Talk:Nord Stream 1/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV ctd.

Some of the recent edits are commendable (thanks, Voyevoda), but nationalist points of view are creeping in again. Have to keep those pesky Poles from "maintaining a one-sided view of history throughout Wikipedia"? ;-). Hopefully, this article will come to a NPOV equilibrium eventually, so towards that end I've made some more edits, and pointed out that the pipeline is a matter of heated debate. Deuar 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Marked the POV

The loss of minimal transfer fees is not a major issue. Poland and Ukraine don't profit much from transit of Russian deliveries.The major point is possibility of Russian blackmail not loss of money.Pity is an emotional and unobjective word and thus has to be removed.Also please give sources. --Molobo 17:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have numbers which prove your claim that the fees are "minimal" and "not a major issue"? You say that Russia has the ability to blackmail Poland, but you can as well point at the Polish ability to blackmail Russia by blocking its exports to Western Europe. So it's a parity of blackmailing potential, and out of this reason I'd suggest not to use the word blackmail as one-sided as was done so far. Whether the blackmailing possibility is emphasized regarding both sides, or not at all.

You are right that pity is an emotion, and you can't write here in WP "It's a pity that Russians are going to bypass us", claiming that such statement is objective. But if someone of the involved actors feels pity and it is a significant motive for his behaviour, it is an important fact that should be mentioned. Voyevoda 17:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You have provided no sources or confirmation for your POV.Instead resorted to emotional attack.This doesn't speak well for you objectiv treatment of the subject. --Molobo 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is my "emotional attack"?? I didn't make any emotional statements, just argumentative aspects. Somehow I don't wonder why you prefer not to answer, e.g. concerning the usage of the term "blackmailing".

You wanted sources? Here they come: [1] Poland might lose one billion dollars annually in Russian gas transit fees. Not a small sum for Poland's budget. I hope you now stop fighting your senseless war.Voyevoda 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an allegation of a outside marginal magazine that isn't supported by any Polish officials.As such this an allegation of the media not something that is credible enough. --Molobo 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted your questionable claims that Poland couldn't blackmail Russia with switching off the pipeline. Of course, Poland would ruin itself, too, but its ability to do so creates a mutual dependence and allows Poland to speak to Russia from an equal level. Therefore your claims that Poland's control over the pipeline has no relevance, are false.

Concerning my source, I believe, you just do not want to accept, what's not pleasant for you. Which sources do you expect? Have you ever seen governmental press-releases on how much money they are going to lose due to foreign projects? What about providing your own sources? Claiming that Polish revenues from transiting Russian gas are marginal, you made an unproved statement and provided no sources so far at all. Voyevoda 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I already gave the number of profit made from transportation of Russian gas.--Molobo 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Your source is not more valuable that used toilet paper. We are talking about the North European Gas Pipeline (NEGP)! It's about its specific capacity and potential revenue loss of Poland. I provided a source which speaks of NEGP, what have you provided? Voyevoda 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Both sources are iffy it seems to me - one is not exactly on topic, one is from a questionable source. That's no reason to keep reverting the whole list, though. Deuar 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

what have you provided? Date from company involved with transit of Russia gas and data from Polish Office of Regulation of Energy.A bit better then your obscure newspapers I suppose. --Molobo 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

your source misses the topic. Voyevoda 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good both parties are citing sources, but try to go into more respected, international ones. For example, The Economist has recently published some nice articles on this subject: [2], [3], [4] and [5].--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

For Lysy

I reverted your edits, as you repeat the Polish point of view several times and delete important arguments, for example, that the pure abilty of switching off the pipeline gives Poland political weight, even if such is harmfull for Poland, too. Voyevoda 13:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it the same Voyevoda

From German wiki ? http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Problem_mit_Voevoda The user with the similiar name has been subject to RfC on German wiki due to his very nationalistic pro-Russian edits. --Molobo 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Some facts

The article is quite bad. However, after scrolling through the talk page, I do not dare to update it. Some remarks:

• the article misses the fact that the Yamal pipeline crosses Byelarus
• the article misses the fact that the Yamal pipeline is co-owned by Gazprom
• Brotherhood pipeline: the impact on German RWE (transport via the Czech Republic) and Slovak SPP (~25% E.ON and ~25% Gaz de France) is omitted
• even after the by-pass to Germany, Ukraine is to transit gas to Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, Italy... (completion of Nabucco is not going to change that)
• planned capacity in bcm is omitted (public information)

JanSuchy 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, It's like an old wound - seems nobody wants to touch it since March for fear of re-aggravating it. Me too. However, the points you made above look quite factual, and not related to the clash of opinions that we all had, so huopefully an update won't reopen the pandora's box that we all dread ;-) . Deuar 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes of name

As of 4 October 2006, official name of this pipeline and the operating company changed to "Nord Stream". Therefore, I will update this article and rename this article to "Nord Stream" accordingly. Although same sections of this article marked with NPOV tag, this changes are not related to the POV discussion. Therefore I will hope, that nobody will be against renaming this article. If anybody related to the following wiki projects, please update these articles:

• de:Nordeuropäische Gasleitung
• et:Põhja-Euroopa gaasijuhe
• nl:Noord-Europese Gasleiding
• pl:Gazociąg Północny
• ru:Северо-Европейский газопровод
• fi:Pohjois-Euroopan maakaasuputki

The new website of this pipeline project is http://www.nord-stream.ru/eng/, old website negp.ru is redirected.Beagel 15:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

As there are no against arguments, I am renaming this article to "Nord Stream".Beagel 16:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame

All the latest additions consist of nothing but unsubstantiated speculations by certain Polish users. They seem to forget that Wikipedia is not a Polish newspaper where all kinds of accusations against Russia will be applauded. We've just seen in the case of Ukraine that the transit blackmail is "significantly higher" than any construction costs, and why should the cost of the project bother Polish nationalists at all? I particularly object to such POV phrases as: "These claims however seem to be unsubstantiated, as the maintenance costs of underwater pipeline are significantly higher than for the land transport" and "The reasons why Germany decided to participate in the political investition remain unknown". This is so heavily POV that the only plausible motive for including this crap into the article is either to offend or to spawn revert wars. Please leave your own political insinuations for the Polish Wikipedia and stick to the facts. --Ghirla | talk 15:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the article, but the above comment is certainly not from a neutral point of view. It is written by someone who appears to have an intense dislike for a particular nationality. Deuar 16:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever my feelings towards certain nationalities, I prefer to stick to the facts and not to pump encyclopedia articles with nationalist interpretations concealed behind such phrases as "according to some...", "many commentators believe...", "these claims however seem to be unsubstantiated...". In fact, all *those* phrases do "seem to be unsubstantiated" and aimed at instigating edit wars. But after I remove such kind of desultory interpretations and original research from the article, their author habitually reverts accusing me of vandalism (see his "rvv" summary), thus starting revert wars]. If you fail to see the nastiness of such a behaviour on his part, I can't help you there.--Ghirla | talk 16:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the pendulum seems to have been swinging one way then the other, looking at the history page. Changing phrases to a more neutral tone is much better than just chopping out blocks of text like you did here --- that's inviting an edit war. Well, anyway, I guess this is why I usually hang around in completely non-controversial topics like asteroids ;-) Deuar 13:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the anti-polish rants weren't necessray, but what Ghirla says about the article is mostly right. "The reasons why Germany decided to participate in the political investition remain unknown" implys that there is some kind of secret plot behind all this, while in fact the reasons are known very well: Germany and Russia will save transit fees and they want to avoid the kind of supply problems that were triggered by the Russian-Ukranian gas-dispute.

Also sentences like these don't make sense and show the biased view of the writer: "It is claimed that despite the high investment costs, the new pipeline will eventually lead to savings on transit fees. These claims however seem to be unsubstantiated, as the maintenance costs of underwater pipeline are significantly higher than for the land transport." The new pipeline will save transit fees no matter how high the investment costs are, the two things have nothing to do with each other (transit costs before pipeline > 0; transit fees with the new pipelin = 0; => transit fees have been saved).Bowzer 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This section title could use a translation to english (presumably from Russian?). Deuar 13:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What does Pozor mean ? --Molobo 15:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"For shame" --Ghirla | talk 12:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla. The discource used in the article in many places shows certain transit country citizens are very much unhappy about the pipeline, but does not give any reliable sources behind the claims. FeelSunny (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoints

Dear all,

I do not really see the point in having endless debates concerning this issue as the pipeline is certainly and obviously constructed for economical reasons only (by constructing the pipeline, future gas transports from Russia to Western Europe will be calculable in the long run whereas over-land-convey-agreements with Poland, Ukraine, etc. would have to be re-negotiated from time to time with an unknown outcome). Is that simple economical fact (= planing reliability) so difficult to recognize? Why have there always to be a conspiracy? I recommend all Wikipedians from Eastern European countries to rather make yourselve familiar with the rational laws of capitalism instead of wasting your time on the emotional question whether the construction of the pipeline is fair or not.

Dear "unsigned",

The place where someone lives has no relevance to the validity of their comments. Your post has the appearance of nationalism, a rather embarassing topic to most wikipedians. Although clearly (sigh) it's not the only nationalist post on this talk page! While there are economical reasons for constructing the pipeline, it's not obvious that they are the only reason, or else this talk page wouldn't have grown to its present size! I suppose that the reason "conspiracy" is suspected by some is because of Russia/Soviet Union's track record with its neighbours over the previous century (say), which contains many sneaky episodes. Whether a "conspiracy" applies to the pipeline is the subject of the debate on this talk page, I suppose. Deuar 15:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Deuar,

Thank you for your comment! I have to admit that my statement is a bit polemic but could you please explain in more detail why it appears nationalistic to you? However the place where someone lives / society in which someone was brought up has at least a relevance to education/knowledge/consciousness and influences the perception of someones environment.

As for the rest of your comment, arguing, there must be more than an economical reason as the talk page is that vast, is not a helpful contribution. I have already perceived that the talk page has a suprisingly big size although there are merely economical reasons for building the pipeline. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that many people have obviously an emontional problem (feeling too angry, sad, helpless) to notice/accept that and recommended them to act a bit cooler. For example, Electrolux, a big Swedish company, closes down its AEG-factory in Nuremberg/Germany, which has produced electronical devices for more than 100 years and employes about 10,000 people, in order to shift the production to Poland as wages are much lower there. I am German and I feel sad about that fact but I am able to see that it happens for economical reasons only. However I do not want to appear like an arrogant wiseacre, so please feel free to tell me what other (real) reasons except economical ones are connected with that issue (except that chemical weapons on the sea ground may contaminate the Eastern Sea or Russia plans to take over the world).

Hi, thanks for your comments as well. I guess I see red whenever someone's origin is used as an argument on the Wikipedia. We should just stick to facts about the topic. It's like if someone wrote that all the Russians should stop pleading that decisions are made only for economic reasons. It doesn't matter if they're russian or not. It's also not accurate - e.g. you're German, whereas I've lived most of my life in Australia. Although obviously I agree that statistically where you live/come tends to have an influence. Anyway...

We've had a bit of a misunderstanding - I said that since the talk page is vast, it's not obvious that there are only economic reasons for building the pipeline. What the actual reasons are is naturally independent of any talk page. Duh! ;-)

Your Elecrolux example is actually quite interesting because it gives insight into a difference in viewpoint (statistically, of course!) between westerners and eastern europeans. In the west we naturally assume that the obvious reasons are economic, because that's the way almost all such decisions have been made in the west in living memory. This was not the case once you go east of Germany. That's why it's natural to be sceptical of the political motives -- Russian foreign policy has been/is often sneaky. On the other hand I'm sure that BASF and the other German companies involved in the project are doing so purely for economic gain. Deuar 10:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

please do not understand the following as a tit-for-tat response but:

1) What do you mean with "statistically"? If I understand you right, you agree that differences in points of view/perception may be influenced by the social/national circumstances somebody was brought up under. Obviously accepting that, could you still allege that I have posted a statement which appears to be nationalistic? By the way, I completely agree with you that from 1945 - 1989 the people from the former GDR experienced the same socialisation as, for example, the people from Poland or the Baltic States did, and I hereby expressively include them into my recommendation.

2) Don`t you think that the rather unscientific expression "sneaky" which you have now used for the second time in connection with Russia has a negative aftertaste as well (ie to link Russian political behaviour with the unobjective attribute "sneaky" appears to me a bit biased).

3) Last but not least and apart from Russia`s (undefined) "sneaky" political motives in the past, you have not answered my question yet what reasons there are except economical ones. I do not want to stop anybody from discusing that topic but I think it is a fact that there are simply no other serious reasons but a lot of violated national emotions and - well, you are right - bad experiences with Russia (and Germany) in the past.

Hello! It's nice to have a reasonable discussion on this topic! Responding to your points:

1) By "statistically" I meant as you say above. I retract "nationalistic", since I had said that under the (false) assumption that you were another incarnation of the nationalist viewpoint that appears around this article. Note the usual symptoms: reference to where someone comes from (be it Poland, Russia, whatever), and unsigned or IP address comments. Please don't take it personally! ;-)

2) I had wanted to be brief by using "sneaky", and sacrificed precision. What I mean by the expression are political moves which would be unacceptable between western countries -- in which most wikipedians reside. This is best explained by listing a few recent examples from the last two years:

a) The Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of 2005. Sure, you can raise gas prices if you wish, but among civilised countries one usually first waits until the present contract expires, gives the other party ample warning so you can both come to an agreement, and don't organise a big show of turning off the taps on TV.

b) Russia had in 1999 agreed to withdraw its troops from Transnistria in Moldavia, but they're still there. Apparently some international agreements are honored, others not.

c) In early 2006, both gas pipelines to Georgia, as well as electricity transmission lines were cut by explosions near the Russian-Georgian border (all on the same day). This was during a week or two of heated negotiations between Russia and Georgia regarding gas prices and a possible tradeoff consisting of selling off Georgian pipelines to Gazprom. Russian officials made the unlikely yet predictable claim that it was Chechen terrorists. However, what interest would they have in doing harm to Georgia.

d)Russia continues to withhold huge numbers of documents documents relating to the Katyn massacre of about 20,000 Polish officers by Soviet forces in late 1939. This is old history. Can you imagine Germany behaving in a similar fashion? I can't. Turkey and their stance regarding the Armenian genocide is comparable, but that's hardly a recommendation.

e) Lastly, a rather trivial example of political goading, which was widely related in Polsih media in late 2005. In Warsaw, three children of Russian embassy staff were assaulted by some thugs and had their mobile phones stolen. This turned out to be a big media story in Russia, to the point that Poland was accused of promoting the beating up of russians, and at one stage was formally asked to make a diplomatic apology! Well, ok, whatever. Now a couple of days later, Polish embassy staff were assaulted by (unidentified) thugs in Moscow. Funnily enough, the people beaten up were of exactly the same diplomatic rank as the parents of those teenagers in Warsaw. Note that no other Russian or Polish embassy staff had been assaulted in Warsaw or Moscow in recent years. Funny coincidence?

Many more examples could be added, and I have purposely left out all the truly criminal behaviour from WWII and Soviet times, which is obviously well remembered in Eastern Europe. Now for most of the examples i've given above, you could argue that any particular one might be the result of a coincidence. E.g. the timing of the Ukraine-Russia gas dispute as compared to the so-called Orange revolution. However, given so many incidents it is extremely likely that most are orchestrated. Particularly if you have a country like Russia where individual political initiative is supressed, and few make political moves without first checking with the "Kremlin".

3) Well, personally I suspect that the No.1 reason for the building of the pipeline was economical, and there was much over-reaction in places like Poland. Part of the reason for this (at least in Poland) was that in the year or so beforehand there was a creeping political scandal over unfavourable gas contracts which had been signed by the government of the time. It is of relevenace that this was a government composed of parties with a post-communist heritage. Having said that, it's pretty likely that such a reaction was also considered a "side benefit" by political circles in Russia, as it appears to be their policy under President Putin's administration to goad their smaller neighbours. However, I'm sure they would never spend billions of dollars for something like that, though. That would be just stupid.

As an aside, I don't think that Germany is regarded with suspicion by anyone in Eastern Europe (well, apart from some marginal fanatics, anyway). This because over the last two generations Germany has been exemplary at playing fair internationally.

This is all very interesting, but it does not explain why exactly the Ukrainian market should have lower imported gas prices than Russian domestic prices are. Do you know, dear Deuar, that Ukraine gets the cheapest gas in Europe? Can you name one reason why Ukraine should have the 70% discount from what EU countries pay? FeelSunny (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

Article only consentrates on one political side ignoring the rest of the issue which is that it is in natural interest of RU to avoid being dependent of foreign govs (RU/PL) in its energy exports. I have no time to write it all at once. POV for now. --Irpen 15:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't is obvious that the only reason why Russia could not cut off gas to Ukraine in the last days was that the same pipe was used for transfer to orther countries ? If the Baltic pipeline existed in 2005, nothing would stop Russia to blackmail Ukraine, as the supplies for other countries could bypass Ukraine through Germany. You are right that it is Russia's natural interest to have this opportunity, but there's no reason no to have this mentioned in the article. --Lysy ^(talk) 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's already mentioned : The pipeline is seen as a political move by Russia to bypass such transit countries as Ukraine and Poland and bring its natural gas directly to Germany --Molobo 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the Lysy's statement, it is as well within RU natural interest not to be in a position to be "blackmailed" by UA/PL. This is economics and geopolitics at the same time and the desire of RU to have alternative ways to sell its product is sensible while fairness by ALL sides in trade disputes is of course desirable too. The article needs to elaborate on that issue too. I am capable to do it but I have no time right now. In the current shape the article is one-sided, hence tagged. --Irpen 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the Lysy's statement, it is as well within RU natural interest not to be in a position to be "blackmailed" by UA/PL. Sorry but those countries are dependent on Russian oil and gas supplies, so it is Russia that is able to blackmail them.And as seen in current events does so. This is economics and geopolitics at the same time and the desire of RU to have alternative ways to sell its product Russia is in excellent position to sell resources it possesess to China and Japan. --Molobo 16:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

This is quite simple: A can not blackmail B selling something B can purchase from C. If Ukraine find itself blackmailed by Russia over 140$ gas price, it's free to buy 450$ gas from Middle east or Europe. Russia is actually subsidizing Ukraine's economics since the early 90ies. Russians have more expencive gaz at home than Ukrainian citizens, and this is wrong. At the same time, Ukraine may well blackmail Russia, if the latter does not find alternative routes to transport gas to Europe. Europe itself is not dependent on Russian supplies to the extent of Ukraine because europe is ready to buy oil and gas at market price, and has enough suppliers because of that.FeelSunny (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Russia is in excellent position to sell resources it possesess to China and Japan. And it will - they are building pipelines to east Asia right now.FeelSunny (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How to develop this article?

Dear all,

I would like to discuss some issues related to this article. First of all, the POV discussions. The first POV tag was inserted to the "Controversy" section quite a long time ago. After that, the content of this section has stayed quite stable, so I propose to remove the POV tag. However, this section needs clean-up and probably some rewriting to qualify for wiki standards. For example, Lysy added example of Grupa LOTOS. I see the point, however, to the topic of this article this information is irrelevant as oil platforms and pipelines have different (possible) environmental impacts.

Second POV was tagged to the "German political scandal" by Ghirlandajo after edits concerning Warnig and Putin relations. These edits could be or could be not relevant, but this is a sure that these statements are lacking correct citation. Also, I am not sure, if this article is a right place for these statements: maybe it has to be added to the article about Matthias Warnig or to start a new article about possible relations of Warnig and Putin. Maybe Ghirlandajo could suggest how to change this section to more neutral and acceptable?

My third remarks concerns the "Economic rationale" section. Right now this very short section sounds like pro-pipeline statement. I think that this section needs more figures (amount of possible transit fees, cost differences of construction and maintnance of offshore and onshore pipelines etc). Otherwise it could be more correct to move this information to "Controversy" section as one of pro-pipeline statements.

Any suggestions or comments? Beagel 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently, the article contains unsubstantiated allegations of criminal abuse and collusion aimed at high-ranking active officials. Such allegations have previously brought Wikipedia into disrepute. The last section is particularly suspicious, because there is no evidence that these allegations have been published by reliable sources. I deplore attempts to turn the article into a tool for spreading propaganda. Another problem is undue weight accorded to Swedish reaction. Sweden is not party to the project, therefore whines and hysterics of some petty regional politicians, playing their election games, are neither notable nor relevant. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Talking about Putin and Warnig relations, I think these allegations were published originally by The Wall Street Journal and after that re-published by several others, e.g. MosNews. I don't knew if this source is reliable or not. However, I don't care to add a reference to this source as I am not sure if this article is a right place for this information. Therefore, if nobody against, I would like to suggest to delete the information concerning relations between Putin and Warnig, or move it to the article about Matthias Warnig. Concerning the Swedish reaction, I am agree that this should be presented more summarized way. However, I can't agree, that this reaction is not relevant. Sweden is not party of the project, but the pipeline will run through the Swedish economic zone. According to the Espoo Convention Sweden is a party of origin (of environmental impact) and therefore their reaction on environmental issues is absolutely relevant. Concerning your comment about Swedish prime minister, I don't think this is acceptable for Wikipedia, even at the discussion page. Beagel 16:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to rewrite the "Controversy" section to remove POV. However, I am not sure if I succeeded. Therefore, before changing text at the main page, I put it here for discussion. If you feel that there are still POV issues, please make your edits. For this time, I edited only "Controversy" section (also information from the "Economic rationale" section is moved here) and not the "German political scandal" section.

"The pipeline has drawn criticism internationally, most strongly from Poland, Sweden, the Baltic countries, the United States and some environmental organizations (e.g. WWF).

Political aspects

The pipeline is seen as a political move by Russia to bypass transit countries (currently Ukraine, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Belarus, Poland). Some transit countries are concerned that a long term plan of the Kremlin is to attempt exerting political influence on them by threatening their gas supply, similarly to the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute in January 2006. The risk of compromising gas supplies to Western Europe is considered an offset to such a threat, but upon completion of the Nord Stream this offset will be significantly lessened.

Also the dependence upon any single gas supplier has been considered undesirable across Europe, and the new pipeline is seen as a factor in further increasing Europe's dependence on Russian gas.

More political concerns raised while Russian president Putin stated that the ecological safety of the pipeline project will be ensured by using the Baltic Fleet of Russian Navy.

The Russian response has been that the pipeline will increase Europe’s energy security, and the criticism is caused by bitterness about the loss of potential transit revenues and political influence. According to the Gazprom, the direct connection to Germany will decrease risks in the gas transit zones, including political risk of cutting Russian gas exports to Western Europe.

Economical aspects

Russian and German officials claim that the new pipeline will eventually lead to economic savings despite the high investment cost. The reason are non-existing transit fees, as transit countries will be bypassed. Some observers speak of one billion dollars annually which will be lost by Poland. However, some doubts have been raised, whether any savings will be gained because the maintenance costs of a submarine pipeline are significantly higher than for an overland route.

Environmental aspects

Environmental concerns have also been raised that the construction of the pipeline may disturb the seabed and dislodge toxic materials including chemical munitions dumped to the Baltic Sea after World War II, mines and other things on the bottom which the Baltic could not cope with since it is a particularly sensitive sea. The impact on bird and marine life in the Baltic Sea is also a concern.

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) asked the Contracting Parties to the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) to safeguard the Baltic marine habitats which could be altered by the implementation of Nord Stream project.

Russian officials call these concerns far-fetched and politically motivated by the opponents of the project, pointing at the argument that during the construction the seafloor will be cleaned, rather than endangered.

All these environmental concerns would be considered in the process of environmental impact assessment."

Beagel 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As there was no responses, I changed the "Controversy" section at the main page.Beagel 19:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence about "chemical munitions dumped to the Baltic Sea after World War II" ends with reference to an article about "chemical weapons that were deserted during World War I and World War II". No person or organization who expressed this statement is given. Unless some reliable source is found for the chemical weapons claim, I suggest to delete it. JanSuchy 23:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Main institution dealing with dumped chemical munitation at the Baltic Sea is HELCOM. In think that their "Final Report of the ad hoc Working Group on Dumped Chemical Munition (HELCOM CHEMU) to the 16th Meeting of the Helsinki Commission (March 1995)" is reliable source that there is chemical munitations dumped at the Baltic during and after World War II. The risk of chemical nunitation regarding Nord Stream is menitoned for example by WWF [6] and Greenpeace representative Ivan Blokov. [7] HELCOM report says that there is no evidence that chemical munitation was dumped after 1947, but there are dumped some other chemical wastes, e.g. mercury and PCBs. [8] According to HELCOM expert Juhu-Markku Leppänen says that pipeline construction presents risks as it stirs-up seabed. Do you think these sources are acceptable?

Hi Beagel, these sources are definitely acceptable. I suggest to remove the citaton of MosNews website at the end of the chemical weapons sentence (too vague) and put there citation of the above mentioned pdf instead. JanSuchy 09:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine for me. I will change this citationBeagel 11:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

German political scandal

To remove POV issues in this section, I would like to propose cleaned-up text for this section. Before changing at the main page, I would like to ask your comments and proposals.

"The former Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schröder and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, were strong advocates of the pipeline project during the negotiation phase. The agreement to build the pipeline was signed two weeks before the German parliamentary election. On 24 October 2005, just a few weeks before Schröder stepped down as a Chancellor, the German government guaranteed a credit of 1 billion euros for the Nord Stream pipeline project. Soon after leaving the post of Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schröder agreed to head the shareholders’ committee of the Nord Stream AG, the consortium which is to build the pipeline.

This has been widely decried by German and international media as a scandalous conflict of interest . The accusation being that the pipeline project may have been pushed through for personal gain rather than for improving gas supplies to Germany. Information about the German government's guarantee was requested by the European Commission.

International media made also allutions to the past relations of the Managing Director of Nord Stream AG Matthias Warnig and the Russian President Vladimir Putin."

Controversy section

Voyevoda, please don't start again edit war over this article. Heading of this section (Controversy) says itself there are different arguments, views and opinions on this project. Right now the article reflected both side arguments. Nobody says if they are true or not. If there will be any savings or what are the maintnance costs, knews nobody outside of Nord Stream AG. So, we have only pro and against claims of different interest groups (considering also Nord Stream AG as one interest group). Deleting one side arguments is actualy POV pushing. So, if you have any reliable information to add, please go one, but please don't make POV deletions and insertions. Beagel 17:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Beagel if you disagree with my statements please lets discuss it here first before undoing it. Especially if you planning to restore grammatically incorrect text. If you believe that any of statements need references I will gladly provide you with it. Hifisoftware 21:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly discussions

I went though (mostly old) comments on this page and I think that most people make a mistake of assuming that Russia is obligated (morally politically or in any other way) to sell energy resources to other countries. It is not. I also want to address a particular case of Poland. Russia is definitely free to stop selling it's energy to Poland. Poland has it's own allies and has to rely on them (and itself) for energy supplies. If Poland believes that Russia is it's ally and convinces Russian government of this fact, then I am sure that Russia will continue supporting it's ally. The only way that this pipeline gets into the picture is if Poland decides to blackmail Russia to demand energy sales. The thrust of most discussions here seems to imply quite opposite. There is no way that Russia can blackmail Poland by using this pipeline. This pipeline will insure that both countries can be truly independent. I am glad that Russia is independent and soviet rulers are not forcing it to sell it's energy to everybody at throw-away prices. I am sure that most Poles are also glad that Poland is free and independent. This pipeline will insure that both countries will only straighten their independence and hopefully improve ties between two Slavic countries. Once this pipeline is working Russia will not be able to force Poland to sell anything that Poland does not want to sell and at the same time Poland will not be able to force Russia to sell anything that Russia does not want to sell. This is a much better conditions. Then countries can rely on normal discussions without resorting to blackmails. Hifisoftware 18:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"increasing energy insecurity of central Europe."

I removed this phrase to start discussion here. Let discuss it here and come-up with some common understanding. I will not object if add it back while we discuss it. This sounds like an opinion. There is nothing in the article or in the discussion page to explain why one would come-up with such an opinion... The beginning off the sentence is talking about increasing security of Russian gas supplies to western Europe. This is a fact and is supported by references. (Let me know if you disagree and I will elaborate, but it sounds like very much like common sense to me) But I can't understand what kind of "energy" will be insecure when this pipeline becomes operational? It can't be Russian gas unless one is willing to admit that countries are considering stopping of gas transit in order to extort some gas for themselves from Russia. I agree that the opportunity to blackmail Russia and Western Europe will be significantly diminished in that case. But if that’s the implied argument here, then let be frank and explain that by "energy insecurity" we really mean that "central Europe’s" countries will not longer be able to extort gas from Russia. If we are talking about some other form of energy then I do not believe that it will have any impact at all. The person who originally added this phrase, seem to be thinking of Poland (just my guess here). I do not know which is predominant form of energy that Poland has, but let’s say its wood. In that case Poland will still be able to cut wood down and use the energy that is contained in the wood. This pipeline can not stop this process at all. It also can’t have any impact on hydro, bio-ethanol, solar, wind, waves, fission or fusion or any other power. This statement seem to be completely unsubstantiated, do you agree? Hifisoftware 18:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"Political aspects" is a subsection of the section named "Controversy". This sections doesn't deal with the TRUE (it's not up to Wikipedians to say, what is the true), but presents different opinions according to WP:NPOV (The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions). Most important pro and against arguments expressed about different aspects of this pipeline have collected exactly to this sections. Argument that the pipeline increases energy insecurity of Central Europe has been expressed by some opponents, and as such it should be mentioned, notwithstanding what you or I think about this. Therefore I will restore this statement.Beagel 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought this is pretty obvious. Should we belabour that "energy security" refers only to natural gas, since it's a gas (not wood) pipeline. Deuar 11:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not explained why you think this is a valid opinion? I asked what is meant by this phrase? I agree absolutely that this opinion might have the right to be there if somebody can explain what it means. In current form it does not explain why anyone would have such an opinion. What energy are they talking about? How exactly will it be insecure? You have to understand that the purpose of explaining different points of view is that so that other people can better understand different issues and make up their own mind. I am glad that somebody expressed that opinion. As millions of other people on wikipedia we are here to understand different points of view, but they must be explained. I am not asking for a full page on this topic. A sentence of few will do. I will not mind if somebody will post say an opinion that Earth is flat, but I will also ask that this person explain itself in that case. A statement without any explanation is not an opinion.

Let's compromise I will explain (precisely) why this pipeline will increase energy security and you will expand on why it might not.

Once more, it's not about what I think or how I explain this. Wikipedia is not about yours or mines explanations and opinions. Important thing is if this statement have been made and the arguments should be mentioned even if no explanation is given. But if you ask explanation, it was given previously by several sources. If Russia will decrease gas supply to transit countries (Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic) now, it may have negative influence also to Germany and other Western countries. Transit countries see this as a guarantee that Russi will not use energy supply as a political leverage. After commissioning of Nord Stream it will be possible to cut off transit countries without compromising gas supply to Western Europe. Central European countries see this as increase of their energy insecurity. This is how this has been explained. Beagel 19:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. It definitely needs to be explained. Say if I put an opinion that "Nord Stream pipeline will stop global warming" would you just accept it, or ask for explanation? Everybody will definitely ask for explanation. I am glad that you put one here. I will adopt it to put something in the text. What you wrote is actually already very good, but "negative influence" (you probably really meant consequence, as influence is always there) phrase needs to be clarified. Since we are familiar with this topic we all know that this means that countries in your list can blackmail Russia to force it to continue energy supplies. But other people reading about controversies in this article this will not be as obvious (they will wonder what exactly does it mean "negative consequences"?), so I will just state what we mean more clearly.

Oh no, this can of worms has been opened, again. In a nutshell, the root of all this "controversy" is that both sides of the argument that I am familiar with (Russia / Poland-Baltics), have been basically assuming bad faith on the other side. Russians apparently worry that Poland will try to cut off gas supplies to their western neighbours, while Poles worry that Russia will cut off their supply or charge exorbitatnt prices when the Nord Stream pipeline is completed. "Increasing energy security of western europe" apparently assumes their gas is at risk from unruly transit countries, while "decreasing energy security of central europe" assumes risk to central european supplies from an unruly supplier country.

However, I think we should keep the "controversy" section along the lines of X said "blah" and Y said "blahblah". As soon as we start interpreting, pages of the same old arguments get produced on the talk page.

By the way, what I'd love to know is how this is viewed in the intermediate countries of Belarus and Ukraine. These are the countries who have actually been touched seriously by the gas dispute (gas cut off, higher prices), and have possibly tried to blackmail (by cutting off transit). Deuar 11:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that now its more clear and more NPOV. Both side (supporters and opponents) arguments are presented.Beagel 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's better after your recent edits. Deuar 18:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Map

The article needs better map. The current map has following disadvantages:

1. The onshore pipeline in Russia is not officially a part of the project. I agree that it should be good idea to show this pipeline on the same map, but in this case it should be the whole pipeline. Same applies to the onsore pipelines (NEL and OPAL) in Germany.
2. In the Gulf of Finland, the pipeline will be laid mainly in the middle of the Gulf, not on the Finnish shore. Right now the line marking the pipeline covers partly even Finnish onshore territory.
3. The pipeline will be laid east of Gotland, not over the Gotland island as suggested by the current map.
4. Same as the previous point applies also to Bornholm. The pipeline will have a S-curve in east-south of Bornholm and will not run over Bornholm.

The best map to use is this, however, it is not for the free usage. Beagel (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no copyright expert, but if you look at the details page of th image [9], it acctually says "Photo may be used to accompany reports on Nord Stream provided the source is mentioned. Resale to third parties is prohibited". Dosen't that mean that we can use it? The Illusional Ministry (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd also interpret it this way. Though I am wondering which license category it may best fit. Someone could ask at WP:MCQ SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! I will do it right now.The Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Gazpr's edits

I think User:Gazpr's are very tendentious. For example, he renamed the chapter "Political aspects" to "Russian leverage." Furthermore, he states Robert Larsson's opinion about using gas as a political weapon as a fact, rather than attributing it. Almost all of Gazpr's edits in WP are similar, probably in breach of WP:ADVOCACY. Offliner (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations deleted by Offliner

Offliner deletes concerns about transparency and a number of studies, including references to Robert L. Larsson's much cited study of incidents since 1991 (Russia's Energy Policy: Dimensions and Russia's Reliability as an Energy Supplier). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazpr (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You can add Larsson's opinion back in, but please attribute it properly. For example: "Larsson claims that ..." Also, try to remember WP:NPOV when you're editing. Wikipedia should not be used for WP:ADVOCACY. Offliner (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thinking this over, why is Larsson's opinion relevant to Nord Stream (that is what this article is about)? The long quote you inserted definitely has no place here since it's not specifically about Nord Stream. Can you also demonstrate why Larsson's opinion is so important. Many authors have commented on the issue, why is Larsson more notable than the others?

You also need to attribute this: "European dependence on Russian energy is already heavy and the pipeline expands dependence" -- who said this? And the "see also" section is ment for links that are not present in the article. I understand that you want to advertise your newly created advocacy article, but one link in article text is enough. Offliner (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the Larsson quote because it is entirely unrelated to Nord Stream (unlike the first study by Larsson that is cited). It may be relevant at European dependence on Russian energy though. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sweden approves of plans

Sweden became the second country to grant final approval for OAO Gazprom’s Nord Stream AG natural- gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea, ending almost two years of Swedish opposition and wrangling over the energy project.[10] LokiiT (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Legs

The article repeatedly refers to there being two parallel "legs" to the line. However, in projects such as this, "legs" connect to one another. It appears that this project consists of two parallel lines, one to be built after, but next to, the other. Thus a better, more accurate term than "legs" should be used, although "lines" is only a little better. Any pipeline gurus have a better suggestion? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Section on Polish terminal lacks sources

There is only one source present in this section, and it is a blog of a (presumably) Polish author. Probably someone could add some reliable sources to the section? So far, the section well satisfies criteria for an OR (providing many OR details, e.g. exact depth numbers) and does not meet the requirements of Verifiability. FeelSunny (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It is yet another Robert Amsterdam blog; he is a reliable source on nothing more than claims relating to his jailed clients. His advocacy on other issues does not make him a reliable source, unless you are LaRussophobe ;) There would have to be other sources out there which this information can be sourced to, and which are reliable sources as far as WP:RS goes. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Langeled pipeline

Length of the Langeled pipeline is 1,166 km, length of the Nord Stream pipeline is 1.222 km. This is the length of the route, not two pipes together. Therefore, I restore the version before user:Corella edits. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Pipeline route in relation to Bornholm

[11] states that the pipeline is north of Bornholm. The image here and the image on the official website shows it going south of the island. Which is it? --79.240.198.7 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

South of Bornholm. The north of Bornholm route was considered; however, due to several implications, the final route was agreed to be so-called S-route south of Bornholm. The relevant press release is here. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

General direction: east–west–south

In the info box it says, "General direction: east–west–south". What does this mean, and what kind of standard is being used here?

(When I was a boy scout, long long ago, I was taught to call this direction "east-southeast". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_the_compass ) RenniePet (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Standard is from where to where. The pipeline runs first ca 360 kilometers generally to west before turning to south. to southwest direction it runs only last 100 km or so. It is not correct to say that the general direction of the whole pipeline is to southwest because in this case it should be partly onshore pipeline via Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Beagel (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Technical Advisor

My edits identifying Shaw Consultants International as Technical Advisor to Nord Stream have been reverted - why is this so? I work for Shaw Consultants International and can prove that we have a signed mandate as such.

Saileshrp (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide references for this claim per WP:RS. As an employee of Shaw, you have also conflict of interest and therefore, please be aware of WP:COI. Beagel (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because I found it irrelevant and out-of-context. Please see WP:SPAM in addition to above. --hydrox (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nord Stream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090326133536/http://www.nord-stream.com/uploads/media/minist_3.pdf to http://www.nord-stream.com/uploads/media/minist_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100312105232/http://www.nord-stream.com:80/en/press0/press-releases-special/wreck-survey.html to http://www.nord-stream.com/en/press0/press-releases-special/wreck-survey.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nord Stream. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110714194526/http://www.nord-stream.com/en/press0/coverage/spotlight-detail/article/matthias-warnig-in-russia-you-need-a-lot-of-patience.html?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=38&cHash=cd131fed53 to http://www.nord-stream.com/en/press0/coverage/spotlight-detail/article/matthias-warnig-in-russia-you-need-a-lot-of-patience.html?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=38&cHash=cd131fed53

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Video?

Dmitry Medvedev

Why is this video in the article? I mean it is of absolutely no use unless you speak Russian: it's just five minutes of someone talking. It would be more useful to have the transcription in the article (at least that could be machine translated), except that would be tagged as needing translation (e.g. using {{Not English}} and translated or removed. Anyone wanting to know what Russia's president looks like can follow the link which appears in the article. It's very oddly placed too, well below the main content, as if it's not meant to be noticed or viewed. Any objection to removing it?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No replies so I assume no objections so I've removed it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

He is no longer President, this Medvedev. Recent Russian video uploads tend to get English subtitles - in case there is an interest.

Germany has always supported Russia (Soviet Union) to some degree because they did not want refugee waves coming. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:CD43:D6F9:C250:6512 (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Nord Stream 1 - evidence

There are two editors that inserted text regarding a "Nord Stream 1" today [12]. Where is the evidence for a "Nord Stream 1"? 78.55.6.144 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The original Nord Stream and its expansion Nord Stream 2 is the same pipeline system with almost identical route. It is better to keep it all in single article instead of duplicating a large part of information by the separate article. At least, the split needs a proper discussion and at the moment there is no consensus for this.

The name "Nord Stream 1" is not an official name but after announcement of the name "Nord Stream 2", that name is used quite often for clarity, e.g. here, here, here, here, just to give some examples. Beagel (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you. 78.55.6.144 (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Direction - evidence

User:Plandu "|direction = east–west–south" - where is the evidence? If I look on a map, it starts either in southwest and goes to northeast, or starts in northeast and runs to southwest. 78.55.6.144 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

In the Gulf of Finland, it is in general east–west and it turns to south in the Swedish EEZ. And it is built as monodirectional from Russia to Germany, no reverse direction is possible. Beagel (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Mixing two systems of how to state the directions isn't wise, is it? Yes, it is east-west, or west-east in the Finish section, but then it is north-south or south-north in the Swedish. It is not "east-west" in FI and "south" in SE. 78.55.6.144 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Legal aspect - fake

"Some argue that the Nord Stream project violates the provisions of the European Union's Third Energy Package law" - the given source refers to Nord Stream 2. 78.55.6.144 (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That correct. There was no consensus to to split articles, so please stop it and discuss before continuing with your actions. Beagel (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Nord Stream 2

Shouldn't this article at least mention this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a separate section Nord Stream#Expansion project. Beagel (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a separate project, owned and operated by a separate company. 78.55.6.144 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Separate company for the legal purposes but with the same management. Both projects controlled by Gazprom, in 90% have the same route and have the same technical capacities. Not enough reason to separate this information and to duplicate a lot of information from here. Beagel (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Capacity information changed 2019-12-21

User:Mzajac edited the page [13], with summary "/not “each”/". His claim sits in the context of NS and NS2,

"A second system, named Nord Stream 2 consists of two lines running from Ust-Luga to Greifswald, and is owned and will be operated by Nord Stream 2 AG, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gazprom.[3][4] The two pipelines have a total annual capacity of 55 billion cubic metres (1.9 trillion cubic feet).[5] Both projects have been opposed by the United States as well as several Central and Eastern European countries because of concerns that it would increase Russia's influence in the region."

78.55.6.144 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Plandu did it too [14] 78.55.6.144 (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually my “claim” sat in the context of the cited source and the two pipelines of NS1 only. The intro is still not clearly written and fully sourced. —Michael Z. 2019-12-22 17:13 z

Lead does not need all references if the information is cited in the body text. However, I add extra sources for clarification. Beagel (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible split of Nord Stream 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No support for splitting. Discussion ran for four months (non-admin closure). Pudeo (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

---

IP user has suggested split of information about Nord Stream 2 into separate article named Nord Stream 2. There are several cons and pros to do this.

Arguments to split:

• It is officially a separate project with a separate project company.
• Separate articles help to avoid confusion between Nord Stream (Nord Stream 1) and Nord Stream 2.
• This article is quite large which makes split reasonable.

Arguments to keep all information together here under name Nord Stream.

• Although legally a separate project, Nord Stream 2 is an expansion of the existing Nord Stream pipeline. Both projects are controlled by Gazprom. Both project companies are registered to the same address with the same management. Most of the Nord Stream 2 route follows the route of Nord Stream. Both pipelines have similar technical characteristics, e.g. capacity.
• Keeping information about Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 together gives for readers better background and context.

At the moment there are separate articles in ru, uk and he wikies, while all others, notably in de wiki it is kept together. IP editor made a split but it was don improperly (without discussion, not all relevant information was split. Therefore, the Nord Stream 2 article was reverted to redirect here until consensus for the split is established.

Discussion

• Oppose. Although legally separate project, Nord Stream 2 is an expansion of the existing project and as such, readers will get better background and context if all information is kept together. Beagel (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose A split would be duplicative, it's the second phase of the same system. Reywas92^Talk 08:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In what state does the natural gas travel through the pipeline ?

Gaseous ? Liquefied ? How is it propelled ? How does it work ? —Jerome Potts (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It is gaseous, of course, propelled by compressor. Beagel (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The number of compressor stations in the infobox cannot be right

1 for North Stream, 1 for North Stream 2, when apparently "Natural gas, while being transported through a gas pipeline, needs to be periodically pressurized at intervals of 64 to 161 km", according to the Compressor station article. —Jerome Potts (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It is right per a number of reliable sources. You have to take into account the outside pressure of subsea pipelines which allows to apply much higher pressure inside of the pipeline and therefore increase the distance of gas movement. Second, the statement you refer is incorrect. The source of that statement says that "compressor stations, usually placed at 40 to 100 mile intervals along the pipeline." That means that's a usual practice, not technical limitation. Moreover, that source specifically talks about American interstate onshore pipelines. Beagel (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Renewed scrutiny regarding Navalny

There should be an entry in the controversy section reflecting recent calls for the NS2 project to be canceled in light of the Navalny poisoning https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/world/europe/navalny-poisoning-merkel-nord-stream.html https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/muetzenich-ueber-nord-stream-2-wir-haben-keine-energiepolitisch-weisse-weste-16937734.html. WhatWouldKantDo (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Biased

This article is too bias. Conspiracy theories about why the US was opposed to it, which if such things were said about the Keystone Pipeline would have been called conspiracy theories. This pipeline should not have been built. It is a danger to the enviorment and it gives Vladimir Putin more power. There is way too much of a WP:PILEON with criticizing the US for dare trying to stop this from being built. A few criticisms of the US sanctions is enough, you pile on and on. YOU NEVER PRESENT ANY VOICES THAT SAY WHY THE US IS RIGHT TO WANT TO SANCTION THE PIPELINE. This article is not neutral. Varousz (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please make your proposals how to improve this article. Beagel (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sentence giving current status of Nord Stream 2 needed in lead

Could someone in the know add a sentence in the lead that says something like {{As of|September 2021}}, pipe-laying is complete and integration testing begun; Gazprom anticipates live transmission will begin in xyz 202n Is that doable? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"Nord Stream" occasionally refers to a wider pipeline network

"The name "Nord Stream" occasionally refers to a wider pipeline network, including the feeding onshore pipeline in Russia, and further connections in Western Europe." - Any sources? I would remove this. 78.55.105.174 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Streamlining

Most of the content regarding NS1 is related to events that took place before any of the events that are source for facts about NS2. If one reads the article from start to end, one jumps in time - except for the section Controversies, where the sections didn't match well and at first all information for NS1 is presented followed by the information related to NS2.

Are there any other examples of articles that mix two pipelines or other physical structures in one article in such a way?

How are other Wikipedias doing it? Here are four that have two larger sections, one for NS1 one for NS1:

Nord Stream 1	Nord Stream 2
de:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 1	de:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 2
fr:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 1	fr:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 2
es:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 1	es:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 2
cs:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 1	cs:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 2
nl:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 1 (NS 1)	nl:Nord Stream#Nord Stream 2 (NS 2)

I did't find another doing it like enwiki. For enwiki one cannot link to one section about one of the two pipelines that contains all information about that pipeline and no content about the other. 78.55.105.174 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Although legally a separate project, Nord Stream 2 is an expansion of the earlier Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Both projects are controlled by Gazprom. Both project companies are registered to the same address with the same management. Most of the Nord Stream 2 route follows the route of Nord Stream. Both pipelines have similar technical characteristics, e.g. capacity. Keeping information about Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 together gives for readers better background and context. Beagel (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not an answer to question 1. Additionally most of the content on the page is about things that are different, some random properties that have similar values don't change that.

Re "Keeping information about Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 together" - what does that refer to? Does it mean that frwiki, dewiki, cswiki don't do that, since they are given as examples regarding question 2. 77.11.64.143 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Nord Stream 2 Clarification

Hi, there is a phrase in the Sanctions section, "After condemning the use of the filibuster as racist, Democrats filibustered the bill." That doesn't makes since unless it's a typo. Was that meant to read "...after condemning the use of sanctions as racist ..."? Even that seems strange, since targeting Russians isn't viewed as being racist. I don't know what this was supposed to read. Can someone fix? Thanks! --TriTertButoxy (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Image for Nord Stream 2

The image for the Nord Stream 2 needs to be in English or translated. Lena Key (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Splitting Nord Stream 2

Reywas92, Beagel and Pudeo, I boldly split Nord Stream 2 from this page as it has received a lot of attention in context of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. A lot has happened since the last split discussion [15] making Nord Stream 2 distinct enough for a standalone page. Pious Brother (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

You did not split the page though.... The History and Construction sections of the new article duplicate the first several lines of Nord_Stream#Nord_Stream_2. The text of the Route section duplicates part of Nord_Stream#Baltic_Sea_offshore_pipeline. The Political controversy section duplicates parts of Nord_Stream#Political_aspects_2 and Nord_Stream#Sanctions. So what did this accomplish? Maybe a separate page is reasonable, but you have to do it correctly, and I see no issue with the preexisting state of the article. The additional attention fits fine in the main page, and if it's not actually going to be operated, I see even less of a need for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 03:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it needs a lot of work. There are hundreds of new sources on the subject. Pious Brother (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd think it's better to improve this article with the new sources, and then split off sections, leaving behind appropriate summary style. Two pages with substantial overlap or even intermixed organization isn't good. Reywas92^Talk 04:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Map of NS2

We use File:Russian Gas Pipelines NS to Europe.svg, which is in Russian and doesn't seem to indicate it's about NS2 but it's about NS1? The map is also not present in Nord Stream 2. Granted, they seem to be partially parallel, but can we have a better map for NS2? And in English? Ping User:Андрей Перцев , User:Confuciou and User:Flying Saucer who worked on those maps in the past. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Coordinates for "Nord Stream" ("Nord Stream 1")

Btw, In "Nord Stream" (Nord Stream 1) Wikipedia article, the Russian-side coordinates are totally wrong. They are not gas compression facilities for gas pipe but just something other port facilities maybe the gas liquefaction facilities, as you noticed, it connected with pipe to the port pier. The correct gas pumping facility are in coordinates <<60.556113, 28.065470>>, that is 3-4 km north-west from port facility.

The coordinates of facilitty of the pipeline in German side are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:818F:5980:4811:76A7:5E82:C302 (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Repetitious text in Controversy section within Nord 1 and 2 pipeline subsections

Issues common to Nord 1 and Nord 2, such as energy security or defunding Ukraine are needlessly repeated in both subsections. A better approach would be to discuss the common issues above those subsections, and restrict the subsections to issues unique to 1 or 2. It is a daunting task but I would be willing to lend a hand if there was a general sense that this would benefit the quality of the article. 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC) J JMesserly (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

What does "opening mere hours later" mean?

This edit inserted the phrase "with Baltic Pipe opening mere hours later". What does this even mean? It sounds very coincidental/significant but nothing in the linked article to Baltic Pipe tells us of this "opening" that happened "mere hours later", let alone with the possible significance of this might be. Jim Bowery (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Do not delete such information from the article. 2A00:1370:8184:6AD9:4ADE:DAED:3BEE:1FA2 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2022-10-04 to Nord Stream 1

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. It's a snowy day in autumn. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Nord Stream → Nord Stream 1 – The content about the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has been split out, the article is now only about the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Make this obvious in the article title, avoid WP:SURPRISE 89.14.202.21 (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Nord Stream 1 is the WP:COMMONNAME for the first double-pipeline to better distinguish it from Nord Stream 2 and the collection of both. 89.14.202.21 (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom, and make DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Support with a DAB at Nord Stream that can also include the 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks. Gusfriend (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support, as that helps untangle the first and second pipelines from the overall project. Betterkeks (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Support, common sense. 109.252.168.16 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support, would help clear up any confusion Fbrh47 (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.