A perfect example of sensationalism and reckless reporting, that I am sure in some circles is considered "objective". There is absolutely nothing objective in this analysis --- if I can even call it this. This is overly dramatic, unbalanced, and lacking facts. "Currently Gazprom is pushing for the construction of hugely expensive new pipelines to Northern and Southern Europe and is extending its reach into China. But the viability of these projects depends on having a definite market for gas at a profitable price. If Europe can produce more of its own gas, or import it cheaper from elsewhere, then Gazprom's grand plans are in danger of collapse, with Stockman being just the first casualty." Here we are. To start with, calling Nord Stream and South Stream "hugely expensive" is a joke. Both of them are a fraction of a cost of what NABUCCO would cost! And one can only laugh at the ridiculously low projection for NABUCCO, all with the objective to lure Europe and private sector to invest into it. So desparate are NABUCCO proponents, that Hillary Clinton used it at her confirmation hearing as one of the top policy priorities. How is it profitable for them to annually spend enourmous budgets just to lobby for it? Current market is down, and Gazprom will simply keep its assets in the ground. As Russia's economy, and the economy of Asia moves into higher gear, much conversion will happen from oil to gas. Yesterday, Clinton as much as said that China will be isolated, and its energy supply in danger, unless it acquiesces to sanction Iran. In danger from whom? Direct land pipe between Russia and China make such threats questionable. I hope RT will use analysts that can either be balanced, or alternate between different views.