Oil Pipelines Fuel Balkan Dreams Over Overnight Riches
16 11 2006 At least
three pipelines are in various stages of construction, though some may never
see completion.
By Marian
Chiriac in Bucharest, Jane Dimeski in Skopje and Ekaterina Terzieva in Sofia (Balkan Insight, 16 Nov 06)
After years
of ethnic conflicts and political instability, Balkan countries are hoping to
boost their economies by becoming key links in oil pipelines connecting Europe
and Asia.
At least
three trans-Balkan projects are in preparation, competing to bring Caspian oil
and gas to the West.
All face
delays, owing to shortages of investors and funds and poor decision-making, and
one may never be completed.
At the end
of September, representatives from Albania,
Bulgaria and Macedonia agreed
the text of a treaty concerning the AMBO pipeline.
This aims to
carry oil from the Caspian region to the Black Sea port
of Burgas in Bulgaria and then through Macedonia to the Mediterranean port of Vlore
in Albania.
After years
of slow work, optimistic scenarios suggest the 850 kilometre-long pipeline,
with a capacity of 35 million metric tonnes per year and costing 1.3 billion US
dollars to construct, may be ready by the end of the decade.
Officials in
Macedonia
say the project is crucial for their country, as it will assure its energy
independence and increase the total assets of the economy.
"Macedonia
should get 25 to 40 million dollars per year only from the taxes it collects
for the oil crossing its territory," said Konstantin Dimitrov, president
of the Skopje-based Energetic Efficiency Association.
But major
problems lie ahead concerning money to complete the project. Even with the
approved treaty in hand, AMBO officials still seek investors and shippers to
supply the oil for the pipeline.
Until now
AMBO has declined to declare the identity of potential investors but maintains
at least five different companies have expressed interest.
It has also
refused to reveal details about the financing structure for the pipeline or
about future oil suppliers.
"We
have expressions of interest from shippers but now we need to convert those to
commitments," the energy industry newsletter Platt's quoted AMBO's
president, Ted Ferguson, as saying.
The AMBO
pipeline is not only short of money but also faces the danger of competition
from another trans-Balkan rival.
This is the
Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline, a joint project of Bulgaria,
Greek and Russia, designed
over a decade ago to bring Russian crude oil to the Mediterranean
and bypass the crowded Turkish straits.
This
pipeline has a projected length of only 350 km and stands to cost over 900
million dollars.
The
Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline project has a fundamentally different supply
model compared to AMBO project, with Russia acting as the guarantor of
supplies.
On October
31, the parties agreed Russia
will own 51 per cent of the pipeline compared to 24.5 per cent each for Bulgaria and Greece.
Three
Russian oil companies ultimately controlled by the Kremlin will have the
majority stake, with the project aiming to come on stream in 2009, initially
pumping up to 200,000 barrels per day from Burgas to Alexandroupolis, but with
the volume set to triple in three or four years.
The
countries along this pipeline also hope it will inject new life into their
economies in the form of revenues from transit tariffs, though some officials
and experts add a note of caution.
"We
should not expect rivers of money to flow into Bulgaria after the pipeline is
completed," Asen Gagausov, minister of regional development, told Balkan
Insight. In the first instance, he expects yearly revenues of 60 million
dollars.
Officials
say that the main problem with this projected pipeline, too, is attracting
serious investment in the form of bank loans backed by governments.
Meanwhile,
the AMBO and the Burgas-Alexandroupolis projects are in a race over which one
will operate first. The winner will obviously be in a better position to secure
oil transportation.
Zoran
Gligorov, of the Macedonian ministry of finance, says that despite their common
interests, the Balkan countries are all competing with each other over oil.
"If Greece manages
to build first the pipeline crossing its territory, the whole AMBO project will
become less profitable," he noted.
Gligorov
said the future of the project was in Russia's
hands, as Skopje
has little ability to influence matters.
Opinion in Macedonia is that Greece
is firmly behind the Burgas-Alexandroupolis project, and that it has Bulgaria on its
side.
But while
some see the pipelines across Balkans as competitive projects, others say they
can function side by side.
"We do
not see the Burgas-Alexandroupolis project as real competition because the
final destination of the oil is not the same," Gligor Taskovic, Macedonia's
minister for foreign investments and former vice-president of AMBO, told Balkan
Insight.
Taskovic
said the oil from AMBO will be transported to Rotterdam
in the Netherlands and then
to the east coast of the United States
and Canada while the other
pipeline would transport oil only to the Mediterranean.
One oil
analyst pointed out that the suppliers would be entirely different. The
Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline would mainly ship Russian oil from Novorossyisk
while AMBO was targeting Kazakstan and the Caspian region as its suppliers.
This source
said it was vital that the idea of joint infrastructure for both pipelines
worked, as there was only terminal for both of them in Burgas.
Countries in
the northern Balkans also want to compete in the oil transportation market.
Four years
ago, Romania, Serbia, Croatia,
Slovenia signed a memorandum
of understanding to launch the construction of a pipeline from Constanta
in Romania, via the Serbian
oil refinery in Pancevo through Croatia
to the Adriatic oil terminal of Trieste in Italy. This
line also aims to transport oil from Caucasus.
The
pipeline, which would be some 1,300 km long, is a different animal altogether.
While the AMBO and Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipelines would mainly serve to
bypass the Bosporus Straits, the Constanta-Trieste line plans to serve the
refineries along its route, and also enable countries such as Kazakstan to
deliver their crude oil to Europe while bypassing Russia.
Though this
project has enormous advantages over its competitors - at least twice the
capacity, partial construction is under way, and there is an existing
"pipe-to-pipe" connection to a line that crosses the Alps in Trieste - it is far less
advanced than others.
When asked
about the future of the project, Romanian officials merely pay lip service.
Ministry
representatives told Balkan Insight that Bucharest
was trying to attract foreign investors and international support, stressing
the advantage the pipeline would have: an energy alternative to the increased
risk posed by a Russian monopoly in regional energy. They sought to present Constanta as a superior alternative to Burgas on the Black Sea.
But energy
analyst Catalin Dimofte sees no future in the project. "It never had very
strong political sponsors and the economics behind the project are weak, to put
it mildly," he said. "The project had at some point a window of
opportunity but it never went beyond mere talk.
"With
the dice now apparently thrown on the competing Burgas-Alexandroupolis project,
continuing to talk about Constanta-Trieste is a waste of time. The project is
dead for all practical purposes."
Oil experts
agree that Russia will
ultimately have the final say on what Balkan pipeline is completed, as it will
be mainly Russia's
oil that is pumped through.
"Unfortunately,
the EU has never proven very adept at making this sort of major joint
decisions, and the issue of the Balkan pipeline is of fringe interest to the
core EU countries," noted Dimofte.
"As for
the US,
most major American companies have huge interests in Russian oil and will
accommodate any pipeline alternative."
Marian
Chiriac is BIRN Romania director. Jane Dimeski is a journalist with the weekly
Aktuel in Skopje.
Ekaterina Terzieva is a journalist with national Sega daily in Bulgaria.
Balkan Insight is BIRN's online publication.