Talk:Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline article.
Article policies
energy Portal

Contents

[edit] Comments

[edit] where does it all go??

It seems as if this pipeline avoided going through Armenia. Does anybody know why?
H Padleckas 20:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, Armenia is the least stable of the three Caucasian republics, and relations between Turkey and Armenia are rather poor, not to mention that Armenia and Azerbaijan have been fighting a border-dispute war on and off for the past 15 years. —thames 21:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
This route was chosen based on geostrategic interests. Armenia is aligned with Russia--Confuzion 01:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
There's no conspiracy. The pipeline is primarily an Azerbaijani project (to benefit their own oil industry as well as Baku as a Caspian port). Armenia and Azerbaijan have a cease-fire but are basically at war. It would be foolish for the Azeri government to run a strategic economic asset through enemy territory. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe Armenia also has no diplomatic relations with Turkey. There have certainly been border problems - the border between the two countries is currently closed and has been for some time. The issue has been in the news only this week. -- ChrisO 15:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

(It should be noted, though, that it has been suggested that this is a gross overestimate, with Azerbaijan's oil reserves estimated by some to be a mere 32 million barrels.) <- The pipeline is projected to transport oil from Central Asia (through the Caspian), and not specifically Azerbaijan--Confuzion 01:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of the previous answers are misleading: a) The pipeline is *not* "primarily an Azerbaijani project." It is primarily a British Petroleum-European-U.S. project whose secondary goal is to enrich Turkey, Georgia and mostly Azerbaijan. b) Turkey and Armenia do not have diplomatic relations because of Turkey's refusal to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and because of its ethnic ties with Azerbaijan. c) Armenia is *not* "the least stable of the three Caucasian Republics"; Georgia and Azerbaijan are far more politically unstable, having seen many more changes in government than Armenia since independence. d) The only reason Armenia is ostracized from this deal is because it is surrounded by political enemies who happen to be backed by poweful Western oil interests.

Treaty of Kars link explains one reason for closed Turkish-Armenian border.

I've added some explicit 'Western interests' phrases as there was (is) too much Western and US ethnocentrism in the article - these pipeline routes have been chosen to favour Western allied interests in particular. Emerging industrial giants like Russia, China and India have an interest in direct oil routes and pipelines also. I don't really like this article, it's too 'cosy' and 'oily' (no pun intended) around Western interests and 'oil panic', and political and commercial power plays. I dispute the 8-9% of Middle Eastern oil export to US figure supplied, it could be more like 12% - ~20% of ~60% imports - hence the increasing role of unsavoury geopolitics in the region, the desire to get around OPEC countries in general (40% of US imports), not to mention profits made by infrastructure (pipeline) companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

--Sean01 00:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush in Georgia

Interesting. A pipeline opens, running through Georgia, and Bush visits Georgia to anounce that democracy is succeeding in the country and that the U.S. should support them! Ulterior motive? Maybe...

(Only 'maybe'???)

The US backed the Rose Revolution but the pipeline was in the works for many years before that. Nobody benefited from Georgia being a failed state, except perhaps Russia (who still has "peacekeepers" in Georgia). --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the pipeline was in the works under the Shevardnaze government in Georgia before the Rose Revolution occurred. Russia is still sponsoring separatists in Georgia (in Abkhazia and South Ossetia). —thames 14:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Didnt some guy throw a grenate at bush but it didnt explode? Baku87 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Couple Questions

The map shows an existing "crude oil" pipeline ending at the Black Sea, the "Western Early" I think they're calling it. How has that line fared with regards to war, environmental concerns, earthquakes, etc? It seems to pass through a lot of the same territory, and answering these questions would seem to help predict the impact this new longer pipeline will have. Also, besides length is there any difference between the Western Early and BTC?

The WE appears to be a much smaller pipeline with a lower throughput (100K barrels per day); also, it goes to the Black Sea, so it still faces the problem of congestion in the Bosphorus. -- ChrisO 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the Druzhba pipeline, and shouldn't the Main Page say that this pipeline is the second-longest in the world? That's what this article says.

Thanks, that's been corrected now. See Druzhba pipeline for more info on that subject. -- ChrisO 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The map makes a distinction between crude oil and oil pipelines, with the "Western Early" marked as "crude oil" and the BTC as "oil." Does that mean that the BTC line is made to transport partially refined oil?

I think they both transport the same thing. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/azerbjan.html :
Azerbaijan's increase in oil production since 1997 has mainly come from the international consortium known as the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC). AIOC (partners: BP, Unocal, SOCAR, Inpex, Statoil, ExxonMobil, TPAO, Devon Energy, Itochu, Delta/Hess) operates the offshore Azeri Chirag and deep water Gunashli (ACG) mega-structure (see Map 1), which is estimated to contain proven crude oil reserves of 5.4 billion barrels according to the field's operator and largest stakeholder, British Petroleum. According to the AIOC the field reached an average daily output of 144,000 bbl/day in June 2004 , mostly from the Chirag-1 stationary platform. This production has been dubbed “early oil” by the company, and is currently exported through the “Western Early Oil Pipeline,” which extends to the Georgian port of Supsa on the Black Sea (see Map 2). -- ChrisO 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I missed any answers in the article.

[edit] Dependence of the USA

From the article:

Although some have touted the pipeline as potentially removing the dependence of the US and other Western nations on oil from Russia and the Middle East, in reality the vast majority of oil will still come from those regions. The pipeline will, however, help to diversify the global oil supply and so will insure to an extent against a failure in supply elsewhere.

Doesn't the USA receive its oil from Venezuella? Do they get any oil from the Middle East? at0 23:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Check out e.g. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/september96/iraq_oil_9-5.html - figures it gives are 2/3 of all global oil reserves are located in the Middle East, 50% of all global oil supplies come from the Middle East and 8 or 9% of US oil supplies come from there. So it's a significant figure. A loss in ME oil (from Iran or Saudi Arabia, say) would have a major impact on the US economy - the BTC pipeline helps to insure against that to some degree. -- ChrisO 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking

It would appear that the BTC pipeline is ranked third in length behind the Lakehead Pipeline in North America, which includes one path dating to 1953 that is 2,840 km in length (additional pipe brings the total to 4,990 km, though that makes a "system" rather than just a single pipeline). A map of the U.S. portion is here, and a very approximate route can be seen by mapping Redwater, Alberta to Sarnia, Ontario (the actual path is more direct) —Mulad (talk) June 28, 2005 06:38 (UTC)


[edit] Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline

This article states that "The related BP-led project to construct a trans-Caspian gas pipeline to from Kazakhstan to Turkey finished in July, 2006". That's incorrect, because:

  • no gas pipeline was finished in July 2006
  • Later this year will be finished South Caucasus Pipeline (also known as Baku-Tblisi-Erzerum Pipeline). But this pipeline as nothing to do with gas from Kazakhstan or from Turkmenistan as long as Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan will be built.
  • There is intention to build the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, but nothing decided yet and the future of this project remains unclear.

For these reasons I'm deleting the above-mentioned sentence. I also plan to write an artcile on the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline soon. Beagel 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Turkish economy

This article is not about Turkish economy only, but rather about a project involving three countries and operated by an international consortium. Therefore I think it's not correct to put "Economy of Turkey" template into this page and I will revert last editions. I have nothing against if the relevant category will be added (together with Economy of Azerbaijan and Economy of Georgia).Beagel 11:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)