The pipeline has been shut for three days for maintenance and will not reopen unless sanctions are lifted.

"Pumping problems arose because of sanctions imposed against our country and against a number of companies by Western states, including Germany and the UK,” said Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Gas prices surged on Monday 5^th September over pressing concerns around energy supplies. The Dutch month-ahead wholesale gas price, which is considered a benchmark for Europe, rose 30% in early trading on Monday, whilst prices in the UK were up as much as 35%. A German government spokesperson commented that the latest gas price surge was part of Putin's plan.

During a press conference on Wednesday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a warning to companies and individuals invested in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that “aiding and abetting Russia’s malign influence projects will not be tolerated.”

“Get out now -- or risk the consequences,” he said.

Nord Stream 2 is an $11 billion project that consists of two parallel pipelines running under the Baltic Sea, with a combined length of 1,230 kilometres. When the final few kilometres are laid and the pipeline becomes operational, it will double the rate at which Germany imports natural gas from Russia.

The project is backed predominantly by the Russian state energy firm Gazprom, though it is also co-signed by Uniper, Royal Dutch Shell and Wintershall, among other companies. Earlier this month, the government of Denmark gave its permission for the final 120 kilometres of pipeline to be laid in Danish waters towards Germany.

The US government has repeatedly criticised the project, claiming that it will increase the EU’s dependency on Russian energy, though the German government has repeatedly rebuffed calls to end the project. Peter Beyer, the German government’s transatlantic communicator, commented: “There is reason to suspect that Washington primarily wants to sell its own gas in western Europe.”

The US State Department has revised the 2017 Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) to remove language exempting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from its effects. The government previously passed separate legislation to sanction vessels laying pipes for Nord Stream 2, forcing Swiss-based firm Allseas to back out of the project.

Russia is now trying to use its own vessels to finish the pipeline, but necessarily relies on the assistance of Western companies’ ports and insurance, giving the US leverage to hamper the construction project.

HSBC has today confirmed that it will no longer provide project finance for new tar sands projects including the construction of any tar sands pipelines. This policy would exclude HSBC from providing project financing for the Keystone XL and Line 3 Expansion pipelines. HSBC also stated that its overall exposure to tar sands will reduce over time.

HSBC’s move, disclosed in its new Energy Policy, is the most recent in a series of decisions by international financiers to distance themselves from the controversial pipelines in North America. French banks BNP Paribas and Natixis, and insurance and investment giant Axa, as well as Dutch bank ING, and Sweden’s largest pension fund, AP7, all made similar announcements in 2017. [1]

Greenpeace is now calling on Barclays, the only other major UK-based bank providing loans for tar sands pipelines, to rule out financing new tar sands pipelines in North America.

Oil from tar sands is one of the most carbon-intensive fuels on the planet because of the large amount of energy needed to extract it. The proposed pipelines are key to the expansion of the tar sands fields in Alberta, Canada. Estimates show Keystone XL alone could potentially add nearly a million barrels of oil per day to current capacity, as well as an estimated 175 million additional tonnes of CO2 per year. [2]

Commenting on the announcement, John Sauven, Executive Director of Greenpeace UK said: "This latest vote of no-confidence from a major financial institution shows that tar sands are becoming an increasingly toxic business proposition. It makes no sense to expand production of one of the most polluting fossil fuels if we are serious about dealing with climate change in a post-Paris world. HSBC has got the message. Now Barclays need to decide if it wants to be the only UK bank offering project finance to tar sands pipelines.”

Annie Leonard, Executive Director of Greenpeace US, said: “The world has changed dramatically since these controversial tar sands projects were first proposed. In the US, we’ve seen record floods, hurricanes and wildfires super-charged by climate change. We’ve also seen a powerful, diverse, and growing movement step up to stop new fossil fuel infrastructure like the Keystone XL pipeline. This move by HSBC is the most recent indication that the financial community has begun to see the increasing risk in funding pipelines. We now expect banks like the US giant JPMorgan Chase and Barclays, who have backed tar sands pipelines in the past, to cease their funding of these dirty projects.”

HSBC has previously participated in revolving credit facilities for TransCanada (the company building KXL) and Enbridge the company building the Line 3 expansion.

HSBC has also ruled out funding new coal fired power stations all around the world with the exception of three countries - Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam where funding may continue until 2023.

Hindun Mulaika of Greenpeace South East Asia said: "By ruling out new coal funding by the end of 2019 in many countries, HSBC has taken a step in the right direction. However, by singling out Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh as exceptions to their coal policy, they are creating a loophole in the countries that are most aggressive in their coal power planning and condemning their citizens to a lifetime of air pollution impacts. HSBC must close this loophole as soon as possible and turn their financial support to accelerating a transition to clean energy.”

1. BNP Paribas In October 2017 announced a decision to no longer finance “pipelines that primarily carry oil and gas from shale and/or oil from tar sands,” and will sever “business relations with companies that derive the majority of their revenue from these activities.” Dutch bank ING confirmed in June that its oil sands policy excludes financing tar sands pipelines. Sweden’s largest pension fund, AP7, announced that it will divest from TransCanada on the grounds that its proposed pipelines in Canada and the US were incompatible with the Paris Agreement. In December 2017 Natixis pledged to no longer fund “exploration and production projects concerning oil extracted from tar sands; infrastructure projects (pipelines, terminals and others) primarily devoted to transporting or exporting oil extracted from tar sands or companies whose business primarily relies on exploiting oil extracted from tar sands”, and insurance and investment giant Axa announced the “divestment of over Euro 700 million from the main oil sands producers and associated pipelines, and the discontinuation of further investments in these businesses” and no longer providing insurance to tar sands or associated pipeline businesses.

2. Greenpeace has published a report for banks and their shareholders outlining the financial and reputation risks that banks could face in arranging and providing finance for companies intending to build tar sands pipelines. See Figure 1 on page 3 for estimated additional greenhouse gas emissions per year resulting from proposed tar sands pipelines.

3. On Wednesday, the controversy over Justin Trudeau’s support for tar sands pipelines followed him to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in London, where the Canadian High Commission was rebranded ‘Crudeau Oil HQ’ and blockaded with a 30m pipeline. Since March, weeks of ongoing peaceful direct actions in British Columbia against the Trans Mountain Expansion tar sands pipeline have resulted in the arrests of about 200 people.

(Source: Greenpeace)