Russian pipeline gas exports to Europe down 18% m/m in June, data shows
Turkey is the only transit route left for Russian gas to Europe after Ukraine chose not to extend a five-year transit deal with Moscow when it expired on January 1.
Total Russian gas exports to Europe in January-June fell to 8.33 billion cubic metres from 15.5 bcm in the year-earlier period, taking into account supplies via Ukraine, according to the available data.
Calculations based on data from European gas transmission group Entsog showed that Russian gas exports via the TurkStream pipeline declined to 37.6 million cubic metres per day in June from 46 mcm per day in May.
That was also down from 39.5 mcm shipped via the route in May 2024.
Russian gas supplies to Europe via TurkStream rose by around 6.8% in the first half of this year from 7.8 bcm during the same period a year earlier, according to Reuters calculations.
Gazprom, which has not published its own monthly statistics since the start of 2023, did not respond to a request for comment.
Russia supplied about 63.8 bcm of gas to Europe by various routes in 2022, Gazprom data and Reuters calculations show. That plummeted by 55.6% to 28.3 bcm in 2023, but increased to around 32 bcm in 2024.
At their peak in 2018-2019, Russian annual gas flows to Europe reached between 175 bcm and 180 bcm.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Up another 6% in the last week! Is the BP share price ready to go gangbusters?
The BP share price (LSE: BP.) has had a good week. It climbed 6% and is now up more than 20% over the past three months. That offers some relief to long-suffering shareholders, although it's still down 11% over the past year. Tragically, the rally began when conflict between Israel and Iran drove the oil price from just over $60 to just under $80 a barrel. BP is not purely an oil producer, but energy prices remain the biggest driver of earnings. The oil price pulled back after the bombing stopped, but started rising again last week. That was partly down to Donald Trump delaying threatened tariffs, kicking the decision into August, while renewed Houthi attacks on shipping pushed the geopolitical risk premium higher. Reports that Trump may make a 'major' announcement on Russia added to the uncertainty. OPEC also updated its long-term forecast, projecting global oil demand will rise to 122.9m barrels a day by 2050, driven by growth in India, Africa and the Middle East. That helped steady nerves. There are dozens of moving parts. And the reality is that nobody has a clue where oil goes next. Which means nobody really knows what the BP share price will do either. To be fair, I could say that about any stock. BP released a Q2 update on 11 July. While reported upstream production rose, falling oil and gas prices took their toll. Oil averaged $67.88 a barrel in Q2, down from $75.73 in Q1. That could knock $600m to $800m off earnings. The gas and low carbon energy segment may face a further hit. The company expects stronger refining margins, rising from $15.2 to $21.1 a barrel, while oil trading should also deliver a strong result. Net debt has fallen slightly, but remains close to $30bn. BP's ailing share price has driven up the trailing dividend yield to an attractive 6.02%. Forecasts suggest that could climb to 6.3% next year. The board is still busily buying back billions of its own shares. BP's forward price-to-earnings ratio sits at 12.5, falling to 11 in 2026. Which looks decent. We also learned last week that BP is returning to Libya, signing a deal to explore three sites and reopen its Tripoli office. That may help improve long-term production. Still, strategy remains muddled with BP torn between shareholders demanding it refocuses on fossil fuels, while activists demand greater commitment to renewables. Expectations are modest, with 28 analysts forecasting a median 7.5% rise in the share price to 432.5p over the next year. As of 11 July the shares traded at 401.75p. Throw in the yield and the total return jumps to around 13.5%. I bought BP last autumn, and my double-digit loss is now in single digits. Add dividends, and I'm roughly flat. Could it go gangbusters from here? I'd like to think so but suspect the challenges and uncertainty are simply too great, especially with the world potentially slipping into recession. BP is still worth considering with a long-term view, for income as much as growth, but only as part of a balanced portfolio. This is a volatile sector. It's a long time since BP could be called a no-brainer buy. The post Up another 6% in the last week! Is the BP share price ready to go gangbusters? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Harvey Jones has positions in Bp P.l.c. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin snubs Club World Cup amid FIFA tensions
UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin has snubbed the entirety of the FIFA Club World Cup amid ongoing tensions between the European confederation and the global world governing body, FIFA. While all other confederations have been represented at some stage by their presidents during this tournament, Ceferin, who is also a FIFA vice-president by virtue of his role at UEFA, has stayed away from the competition. Advertisement Sources familiar with the situation, but not authorised to speak publicly, believe senior executives at UEFA are concerned by FIFA's encroachment on the club game, the possible expansion of the Club World Cup and the potential of the Club World Cup to one day challenge the hegemony of the UEFA Champions League as the world's most popular club competition. On Saturday, during a press briefing at Trump Tower in Manhattan, FIFA president Gianni Infantino refused to rule out the possibility of expanding the Club World Cup to include more European teams next time around, while also avoiding the question when asked directly by The Athletic if he would like the Club World Cup to take place every two years rather than every four years. Infantino namechecked Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur, Barcelona, Milan and Napoli as teams he would like to see involved, but it is unclear as to how the qualification formula, or country cap, may change to give those teams a better chance of being at the tournament. Infantino hailed the financial benefits of the tournament, praising the $2.1billion (£1.6bn) generated in revenues, across the TV deal, sponsorship, ticketing and other income. 'For 63 matches, the basic average is $33million per match. There is no other club competition in the world today that comes anywhere close. It is already the most successful club competition on all different measures,' he claimed. The winner of the Club World Cup, according to figures published by FIFA, may earn up to $125m (£93.5m). Yet this is less than the $154m that UEFA recently announced Real Madrid earned by winning the Champions League in 2024 — but FIFA would argue that the Club World Cup is worth more per game (given the winner plays a maximum of seven games over a month tournament, while the Champions League is played throughout the season). But speaking to The Athletic during an event at Paris Saint-Germain's flagship 5th Avenue store in Manhattan on Saturday afternoon, the PSG chief executive Victoriano Melero stated his belief the tournament should remain every four years. The Athletic asked UEFA earlier this week why Ceferin has not attended any matches during the Club World Cup in the United States, particularly as 12 UEFA club teams competed at the tournament and three — Real Madrid, PSG and Chelsea — made the semi-finals. In an email, an unnamed UEFA spokesperson said: 'In case it slipped your mind, UEFA and its president's full attention is currently focused on the Women's EURO. This is a major event for us, and understandably, it requires significant commitment and attention.' Advertisement The Athletic has subsequently learned that Ceferin has attended only one of the first 22 matches of the Women's European Championship in Switzerland while the Club World Cup also began on June 13, a couple of weeks before the women's Euros began on July 2. UEFA declined to comment. Ceferin previously did not attend the Women's World Cup final in 2023, which was contested by two European nations, England and Spain. Ceferin, as a confederation president and FIFA Council vice-president, is eligible to receive a net annual compensation from FIFA of $300,000. Neither UEFA nor FIFA commented in May when asked whether he accepts this money from FIFA. It's also curious that the official UEFA social media account on Twitter/X has not made any reference to the Club World Cup or highlighted the roles of European teams or players during a tournament which had large UEFA club representation and will have an all-European final. The Conmebol account has, by contrast, been posting regularly about South American players and teams excelling at the tournament. The situation follows dramatic scenes in Paraguay in May, when the UEFA members of the FIFA Council staged a walkout at the FIFA Congress following the late arrival of Infantino. The eight UEFA members of the FIFA Council and several European delegates did not return after the early afternoon break. The exit followed a three-hour delay to the Congress, because Infantino was late arriving for his own event on Thursday morning, having prioritised meetings with United States president Donald Trump in Qatar that week. This included rescheduling the FIFA Council, which should have been in person in Asuncion on the Tuesday, but was instead held virtually on the Friday. UEFA said the 'deeply regrettable' late timetable change due to 'what appears to be simply to accommodate private political interests' put football's interests second. Advertisement UEFA said: 'We are all in post to serve football; from the streets to the podium, and UEFA members of the FIFA Council felt the need on this occasion to make a point that the game comes first and to leave as originally scheduled.' Infantino did apologise at the start of the Congress for being late. He said: 'As president of FIFA, my responsibility is to take decisions in the interests of the organisation. I decided to spend the last two days in the Middle East, knowing the 2034 World Cup will be in Saudi Arabia and the 2022 World Cup was in Qatar. The 2025 Club World Cup and 2026 World Cup will be in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Some important World Cup discussions took place and I needed to be there to represent football and all of you. We had an issue with our flight, which made this delay happen — apologies, sorry, and I am looking forward to spending time with you here.' The Athletic approached FIFA for comment but it has not done so at time of publication.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prediction: Tesla Might Lose This $2.76 Billion Revenue Source That Is Nearly 100% Profit
Tesla will soon lose a critical profit source. This loss will make exciting growth opportunities more difficult to pursue. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › The future of Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) appears very bright. Some experts believe the company's new robotaxi service could add more than $1 trillion in value by the end of 2026. But there's one challenge few investors are paying attention to. This challenge could swiftly eliminate one of Tesla's most profitable revenue sources. In recent years, nearly every electric car stock has benefited from automotive regulatory credits. These credits are earned under both state and federal programs, in both the U.S. and abroad. While each program differs in specifics, these credits are generally earned when a company sells low-emissions vehicles. These companies can then sell these credits to automakers that do not sell enough low-emission vehicles. For example, Stellantis bought roughly $2.4 billion of European and U.S. regulatory credits from Tesla between 2019 and 2021. The idea behind these credits is to encourage investment in and production of climate-friendly transportation options. That is, these credits are designed specifically to spur adoption of things like electric vehicles (EVs). Over the years, these credits have certainly helped keep EV makers like Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid Group financially viable. Rivian recently generated the first positive gross margins in its history, largely thanks to the sale of these credits. Besides a bit of overhead, the sale of these credits results in nearly 100% profit margins -- a huge boon for capital-intensive businesses like auto manufacturing. Soon, federal regulatory credits in the U.S. are expected to be eliminated due to the passing of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill." According to The Verge, "The bill, which was signed by Trump over the weekend, would eliminate tax credits for EV purchases, zero out fines for automakers who exceed fuel-efficiency targets, and roll back other incentives for wind and solar power." That second point, zeroing out fines for automakers that miss fuel efficiency targets, essentially negates any value in purchasing these credits from an automaker like Tesla. In short, Tesla will very likely lose its ability to accrue and sell federal credits in the U.S. -- an immediate and sizable hit to both revenues and profits. There are a few important details to stress about the elimination of federal automotive regulatory credits. First, these eliminations affect the U.S. only. While other countries may shift their own policies, they will, for now, remain intact. Second, these eliminations will only affect federal credit programs, not state programs like California's or New York's. Critically, Tesla does not break down its regulatory credit sales by state versus federal, or even U.S. sales versus international. Therefore, it's difficult to gauge the exact effect from the elimination of federal U.S. programs. Some analysts estimate that roughly 75% of this revenue comes from U.S. sources. Within that portion, most is likely derived from California's state-level program, since that program accounts for the majority of credit value in the U.S. overall. Last quarter, Tesla's net income plunged 71% versus a year ago to $409 million. Regulatory credits sales, meanwhile, were $595 million last quarter, exceeding a total of $3.3 billion over the last five quarters. While Tesla won't lose access to most of these credits, they are clearly critical to keeping the company profitable. Tesla is one of the only companies in the world capable of pursuing huge growth opportunities like a global robotaxi service. If profits drop by $100 million to $200 million per quarter, however, pursuing these initiatives will grow more challenging. In short, the elimination of federal regulatory credits in the U.S. won't kill Tesla. But it will make growth more difficult moving forward -- a critical factor for long-term investors to consider. Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $427,709!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $40,087!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $671,477!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of July 7, 2025 Ryan Vanzo has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends Stellantis. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Prediction: Tesla Might Lose This $2.76 Billion Revenue Source That Is Nearly 100% Profit was originally published by The Motley Fool Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
