no interest in isolating Russia'.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/19/oakley.georgia.russia.analysis/
Foreign ministers like the UK's David Miliband emerged from the Brussels meeting accentuating the positive. But there wasn't much of it to accentuate. If NATO ministers could not agree that Russia should obey the cease-fire it had signed, that armed force was a bad way of resolving disputes and that Georgia's territorial integrity had to be respected, then there would have been little point in the organization's very existence.

But what sign was there of a slap over the wrist for Russia, let alone a "concrete step" that deprived Moscow of its easy-odds victory?

Although Britain is reckoned to side with the NATO hawks rather than the doves, Miliband too insisted: "I think it's important we don't pursue a policy of trying to isolate Russia." What was needed, he suggested , was "hard-headed engagement." As opposed, one presumes, to "soft-headed engagement'"?

so if the policy is continous engagement. It will result in deepening business relationship. and Since Russia has huge amount of hard currency. It will always have the upper hand to influence decisions of EU countries. Hence complete dependence.

 

[Preceptor]

I am not saying that data provided by Kato is inaccurate. It maybe pretty old. So current decision makers in EU countries are not relying on this kind of data. and u can see from there behaviour.

You have stated in the above that the data Kato provided is old and not what is currently used. If that is the case and you know it to be fact, please provide proof of this claim. Otherwise it will be another unsupported claim, which you have been warned about already.

so if the policy is continous engagement. It will result in deepening business relationship. and Since Russia has huge amount of hard currency. It will always have the upper hand to influence decisions of EU countries. Hence complete dependence.

In the above, it is claimed that Russia will have "huge amounts" of hard curreny. Then it is claimed that as a result of the amount of hard curreny available, Russia will always have the upper hand influencing EU decisions. Then from there, is it indicated that due to these factors, the EU will have "complete dependence." Again, claims which are unsupported. Particularly the link between available currency in Russia and influence in/over the EU.

Lastly, look at the definitions of the words complete

Main Entry: 1com·plete
Pronunciation: kəm-ˈplēt
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): com·plet·er; com·plet·est
Etymology: Middle English complet, from Latin completus, from past participle of complēre
Date: 14th century
1 a: having all necessary parts, elements, or steps <a complete diet> b: having all four sets of floral organs cof a subject or predicate : including modifiers, complements, or objects
2: brought to an end : concluded <a complete period of time>
3: highly proficient <a complete artist>
4 a: fully carried out : thorough <a complete renovation> b: total, absolute <complete silence> cof a football pass : legally caught
5of insect metamorphosis : characterized by the occurrence of a pupal stage between the motile immature stages and the adult — compare incomplete 1b
6of a metric space : having the property that every Cauchy sequence of elements converges to a limit in the space

and dependence.

Main Entry: de·pen·dence
Variant(s): also de·pen·dance di-ˈpen-dən(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1: the quality or state of being dependent; especially : the quality or state of being influenced or determined by or subject to another
2: reliance, trust
3: one that is relied on
4 a: drug addiction <developed a dependence on painkillers> b: habituation 2b

These definitions, when combined into complete dependence mean something quite different from influence as shown below.

Main Entry:1in·flu·ence
Pronunciation: ˈin-ˌflü-ən(t)s, especially Southern in-ˈ
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Medieval Latin influentia, from Latin influent-, influens, present participle of influere to flow in, from in- + fluere to flow — more at fluid
Date: 14th century
1 a: an ethereal fluid held to flow from the stars and to affect the actions of humans b: an emanation of occult power held to derive from stars
2: an emanation of spiritual or moral force
3 a: the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command b: corrupt interference with authority for personal gain
4: the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways : sway
5: one that exerts influence
— under the influence : affected by alcohol : drunk <was arrested for driving under the influence>

Kindly correct the postings to include support for the claims made, or change or retract the claims. 2nd Warning
-Preceptor

 

[swerve]

so if the policy is continous engagement. It will result in deepening business relationship. and Since Russia has huge amount of hard currency. It will always have the upper hand to influence decisions of EU countries. Hence complete dependence.

Can you explain why you are claiming that the possession by Russia of less hard currency than Japan gives it the upper hand over EU countries, but you are not making the same claims about Japan? Also, can you explain how possessing fewer Euros & pounds (just over 50% of Russian reserves are in those currencies) than the issuers of those currencies gives Russia the upper hand over the issuers? The Eurozone countries are now in the position the USA has long been, & the UK was for many years: their money is a reserve currency.

A thought to leave you with: part of the increase in Russian reserves, denominated in dollars, in recent years has been due to the appreciation of the Euro. China & Japan have a higher proportion of dollars.

 

[kato]

One little note on up-to-date economic reports: Of course they are available. For a couple hundred bucks, from market research agencies.

The above 2005 information was extrapolated from an information brochure assembled in September 2007 and published with Copyright 2008 by the German Federal Statistical Office (Destasis).

So - this is what is currently used, outside in-depth market research.

The same brochure contains a chart clearly showing that in the decade between 1995 and 2005, import of crude oil, natural gas (together: +16%) and petroleum products (-5%) has barely changed - when measured in Terajoules of energy instead of market value. Consumption outside the industry has actually fallen slightly for oil and gas during that time (about -1%).

 

[roberto]

Can you explain why you are claiming that the possession by Russia of less hard currency than Japan gives it the upper hand over EU countries, but you are not making the same claims about Japan? Also, can you explain how possessing fewer Euros & pounds (just over 50% of Russian reserves are in those currencies) than the issuers of those currencies gives Russia the upper hand over the issuers? The Eurozone countries are now in the position the USA has long been, & the UK was for many years: their money is a reserve currency.

A thought to leave you with: part of the increase in Russian reserves, denominated in dollars, in recent years has been due to the appreciation of the Euro. China & Japan have a higher proportion of dollars.

Japan gets $33B of interest on its foreign reserves. which it plough into its budget. So it does not have the kind of freedom to spend to buy influence. And there is consumer part. Despite higher per capita income Japanese cannot afford more cars or bigger cars per year than Russia. hihger import prices is more threat to Japan.

http://www.oxan.com/worldnextweek/2008-07-24/BudgetBusting.aspx
Japan has the world’s largest public debt in absolute terms, estimated to reach 776 trillion yen (147% of GDP) in the fiscal year ending March 2009. In 2006 the government committed itself to reducing debt by bringing the primary balance (revenue minus spending, excluding debt sales and interest payments) into surplus by 2011. The debt problem is growing more urgent since high import prices increase the risk of inflation and so of eventual interest rate rises, which would suggest that servicing the debt more expensive. However, the government’s commitment to its debt targets is weakening.

 

[roberto]

You have stated in the above that the data Kato provided is old and not what is currently used. If that is the case and you know it to be fact, please provide proof of this claim. Otherwise it will be another unsupported claim, which you have been warned about already.



In the above, it is claimed that Russia will have "huge amounts" of hard curreny. Then it is claimed that as a result of the amount of hard curreny available, Russia will always have the upper hand influencing EU decisions. Then from there, is it indicated that due to these factors, the EU will have "complete dependence." Again, claims which are unsupported. Particularly the link between available currency in Russia and influence in/over the EU.

Lastly, look at the definitions of the words complete


and dependence.



These definitions, when combined into complete dependence mean something quite different from influence as shown below.



Kindly correct the postings to include support for the claims made, or change or retract the claims. 2nd Warning
-Preceptor

Influence and dependence comes from Money, Natural Resources, transport routes. or do u think there is any other method of creating influence?
Read about Suez/Panama canal example.

 

[Feanor]

Roberto you're using inductive logic, and weak inductive logic at that. Then you're making conclusions which are deductive in nature and the forum you present them in. That's a logic fallacy.

 

[roberto]

Roberto you're using inductive logic, and weak inductive logic at that. Then you're making conclusions which are deductive in nature and the forum you present them in. That's a logic fallacy.

The same logic of dependence is applied every where. This Schroeder went to China almot 10 times and Volkswagen become the largest Auto brand in China beating Japanese/US. He certainly see the big picture where the future properity lies. Large Industrial products are for thos who can afford it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,572686,00.html
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH GERHARD SCHRÖDER
SPIEGEL: Could the new, highly self-confident leadership duo in Moscow feel that the West needs them more than they need the West?
And when it comes to energy policy, only dreamers can pursue the idea that Western Europe could become independent of Russian oil and natural gas.

Schröder: That is precisely the price. Europe will only be able to play a true role in the context between America, on the one side, and Asia, on the other, if it manages to establish and maintain a strong relationship with Russia. I see Russia as part of Europe, more than as part of any other constellation.
SPIEGEL: And is that how Russia sees itself?
Schröder: At least it is the way the current leadership sees it. And we in Germany and Europe should interpret this as an opportunity. Russia has an Asian alternative, but Europe does not.