Poland’s newprimeminister,DonaldTusk, travelled toMoscow in February to argue for a land-route alternative to Russia’s proposed Nord Stream offshore gas pipeline, a 1,200- kilometre direct seabed link from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea.

Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland— major transport links for Russian gas—worry that theNord Stream link increases their vulnerability to being cut off from Russian supplies, while Sweden and Finland are concerned about possible environmental impact.

Russia is eager to further boost its export share to Europe, but would also like to bypass as many transit countries as possible. While the Nord Stream option allows for such bypassing, Russia still awaits permission to transport beneath international waters. The Nord Stream option is also expensive. “

The land pipeline may cost about USD 3 billion. So why pay USD 12 billion if you can pay four times less?” Jerzy Rutkowski, secretary for economic issues at the Polish Embassy inMoscow, told Reuters.

The strongest objection to Poland’s ‘Amber route’ scheme comes from Gazprom, the Russian gas export monopoly. Gazprom, which not only supplies 25 percent of Europe’s gas but is majority owner of Nord Stream, alleges that Amber advocates are only out to collect transit fees.

Claiming that an undersea pipeline would cost 15 percent less to operate than an onshore pipeline in 25 years’ time, Nord Stream spokeswoman Irina Vasilyeva told Reuters that offshore pipelines, far from human activity, actually pose lower environmental risks.

Latvian President Valdis Zatlers remarked that his country would support the Amber scheme, pending agreement between Russia, Germany and Poland: “It has the same economic efficiency but is much better in terms of security and the environment.”