The author of the Resurgam  analytical Telegram channel discussed the issue.Russian claims about a new gas export route to China known as Power of Siberia‑2 are facing sharp pushback from Beijing, market analysts and investors — calling into question whether the project is anything more than a political signal.Beijing has declined to confirm any signed agreements on Power of Siberia‑2. In informal comments to the Financial Times, Gao, director of China’s State Energy Security Institute, called Moscow’s public statements “premature,” describing them as more a signal of intent than a binding deal. At the same time, Chinese negotiators reportedly want gas for Power of Siberia‑2 priced near Russia’s domestic rates — a demand that would make the project commercially unattractive.On the Russian side, technical and financial obstacles are stark. Gas reserves from the Chayandinskoye and Kovykta fields — the most commonly cited sources for a second pipeline — total about 52 billion cubic meters a year and are already allocated to the existing Power of Siberia route. To supply a second export line, Gazprom would need to reallocate or purchase gas from other producers, undermining its export monopoly and adding logistical costs. Estimated project costs are roughly $55 billion (around 4.5 trillion rubles), a scale of investment that would strain Gazprom and Russia’s fiscal cushions; analysts note such spending could reduce dividends and burden the company for years.Investor reaction has been immediate. Gazprom shareholders recently dumped shares, wiping about 100 billion rubles off the company’s market capitalization in one session — a sharp sign of market doubt about the project’s feasibility and financing. While Gazprom swung from a 630 billion‑ruble net loss in 2023 to a reported 1.2 trillion‑ruble profit in 2024, funding a multi-decade, multi‑billion‑dollar pipeline largely from the company’s own balance sheet would be politically fraught and economically painful.Taken together, three developments in 24 hours capture the situation: lack of Chinese confirmation, growing analyst skepticism inside Russia about supply and cost, and negative investor sentiment. Observers say the memorandum Moscow points to reaffirms earlier talks rather than final contracts; China has for years avoided committing to a second big, long‑term dependence on a single foreign supplier and has expanded domestic gas output and LNG sourcing that reduce its incentive to pay premium prices.The bottom line: while the Kremlin may use Power of Siberia‑2 as a geopolitical talking point, practical hurdles — limited dedicated resources, China’s pricing demands, heavy capital needs and investor unease — make the pipeline’s near‑term realization highly uncertain.