In a message dated 2/15/01 12:25:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, vlerner at interpac.net writes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4136440,00.html A discreet deal in the pipeline Nato mocked those who claimed there was a plan for Caspian oil
Special report: the petrol war
George Monbiot Guardian
Thursday February 15, 2001
Gordon Brown knows precisely what he should do about BP. The company's £10bn profits are crying out for a windfall tax. Royalties and petroleum revenue tax, both lifted when the oil price was low, are in urgent need of reinstatement. These measures would be popular and fair. But, as all political leaders are aware, you don't mess with Big Oil.
During the 1999 Balkans war, some of the critics of Nato's intervention alleged that the western powers were seeking to secure a passage for oil from the Caspian sea. This claim was widely mocked. The foreign secretary Robin Cook observed that "there is no oil in Kosovo". This was, of course, true but irrelevant. An eminent commentator for this paper clinched his argument by recording that the Caspian sea is "half a continent away, lodged between Iran and Turkmenistan".
For the past few weeks, a freelance researcher called Keith Fisher has been doggedly documenting a project which has, as far as I can discover, has been little-reported in any British, European or American newspaper. It is called the Trans-Balkan pipeline, and it's due for approval at the end of next month. Its purpose is to secure a passage for oil from the Caspian sea.
The line will run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the Adriatic at Vlore, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania. It is likely to become the main route to the west for the oil and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry 750,000 barrels a day: a throughput, at current prices, of some $600m a month.
The project is necessary, according to a paper published by the US Trade and Development Agency last May, because the oil coming from the Caspian sea "will quickly surpass the safe capacity of the Bosphorus as a shipping lane". The scheme, the agency notes, will "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American refineries", "provide American companies with a key role in developing the vital east-west corridor", "advance the privatisation aspirations of the US government in the region" and "facilitate rapid integration" of the Balkans "with western Europe".
In November 1998, Bill Richardson, then US energy secretary, spelt out his policy on the extraction and transport of Caspian oil. "This is about America's energy security," he explained. "It's also about preventing strategic inroads by those who don't share our values. We're trying to move these newly independent countries toward the west.
"We would like to see them reliant on western commercial and political interests rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that both the pipeline map and the politics come out right."
The project has been discussed for years. The US trade agency notes that the Trans-Balkan pipeline "will become a part of the region's critical east-west Corridor 8 infrastructure ... This transportation corridor was approved by the transport ministers of the European Union in April 1994". The pipeline itself, the agency says, has also been formally supported "since 1994". The first feasibility study, backed by the US, was conducted in 1996.
The pipeline does not pass through the former Yugoslavia, but there's no question that it featured prominently in Balkan war politics. On December 9 1998, the Albanian president attended a meeting about the scheme in Sofia, and linked it inextricably to Kosovo. "It is my personal opinion," he noted, "that no solution confined within Serbian borders will bring lasting peace." The message could scarcely have been blunter: if you want Albanian consent for the Trans-Balkan pipeline, you had better wrest Kosovo out of the hands of the Serbs.
In July 1993, a few months before the corridor project was first formally approved, the US sent peacekeeping troops to the Balkans. They were stationed not in the conflict zones in which civilians were being rounded up and killed, but on the northern borders of Macedonia. There were several good reasons for seeking to contain Serb expansionism, but we would be foolish to imagine that a putative $600m-a-month commercial operation did not number among them. The pipeline would have been impossible to finance while the Balkans were in turmoil.
I can't tell you that the war in the former Yugoslavia was fought solely in order to secure access to oil from new and biddable states in central Asia. But in the light of these findings, can anyone now claim that it was not?
............................................................................ ......................................................................... Stuff I found. M.P.
http://www.corporatewatch.org/magazine/issue8/cw8oil1.html Article by Keith Fisher. http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/rushdie/price.htm Oil and Geopolitics in the Caspian Sea Region; Croissant, Michael P. (Edt)/ Aras, Bulent (Edt) - Hardcover
www.nixoncenter.org
“Caspian Policy and the Future of the BTC Pipeline” A Presentation by Ambassador Beth Jones, Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State for Caspian Basin Diplomacy
January 31, 2001 The Nixon Center, Washington, DC
“The Bush Administration has clear and assertive objectives guiding its policy on the Baku-T’bilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which will transport oil west from the Caspian Sea into Turkey.” Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State for Caspian Basin Diplomacy Elizabeth Jones outlined these objectives at a luncheon held January 31 at The Nixon Center. Ambassador Jones expressed her enthusiasm toward the progress of the BTC pipeline, its possibilities, and the role of the United States in its success. Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Programs at the Nixon Center moderated the discussion.
Pipeline Investment
Ambassador Jones reported that basic engineering planning for the BTC pipeline has already started. She explained that this is a positive first step because it means private companies, responsible to their boards of directors and shareholders, are “willing to put money on the table.” During the next phase the United States will persuade the eight sponsor companies to commit to detailed engineering proposals which will require greater financial investment. Ambassador Jones specified that commercial viability must be evident before the next stage of development can be decided. The sponsor companies must show they have the necessary financing to ensure a functional commercial framework.
Ambassador Jones added that the principal advantage of the BTC pipeline to investors is its route, which enables it to bypass the Turkish Straits. She said that while Turkey will not restrict traffic through the Straits, there is a limit to the quantity of material that can be transported through the Bosporous. In addition to the large number of vessels that travel through this crucial waterway, geographic obstacles include twelve sharp and rocky curves, rapid currents, and narrow channels. The BTC pipeline will bypass this “geopolitical chokehold.” Pipeline Future
In addition to promoting the continued investment of companies in Caspian energy, Ambassador Jones said that the United States will continue to support the sovereignty and independence of the Caspian countries and to promote their economic interdependence.
The current focus of the United States in this respect is Kazakhstan, considered the “east anchor of the east-west transportation corridor.” According to Ambassador Jones, by signing the Istanbul Declaration, Kazakhstan has indicated serious interest in the new pipeline which would include a trans-Caspian section linking Kazakhstan’s oil fields to the BTC pipeline. In order to facilitate good will among the Caspian countries and possibly incorporate Kazakhstan into the design, the US is assisting Kazakhstan’s effort to join the new pipeline and will assure transparency throughout the process. In addition, Ambassador Jones reported on plans for a multilateral agreement, soon to be produced by Turkey, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, which will further facilitate economic interdependence among the Caspian countries.
Ambassador Jones also stressed the importance of maintaining contact with Russia throughout the construction process of the pipeline. She said that this communication will help demonstrate to Russia and Russian oil companies the potential for alternate exit routes for Caspian oil. It is not US policy to exclude Russia from pipeline opportunities, but rather to encourage Russian companies to participate.
Finally, Ambassador Jones noted that talks focusing on transporting Caspian energy to Europe through new pipelines have been renewed. She said that demand for gas is particularly high in Europe and will continue to grow. Therefore, Europe will, in all likelihood, need to find additional sources of gas to satisfy its energy requirements. Ambassador Jones predicted that the trans-Caspian gas pipeline could be an additional resource for supplying this extra gas to southern Europe by way of Turkey.
This Program Brief was prepared by Nixon Center intern Chelsea Petersen.