Denmark and Nord Stream 2

Nord Stream 2 is an economic and commercial project, intendent to accommodate the growing shortage of natural gas within Europe, in particularly Germany, with both Russia and Germany in favour for the project.[5] However, after the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, Europe's reliance on Russia for gas became a geopolitical concern, complicating the build of Nord Stream 2.[5] While Russia and Germany continued to defend Nord Stream 2, citing it as a commercial venture that should not be politicized,[5] the U.S argued inherently against the pipeline, stating that it constituted a security and defence threat.[6] The U.S claimed that the overseas gas pipelines would increase European dependency on Russia, pointing to so-called "energy blackmail" as an imminent threat,[7] and even went as far to sanction companies that assisted with the completion of the pipeline.[4] The U.S had however also some economic interest at play, namely the sale of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe.[7] Baltic countries such as Poland and Ukraine were also against the approval of the pipeline,[7] having previously experienced Russian "energy blackmail".[8]

Despite Denmark not needing any natural gas, it became the centre of the geopolitical conflict when the company behind Nord Stream II in April 2017, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, applied for permission to build transit pipelines in Danish territorial sea, namely the waters south of Bornholm.[7] The gas pipes would also pass through Finland and Sweden, but unlike Denmark, it was only through the respective countries’ exclusive economic zones, where it in Denmark's case was about territorial sea.[7] This difference meant that Sweden and Finland only had to prepare environmental assessments and the accompanying permits, while Denmark, on the other hand, had the possibility to deny the route.[7]

While the U.S is Denmark's most significant security ally,[7] its second largest investor and third largest export market,[5] Germany is arguably the most important EU partner for Denmark.[7] This led to the issue of Nord Stream II to be viewed by some experts as the "most important decision in Danish foreign policy after the Cold War",[7] as it was about how Denmark would position itself in relation to Germany, American and Russian interests.[7] The voices of prominent Danish experts were however divided – some argued that Danish government should allow the Nord Stream II to go through Danish territorial sea,[7] while others warned strongly against it.[4]

On the 3rd of April 2017, the Danish Energy Agency (DEA) received an application from the Nord Stream II company regarding permission to build transit pipelines in Danish territorial sea.[13] Denmark was however slow to respond due to geopolitical implications of the decision, and the amendment of the Continental Shelf Act made it possible to shift the matter from the DEA to Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[5] They Danish government also sought to shift the decision of the pipeline to the EU, but without any success.[7] The Nord Stream II Company sent yet another application on the 10th of August 2018, in which it requested permission to build the pipeline through an alternative route north of Bornholm,[14] as well as a third application on the 15th of April 2019, at the request of the DEA, which contained two further proposals for routes on the continental shelf southeast of Bornholm.[15] The DEA stated in connection with the third application that the first application from 2017 was still being assessed by the Foreign Minister, and while it was advancing it was not yet completed.[15] The application from 2018 was also advancing, as it had been through the public Espoo hearing, but the permit would now await assessment of the new South-Eastern routes from the 2019 application.[15]