Answer : "corrosive hydrogen sulfide environment"
Nord vs South Stream are undersea pipelines. But there are different costs. Reason is below
Nord Stream: 1220 km ... 9 billion €
South Stream: 900 km depth 2150 ms ... expected cost with cost overruns 10 billion €
From Jamestown:
"As planned, South Stream’s seabed pipeline is shorter but more expensive than the Nord Stream One pipeline on the Baltic seabed. That Baltic line, completed in November 2011, runs 1,220 kilometers; and it has cost some 9 billion Euros ($11.4 billion) to build, rather than the 6 billion Euros ($7.6 billion) declared at the start in 2006. In light of that experience, cost overruns on South Stream must be anticipated, and the 10 billion Euros ($12.7 billion) initial estimate questioned accordingly"From NG:
this is due to "corrosive hydrogen sulfide environment"
Ref:
Vladimir Socor, http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=38862&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=381&cHash=95eb576355ba1b646f34e79df75a6c82
Алексей Давыдович Хайтун, http://www.ng.ru/energy/2012-01-17/9_fuel.html
Posts
0 Response to "Why South Stream can be more expensive than Nord Stream?"