The article mentions 'high energy prices' and 'energy costs' and alludes to 'Kremlin cutting off natural gas supplies' but otherwise provides zero discussion of the overall energy picture in Europe. A couple of major issues they could have addressed:<p>1. In retrospect, was the German decision to eliminate nuclear power wise? Could they have squeezed another decade of power out of their existing plants, even if they didn't see that as a viable long-term energy source (having to import uranium fuel is not all that better from having to import natural gas, economically speaking)? Granted, nuclear only provides electricty, while BASF needs methane.<p>2. Russian gas exports to Germany have been replaced by US LNG gas exports, but the cost differential is pretty huge. Looking around, I see this site has discussed it before (Nov 2022):<p><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/cheap-us-gas-cost-fortune-europe-russia-ukraine-energy/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.politico.eu/article/cheap-us-gas-cost-fortune-eu...</a><p>That's an interesting article, pointing to tight markets being taken advantage of by European energy traders (though Exxon and Chevron shares are up 50% since the price boom, Permian Basin development, booming LNG exports, etc.). It also might explain why some European interests see a finacial benefit in prolonging the Ukraine war (i.e. keeping Russian gas sanctions in place).<p>3. Somewhat amusingly, if BASF moves a lot of production China, then their natural gas feedstocks will be coming from... Russia's massive Sakahalin 1 & 2 projects (built with extensive help from Exxon and Shell respectively, and ironically)?<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-sakhalin-invites-india-china-tap-energy-resources-2023-06-06/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-sakhalin-inv...</a><p>Maybe blowing up the Nordstream pipeline wasn't such a smart move, after all.