Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

US Clarifies Secondary Sanctions on Nord Stream 2

By Peter Jeydel, Cherie Tremaine, Ed Krauland, Brian Egan & Alexandra Baj on July 20, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On July 15, 2020, the U.S. Department of State updated its public guidance on Section 232 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (“CAATSA”), which authorizes (but does not require) the president to impose sanctions on “a person” that “knowingly” invests in Russian energy export pipelines, or that sells Russia goods, technology or services for such pipelines where certain monetary thresholds are met.

The Department of State announced that the purpose of the updated guidance is “to expand the focus of implementation of Section 232 to address certain growing threats to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests related to Russian energy export pipelines, particularly with respect to Nord Stream 2 and the second line of TurkStream.” This is a significant change, as the prior public guidance stated “The focus of implementation of Section 232 sanctions would be on . . . [Russian] energy export pipeline projects initiated on or after August 2, 2017 . . . For the purposes of Section 232, a project is considered to have been initiated when a contract for the project is signed. Investments and loan agreements made prior to August 2, 2017 would not be subject to Section 232 sanctions.”  This prior guidance had suggested that the focus of implementation of Section 232 would not be on Nord Stream 2 or Turkstream (either line), because these projects were “initiated” before August 2, 2017.

The Department of State’s updated guidance indicates that it will not impose sanctions under Section 232 on persons that carried out and completed activities prior to July 15, 2020, as long as those activities were consistent with the public guidance that was in force at the time.  In addition, the Department of State will not impose sanctions under Section 232 based on activity that is “ordinarily incident and necessary to the wind down of operations, contracts, or other agreements” in force prior to July 15, 2020, as long as the investments or activities are:

  • consistent with the pre-July 15, 2020 guidance;
  • executed pursuant to an agreement dated prior to July 15, 2020; and
  • “the person making such investments or engaging in such activities is taking reasonable steps to wind down the operations, contracts, or other agreements as soon as possible after July 15, 2020.”

However, Section 232 sanctions may be applied to persons that continue to maintain, rather than wind down, sanctionable activity, such as “persons facilitating the construction or deployment of the pipelines such as financing partners, pipe-laying vessel operators, and related engineering service providers.”  The guidance states that there is no “grandfathering,” except under the wind-down policy described above. Accordingly, with the release of the updated public guidance, activities – other than wind-down operations – to maintain existing agreements related to Nord Stream 2, and the second line of Turkstream, carry the risk of sanctions under CAATSA Section 232.

The State Department has reiterated that “Implementation of Section 232 sanctions would not target investments or other activities related to the standard repair and maintenance of pipelines in existence on, and capable of transporting commercial quantities of hydrocarbons, as of August 2, 2017.”  But it has clarified that this policy does not apply to Nord Stream 2 or the second line of Turkstream, and therefore “investments or other activities related to the standard repair and maintenance of these pipelines could be the target of sanctions.”

The guidance makes clear that the first line of Turkstream, “which is designed exclusively to supply Turkey’s domestic natural gas market, is not the focus of Section 232 implementation efforts.”

Finally, the guidance provides a broad definition of the term “investment” that may include normal banking services such as overdrafts and currency swaps.

Related Congressional Activity

In addition to this expanded sanctions policy implemented by the administration, Congress has been active in seeking to increase the pressure on these pipeline projects.  For example, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has sought to include within this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) a provision to impose additional sanctions on activity relating to Nord Stream 2 and Turkstream (S. 3897, the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Clarification Act of 2020), which would broaden the scope of the similar sanctions provisions contained in last year’s NDAA to include foreign persons that provide services or facilities, such as insurance or tethering, to vessels engaged in pipe-laying activities at certain depths; and to cover foreign persons that provide “services for the testing, inspection, or certification necessary for, or associated with the operation of, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.”  Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) has introduced in the House a similar bill with the same name (H.R. 7361).  If either of these legislative proposals is to become law, their differences will need to be reconciled.

The scope of sanctions in Section 232 of CAATSA is broader in some respects than these enacted and proposed NDAA provisions, although it is subject to certain monetary thresholds, which may limit the applicability of Section 232 to more significant activities.  Given the focus in Congress on Nord Stream 2 in particular, and statements from the administration regarding that pipeline, we view this as an area of increasing U.S. sanctions risk.

Conclusion

The Department of State press release announcing the updated public guidance concludes by “encourag[ing] companies to reassess their participation in Russian energy export pipelines subject to Section 232, and to take appropriate steps to mitigate their exposure to sanctions” under the updated public guidance.  As the U.S. Congress continues to consider additional legislation imposing sanctions for activity relating to Nord Stream 2 and potentially other Russian energy export pipelines, this remains an area of U.S sanctions risk that bears close monitoring.

Photo of Peter Jeydel Peter Jeydel

Peter Jeydel‘s practice focuses on US export controls and economic sanctions, including the Commerce Department’s Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and sanctions regulations administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)…

Peter Jeydel‘s practice focuses on US export controls and economic sanctions, including the Commerce Department’s Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), and sanctions regulations administered by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the State Department. His practice spans all aspects of these regimes, including counseling, compliance, transactional advice, licensing and opinions, disclosures, and enforcement actions. He has also represented companies and individuals seeking de-listing from OFAC’s sanctions list. In addition, Pete has assisted clients in anti-corruption matters, including under the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), and has experience handling reviews and investigations by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).

Read Pete’s full bio.

Read more about Peter JeydelEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Ed Krauland Ed Krauland

Edward J. Krauland focuses on export controls/economic sanctions. Ed’s extensive experience includes representing clients on matters involving US and multilateral economic sanctions, defense and nuclear export controls, dual-use export controls under the EAR, anti-boycott compliance, internal investigations and enforcement work, and review of…

Edward J. Krauland focuses on export controls/economic sanctions. Ed’s extensive experience includes representing clients on matters involving US and multilateral economic sanctions, defense and nuclear export controls, dual-use export controls under the EAR, anti-boycott compliance, internal investigations and enforcement work, and review of government procurement regulations in the cross-border context. His practice spans all aspects of these laws, including counseling, compliance work, transactional advice, licensing and opinion work, internal reviews, disclosures, and enforcement actions. He has served as co-chair of the International Trade Committee of the ABA Section of International Law and Practice. He is former Chairman of an ABA-wide Task Force on Gatekeeper Regulation (anti-money laundering compliance), and senior adviser to the ABA Section of International Law and Practice’s anti-money laundering committee.

Read Ed’s full bio.

Read more about Ed KraulandEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Brian Egan Brian Egan

Brian Egan advises on a number of international legal issues that affect US and foreign clients, including economic sanctions, export controls, and anti-money laundering programs; national security trade and investment reviews; international arbitration and other cross-border disputes; international cybersecurity and data privacy; and…

Brian Egan advises on a number of international legal issues that affect US and foreign clients, including economic sanctions, export controls, and anti-money laundering programs; national security trade and investment reviews; international arbitration and other cross-border disputes; international cybersecurity and data privacy; and issues of public international law. He has worked in various senior legal positions for the US government, giving him keen insight into domestic and international legal matters that influence US government national security and foreign relations policies and programs. Before joining Steptoe, Brian served as the Legal Adviser to the US Department of State, the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, Deputy White House Counsel, and Assistant General Counsel for Enforcement and Intelligence with the US Department of the Treasury. Brian has regularly appeared in public fora to speak on international legal issues, including testifying before Congress, public speaking engagements, and panel presentations.

Read Brian’s full bio.

Email
Show more Show less
Photo of Alexandra Baj Alexandra Baj

Alex Baj’s practice primarily involves export controls and economic sanctions laws and regulations, anti-corruption investigations and compliance, international trade, and security clearance issues. Alex advises clients on export control and economic sanctions laws and regulations, including the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), International…

Alex Baj’s practice primarily involves export controls and economic sanctions laws and regulations, anti-corruption investigations and compliance, international trade, and security clearance issues. Alex advises clients on export control and economic sanctions laws and regulations, including the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), US sanctions regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), and nuclear export controls under the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  Alex specializes in the development and implementation of export and anti-corruption compliance policies and procedures and training, internal investigations and voluntary disclosures under the EAR, the ITAR, and OFAC rules, due diligence for mergers and acquisitions, and on encryption and cybersecurity export controls.  Her clients include companies involved in defense, aerospace, software, semiconductor, and uranium processing industries.

Read Alex’s full bio.

Read more about Alexandra BajEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    International Compliance Blog
  • Organization:
    Steptoe LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo