TOO MANY PIPELINES. (Troppe pipeline)

Europe may not be able to sustain all its proposed gas supply pipelines but will need to build at least some soon to ensure security of supply in the latter half of this decade.

Scarred by the Russia-Ukraine gas row of 2009, which cut about a fifth of Europe's supply in mid winter, major European gas consumers plan many pipelines to promising producing regions in central Asia, North Africa and the Middle East.

With China competing to woo producers, Europe will likely struggle to secure enough gas to fill all the new connections and would be unable to use it all if they do get filled.

"If every project that is discussed is built then there will be way too much supply, so I think the best projects will be developed and marginal ones delayed, or not built," said Graham Freedman, a senior analyst at UK consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

"But I don't think anybody doubts the fact that Europe is going to need more gas because domestic production is falling. It is going to be an importer for many years to come," he said.

Wood Mackenzie forecasts that gas demand in the European Union, Turkey and former Yugoslav states could rise from 551 bcm in 2010 to 653 billion cubic metres in 2020.

Under what it says is a bullish demand scenario, this would leave a supply shortfall of 125 bcm by the end of the decade unless far more is produced at home or brought in from overseas.

But if all major new pipelines were built and filled to capacity, gas flows to Europe by 2020 could far outstrip demand.

Since the Russia crisis, Europe has been comfortably supplied with gas for power generation, heating and industry through existing pipelines and an increasing number of liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The Medgaz link from Algeria to Spain could further increase supplies into the Iberian Peninisula by 8 bcm/year, if the repeatedly delayed pipeline opens this winter.

The 55 bcm/year Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea is expected to bring more Russian gas to western Europe, bypassing Ukraine by the end of next year.

Russia is pushing on with its South Stream project to bring up to another 63 bcm under the Black Sea via the Balkans.

The European Union is also championing the 31 bcm alternative Nabucco plan that would bring Caspian and Middle East gas via Turkey, excluding Russia.

But Italy also hopes that its projects TAP and ITGI for around 10 bcm capacity each can compete for mainly Caspian gas market share with South Stream and Nabucco, giving it more options via the "Southern Corridor" to Europe.

In all, the maximum capacity of these pipelines, some of which were conceived prior to the economic crisis which brought a gas price slump, adds up to 177 bcm to Europe's supply.

Pipeline supplies would also face competition from liquefied natural gas (LNG), which has become much more readily available because of a surge in North American shale gas production, with unconventional gas finds in Europe posing another threat to both types of external supplier.

"Some projects make sense from a security of supply perspective, because of the diversification of gas sources that they would bring," said Nigel Harris of UK consultancy Kingston Energy. "But with plenty of gas available from existing sources, there's no commercial benefit from diversification."

Nord Stream and South Stream are just additional routes for Russian-controlled gas flows, he said, while alternative sources from Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Iran remain uncertain.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) thinks global gas demand may recover from 2011, but it still expects supply to outstrip demand until 2020..

Some gas suppliers are more optimistic, pointing to buoyant demand in the Middle East, China and India which could leave less gas for Europe. Phillipe Boisseau, president of France's Total Gas & Power, told the recent European Autumn Gas Conference in Berlin that the "supply bubble will disappear in three years."

Speakers agreed that current gas prices in consuming countries would not support all Europe's proposed supply lines, although they expect demand for power generation to contine to rise as Europe looks to back up its increasing wind power capacity with gas-fired plants.
(FuturesPros.com via Reuters)

IT'S THE END OF THE WEST, AS WE KNOW IT (AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FEEL)

A major reason for the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was the building of a pipeline through the country that would take natural gas from Turkmenistan to India and Pakistan. Canada and the other 44 Western countries occupying Afghanistan are supporting this U.S. objective by bolstering Washington’s military position in the country.

Turkmenistan, which borders Afghanistan, contains the fourth largest reserves of natural gas in the world. The U.S. has been trying to set up the pipeline for a decade, having first negotiated the venture with the ousted Taliban government. Two months after these negotiations broke down, Washington overthrew the Taliban in October 2001 when it invaded Afghanistan.

Since then, the U.S. has persuaded India, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan to sign an agreement aimed at constructing the pipeline, but the war in Afghanistan and the U.S.’s failure to defeat the Taliban stalled actual work on this project. Washington’s occupation of Afghanistan and pipeline plans are part of its strategy to gain control of Central Asia’s and the Caspian Sea area’s energy riches and divert them away from Russia, China, and Iran.

As Richard Boucher, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, stated in September 2007: “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan so it can become a conduit and hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south… and so that the countries of Central Asia are no longer bottled up between the two enormous powers of China and Russia, but rather that they have outlets to the south as well as to the north and the east and the west.”

However, as the Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar put it in an article for Asia Times, “The United States' pipeline diplomacy in the Caspian, which strove to bypass Russia, elbow out China and isolate Iran, has foundered.”
Recently, the U.S.’s Turkmen-Afghan pipeline plans have suffered what appears to be a fatal blow. On January 6, Turkmenistan committed its entire gas exports to China, Russia, and Iran with the inauguration of the Dauletabad-Sarakhs-Khangiran (DSK) pipeline which connects Iran's northern Caspian area with Turkmenistan.

As Bhadrakumar explains, Turkmenistan “has no urgent need of the pipelines that the United States and the European Union have been advancing.” The operation of the DSK pipeline, along with the launching of another one between China and Turkmenistan in December 2009, has “virtually redrawn the energy map of Eurasia and the Caspian,” he maintains. “We are witnessing a new pattern of energy cooperation at the regional level that dispenses with Big Oil [private Western multinational oil companies]. Russia traditionally takes the lead. China and Iran follow the example. Russia, Iran, and Turkmenistan hold, respectively, the world's largest, second-largest, and fourth-largest gas reserves. And China will be consumer par excellence in this century. The matter is of profound consequence to U.S. global strategy.”

Bhadrakumar has served in diplomatic posts for India in the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Russia and Turkmenistan have also agreed to build an east-west pipeline connecting all of the latter’s gas fields to one network so that the pipelines going to Russia, Iran, and China can take gas from any of the fields. (See the accompanying map for the routes of these new and proposed pipelines.)

Three weeks before the opening of the DSK pipeline, China and Turkmenistan inaugurated a major natural gas pipeline between the two countries. The presidents of China, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan attended the opening ceremony of the 1,833-kilometre pipeline on December 14, 2009. The pipeline will transport natural gas from the Saman-Depe field in eastern Turkmenistan through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan to China’s Xinjiang province, from where it will go to 14 Chinese provinces and cities. By 2012, the pipeline will deliver 40 billion cubic metres of gas per year, which is more than half of China’s present gas consumption.

Chinese President Hu Jintao described the pipeline as “another platform for collaboration and cooperation” between China and Central Asia. In return for access to Central Asian gas, China is building infrastructure and giving cheap loans to the area’s republics. According to John Chan, writing on the World Socialist Website: “Beijing’s broader aim is to bring the region within its own political and strategic orbit.”

Turkmenistan President Berdymukhamedov declared that the pipeline has “not only commercial and economic value. It is also political,” and will become “a major contributing factor to security in Asia”.

Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov added: “China, through its wise and farsighted policy, has become one of the key guarantors of global security.”

As Chan puts it, “The opening of a major Chinese pipeline from Turkmenistan alters the Central Asian energy equation. The Financial Times commented last week that the pipeline “deals a blow to the European Union’s plans to win Turkmen supplies for the planned Nabucco pipeline.”
This pipeline is the U.S.’s and E.U.’s attempt at breaking Russia’s dominant role as the leading energy supplier to Europe. Nabucco depends mainly on getting gas from Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. However, Russia now wants to double its consumption of Azerbaijani gas, and Iran is also becoming a consumer of this gas, further reducing supplies for Nabucco.
In December 2009, Azerbaijan signed an agreement to deliver gas to Iran through the 1,400km Kazi-Magomed-Astara pipeline. Russia's South Stream and North Stream pipelines (the latter’s construction starts in Spring 2010), will supply gas to northern and southern Europe, ensuring Moscow’s continued dominance of energy supplies to Europe.
As Bhadrakumar points out, the DSK pipeline shows that U.S. efforts to demonize, isolate, and terrorize Iran have failed miserably. In open defiance of U.S. policy, President Berdymukhammedov of Turkmenistan is busy creating “a new economic axis” with Iranian president Mahmud Ahmadinejad, whom he considers a valuable partner.

Washington’s and the West’s show of force in Afghanistan has also failed to impress Berdymukhammedov, who is giving all of his country’s natural gas to Russia, China, and Iran. These countries are not currently engaged in imperialist military occupation of another nation. All they had to do to get Turkmenistan’s gas was to offer it a decent economic deal. So, while the West kills thousands of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan and ravages both countries, Russia, China and Iran are acquiring the crucial energy riches of Central Asia and the Caspian area without firing a shot.

Russian dominance of Central Asia was further cemented by the recent overthrow of the pro-U.S. government in Kyrgyzstan and its replacement by a pro-Moscow regime. The new government has told Washington that it can no longer use the Manas airbase, which is the main transshipment point for American supplies to Afghanistan.

In light of such major Western energy-related defeats, the continuing occupation of Afghanistan by 46 Western nations must have some other purpose. If their military venture were mainly economic — if they simply wanted greater access to Central Asia’s resources — why did they not offer the region’s countries acceptable prices for them, just as Russia, China, and Iran are doing?

The answer perhaps lies in a memorable remark by the great Palestinian intellectual Edward Said: “At the heart of the Western Idea is imperialism.”

The West did not become rich by offering resource-endowed countries fair and mutually beneficial economic deals. It became rich by subjecting countries in the Global South to 500 years of genocide and plunder through colonialism, neocolonialism, and the endless wars these aggressive actions entail.

The U.S. and its allies do not seem to realize that the dark age of “might-is-right” imperialism is coming to an end. Russia, China, India, and Iran are not countries that can be subdued by displays of military aggression in neighbouring nations. The continuing futile occupation of Afghanistan reflects the failure of the West’s political and military strategists to face this new geopolitical reality.

What possible threat could a financially and politically crippled West — a coalition that can’t even defeat the Taliban after nine years — pose to nuclear-armed Russia, China, and India? Countries like these are busy creating a post-imperial age in which aggression and occupation are not required to secure needed resources.

They are leaving the decadent West in the dust of history.
(RawaNews)

EVERYONE AGAINST EVERYONE. (Tutti contro tutti)

The drive by foreign companies to grab a piece of the action in gas-rich Turkmenistan is reported to be producing some strange bedfellows -- like PetroSaudi, owned by the son of King Abdallah, and Merhav, an Israeli conglomerate run by former intelligence officer Yosef Maiman.

According to Intelligence Online, a Paris-based Web site that covers global security issues, the companies from these longtime Middle Eastern adversaries are negotiating a partnership "through intermediaries" to explore the Serdar field that straddles the border between Turkmenistan and oil-rich Azerbaijan.

It is reported to contain the equivalent of at least 1 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Turkmenistan is the world's 10th-largest gas producer. The United States, Europe, China, Russia and Iran are all clamoring for access to its vast gas fields.

These contain an estimated 20 trillion cubic meters of natural gas -- enough to supply Europe for 66 years.

Maiman once worked for the Mossad, Israel's foreign intelligence service, and is reputedly linked to a network of companies owned by the agency.

He has been moving into Central Asia for some time, spearheading an Israeli effort to secure influence -- and a significant intelligence presence -- in the energy-rich Caspian Sea basin, the economic center of the five former Soviet republics that make up the Muslim region.

The Merhav Group has been involved in Turkmenistan's natural gas industry for years. In 2004 The Jerusalem Post described Maiman, a familiar figure in the Turkmen capital of Ashgabat, as a "leading figure" in Central Asia's gas sector.

According to some reports, Maiman was made a citizen of Turkmenistan by decree of the country's eccentric and authoritarian president, Saparmurad Niyazov, who died of heart disease Dec. 21, 2006.

According to Intelligence Online, Maiman was behind the appointment of Israel's first ambassador to Turkmenistan, Reuven Dinia, by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman recently. Dinai is another ex-Mossad officer, who once ran its Moscow station until he was expelled in 1996.

Merhav has reportedly dominated foreign business in Turkmenistan, including brokering energy projects in the country.

Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are closely linked to Israeli commercial interests -- not to mention Israeli intelligence -- and Maiman appears to be well-placed to broker an agreement between them over the disputed Serdar field, which Ashgabat and Baku both claim, and secure a contract.

The German-born entrepreneur, who became an Israeli citizen in 1971 and founded Merhav five years later, also has longstanding business links with Saudi Arabia.

These connections may well expand as Israel and Saudi Arabia both find themselves in confrontation with nuclear-wannabe Iran.

Maiman has traveled to Riyadh several times in recent years on his collection of non-Israeli passports.
PetroSaudi, headed by Turki bin Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, one of the sons of the Saudi monarch, thus may be a front-runner in Turkmenistan if it cements its partnership with Merhav.

They face competition from Total of France, Eni of Italy, Royal Dutch Shell, TNK-BP, Lukoil of Russia and Chevron of the United States.

These companies are being welcomed in Ashgabat because the country was badly hit in April, when Russia suddenly stopped importing Turkmen natural gas.

That slashed Turkmenistan's exports by 84 percent, because Russia was experiencing a gas glut. Without Russia as a customer, Turkmenistan is losing an estimated $1 billion a month.

"Right now Turkmenistan is looking for any energy deal it can make with almost any player, because Russia's sudden halt to natural gas imports has cut off most of Ashgabat's cash flow," according to the U.S.-based security consultancy Stratfor.

Turkmenistan does not have a viable alternative export route and, warns Stratfor, "could go bankrupt if energy revenues do not start coming in from somewhere."

Moscow, which remains the dominant power in Central Asia, is unhappy about Turkmenistan's efforts to bring in new energy partners.

China, with its insatiable appetite for energy to fuel its expanding economy, is likely to take Russia's place. Russia does not want to see any challenge to its influence in Central Asia. Neighboring Iran is another energy-hungry prospect.

"The geography of Central Asia, the competition among its five countries for resources and the increasing competition among outside powers for Central Asian energy seem to indicate that a fight for the region's energy resources in inevitable," according to Stratfor.
(UPI)

SUSPICIOUS SILENCE. (Silenzio sospetto)

The recent signing of the Nabucco pipeline project is definitely a political rather than economic deal. Its feasibility, the probability of its actual construction and its profitability aside, the deal shows clearly that, at least for the present, those who want to see a weaker Russia prevail over those who would rather see it strong and an integral part of the West. It is also obvious that without heavy Washington lobbying the Nabucco pipeline would never take off. Since there is practically no economic interest for the U.S. in it, Washington politics make the direction of the much advertised "reset" quite uncertain.

In the last 20 years since the collapse of communism every U.S. president has kept repeating that it is in American interests to see Russia as a strong, democratic, and prosperous nation. But actions rarely suit the words. Washington needs, and often gets, Moscow’s cooperation on major security issues, but then it turns around and does its damnedest not only to prevent “non-democratic” and “authoritarian” Moscow from becoming an energy superpower, but to make sure that it gets as little cash as possible -- by diverting this cash to former Soviet republics where democracy is so rudimentary as to be barely discernible, while Oriental despotism, sometimes hereditary, is very much in evidence. So much for the hugely advertised U.S. democracy promotion mission.

OK, let us forget about democracy and get to real things. Has in the end Russia lost this round? What about another important problem for Nabucco - the Iranian connection? It is more or less obvious that this new pipeline will be extremely difficult to fill. If one excludes Russian and Iranian gas it would be practically impossible to do. That is why Turkey insisted that both Russia and Iran should be on the list of gas suppliers but then the whole idea of Nabucco of eliminating Russia from the supply equation did not materialize. Pretty soon the Nabucco lobbyists will have to face squarely some unpleasant questions: Why we should spend billions to enrich Iran or Russia? The next question will be what if both Russia and Iran say that they are not interested since they already have other gas delivery contracts through different routes? Will Nabucco actually bring Russia and Iran closer together to manipulate not only the gas supply line but geopolitics?

Russia provided so much help to U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan. It can do a lot more in Iran since practically the whole Iranian nuclear program is dependent on Russia, which makes RF the best guarantor of it being used for peaceful rather than military purposes.

Of course, Russia made a mistake in accepting Ahmadinejad’s claim for victory in the recent elections a bit too soon. The Iranian opposition is not crushed yet, and the final outcome is not too certain. More and more political leaders and even mullahs are switching sides. The Kremlin would be well advised to show some restraint or at least neutrality, to avoid a future backlash.

Another interesting observation is that Ukrainians, Poles and Balts are suspiciously quiet. They were quite vocal in protesting against the Nord Stream Project to connect Russia with Germany through the Baltic Sea. Ukraine was the most vocal opponent since Nord Stream will bypass it, thus depriving Kiev of the much needed currency and of any chance of blackmailing Russia by delaying gas payments. The Nabucco pipeline -- if it is ever built, of course -- will also bypass Ukraine, but so far it looks like their leaders do not seem to mind. Moreover, they are cheerleading it, so is there some secret protocol to Nabucco regarding Ukraine?

To sum up, the way things are now, the Nabucco project may end up as a hot air balloon, for its economics are pretty questionable while the politics surrounding it smells very bad indeed.

However, one good thing for Russia is that Nabucco should force it to be more aggressive in building the alternative Nord Stream and South Stream pipelines and at the same time spare no effort on its economy diversification so as not to depend too much on its natural resources.
As for Nabucco cheer leaders it is to early for them to celebrate. At the present time I’d not advise to buy the pipeline stocks to anyone but instead want to repeat to some narrow-minded folks that it is a lot more advantageous to have Russia as a friend rather than foe.
(Russia Blog)