Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
There are 3 respective pipelines to the countries mentioned in the question. Each one represents increased revenues for Russia, although it must be remembered that in the case of Turkey and Europe, old Russian pipelines are already in place and have been supplying these regions with gas for years and not all volumes to be supplied by the new lines will be additional, though most of these volumes represents new revenues. In the case of China, the new line represents all new revenues and a loss for the US.
The Nord Stream 2, undertaken to bypass Ukraine, which had caused trouble by refusing to cooperate with Russian supplier Gazprom, is now nearing completion. It is headed to Germany and will make that country a gas hub or distribution centre. This will add to Germany’s influence in Europe and the world, and provide additional income, and it is important to note that Germany is one of the European countries with the least anti-Russian bias. Chancellor Merckel has been running interference for Russian interests in the EU and elsewhere. This pipeline is highly controversial and the company responsible for laying the underwater segments is a Swiss company that has, as a result of its participation, fallen under US sanctions. The company has done nothing wrong and broken no laws, but the US is using the crooked method of sanctioning participants as a way to force Europe to buy its greatly overpriced LNG. Washington’s transparent pretext is the accusation that buying Russian gas will make Europe less “secure” because Russia could use this arrangement to blackmail it. But the US is in fact the country that makes Europe less secure by provoking Russia and obliging European countries to deploy its missiles there. Nor can the US guarantee a sufficient supply of gas for Europe’s needs, in part because LNG requires extravagantly expensive storage and degasification facilities, which Europe essentially lacks. Russia is the country that can assure the longest-term supply of cheap gas to Europe. I explained in detail at Quora why US LNG simply cannot compete with the cheap Russian pipeline-delivered gas. The pipeline project faced several serious setbacks and obstacles due to anti-Russian politics in Washington and in some Russophobic Eastern European countries. The last obstacle was Denmark’s initial refusal to allow the pipeline to be laid in its territorial waters. Denmark finally relented and the project was resumed. It is scheduled to start operation in mid-2020, with an expected output of 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) per year. Since Germany pays from $325 to $400 per cubic meter of Russian gas and most smaller countries pay more, you can imagine the amounts of revenues this implies for Russia.
Russia’s decision to involve several European companies in the construction made it difficult for opponents to block it over issues with Ukraine and, for example, Washington’s red herring warning that dealing with Russia would jeopardize European “energy security.”
The obvious geopolitical implications are that the US will be forced to back off in its attempts to stop the project and Russia will earn long-term much-needed cash in an economy stunted by US and European sanctions that hurt both Europe and Russia.
Finally, regarding the large gas deposits in Ukraine, these are mostly in shale and are fraught with the same price drawbacks as US shale gas, as I explained here.
The pipeline to China, dubbed Power of Siberia, has just been completed and the gas is en route to northern China. The implications are numerous. Firstly, the project is completely independent of the West and the US dollar and cannot be sanctioned. Secondly, it virtually eliminates the competition from the US, which had once agreed to supply US LNG to China. That agreement is now weakened as a result. Thirdly, it is a major boon to China, which financed the project at a time when Russia was first enduring the crippling sanctions imposed by the US and Europe to punish it for its role in defending the Russian speaking Donbass against Ukrainian attacks on its civilians, and in allowing Crimea to accede to the Russian Federation. The accession (condemned as an “annexation in the West), you will recall, was based on a referendum that followed international legal prescriptions but was denounced in the West as “aggression.” Under this Western pressure, Russia was forced to give China a very cheap price for the gas – less than half the price that Germany pays for Russian gas. A total of $400 billion is the expected revenue for Russia over 39 years. Fourthly, and most importantly, the deal clinches Russian-Chinese ties at a time when Washington is hotly pursuing Moscow for trumped up charges of “meddling in US elections.” Fifthly, the use of Russian gas will help China reduce its independence on coal and enable it to comply with its obligation to cut CO2 emissions.
One important observation that can be drawn is that the US, which had originally hoped to sell large volumes of LNG to China, shot itself in the foot by applying economic pressure to Russia following the accession of Crimea because the sanctions in question forced Russia to grant China a bargain basement price in its gas supply contract, and this enabled China to walk away from the agreement (non-binding) to buy large volumes of US gas. The US is notorious for ignoring the long term effects of its actions and this is hurting it in various ways, including economically.
The pipeline to Turkey, called TurkStream, is now starting operation, almost simultaneously with Power of Siberia, in a symbolic show of economic strength at a critical time of anti-Russian actions across the West. This line is expected to deliver 31.5 bcm per year. It will offer better prices to Turkey also pay transit fees to the country, bringing it more in line with Russia and making Turkey more independent of the US and its threats of sanctions for buying Russian military hardware. The pipeline will also supply parts of Europe.
Another implication of all 3 of these pipelines relates to the Ukraine-Russia gas dispute. Under pressure from the West following the violent and illegal US-backed Maidan coup, Ukraine became irrationally anti-Russian and the government under President Petro Poroshenko began to renege on payment to Russia for its gas deliveries. At the same time, as Ukraine later admitted, it illegally withheld some of the transit gas intended for Europe. As a result of all these missteps, Gazprom stopped gas deliveries to Ukraine, which then was forced to buy Russian gas not directly from Russia at a reasonable price, but from third countries at a premium price. This irrational anti-Russian behaviour contributed to the economic decline that made Ukraine, according to IMF figures, the poorest country in Europe. But recently, Putin has agreed to resume the gas transit through Ukraine, although the amounts are greatly reduced thanks to the new line, and consequently, the payments Gazprom makes to Ukraine for the transit will not be sufficient to allay Kiev’s current government debt crisis. All this underscores the devastating effect of the anti-Russian Maidan coup and should have served to wake up US-backed coup plotters elsewhere, such as in Bolivia and Hong Kong, although they seem to have missed the implications. To their peril.