Talk:Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline

Discussion
Polish energy meeting was about the future of Odessa-Brody oil pipeline. Beagel 16:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did they expect the President of Kazakhstan there and cancelled the meating as soon as the news from Turkmenistan arrived? Please read the news before deleting properly referenced facts that don't suit your POV. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First, the meeting wasn't canceled. Kazakhstan participated at the level of deputy minister of energy. Second, if you read the source you provided, you see this talks about Odessa-Brody oil pipeline:
 * In a joint declaration, the five presidents and a personal envoy of the president of Kazakhstan, underlined their political desire to the project which would see the construction of a pipeline linking the port of Odessa on the Caspian sea to Gdansk on the Baltic, bypassing Russia.
 * Kazakhstan is crucial for Odessa-Brody-(Gdansk) pipeline, as coming from the Black sea it could be only oil from Russia, Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan. Russia not interested (actually right now Russia use this pipeline in reverse to pump oil from the Druzhba pipeline to the Black Sea) and Azerbaijan pumps its oil into BTC pipeline. So, the whole project is depending of Kazakhstan's oil.Beagel 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Representatives of those states, along with Georgian and Azerbaijani leaders, gathered for a meeting in Krakow, Poland, on May 11, during which they discussed ways to gain access to Caspian Basin energy without it having to cross Russian territory... but the meeting "ended early after news of the Prikaspiisky pact spread." --Ghirla-трёп- 17:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Added templates
Hm, this reads like a stub by a known ant-Putin editor. Same POV, same style, same grammar (problem with definite and indefinite article, use of present perfect tense to suggest something is still continuing, only the time adverb makes the present perfect ungrammatical).
 * By anti-Putin editor do you mean Socor? Because yes, some of his work has been used for creation of historical part. Right now, the used material has been provided at the section of external links - I agree these should be replaced by references.Beagel 08:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not mean Socor, I meant a Wikipedia editor who has been writing ten or more pages all about the degradation of Russian democracy under Putin and all based on the same dubious sources (going for quantity in stead of quality too). But your hunch is right, I think there is a lot here based on Socor, and at least a link should be made to his article so that interested people can find out who he is and what he stands for.--Pan Gerwazy 09:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to Forbes should if possible be replaced because it opens with a spyware (OK rather innocent spyware, but spyware nevertheless) loading window over part of the text making the article impossible to read.
 * I tried to understand what the problem with Forbes and understood this only after switching to the IE. Some other browsers block that kind of spyware and advertises automatically. It also possible to read with the IE - just push the back bottom. I don't think this could be reason to remove the reference.Beagel 08:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is technical and has nothing to do with POV - I do not want Forbes out beacuse it is Forbes. However, I am using Google Tool bar and the blocking pages silently of Spybot Search & Destroy, and still this thing scrapes through. If and when possible, it should be replaced by another reference.--Pan Gerwazy 09:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I may come back to correct this myself - if I find the time.--Pan Gerwazy 23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, this project is the brain child of Alexander Haig and dates from 1993, when he opened a bank account on the British Virgin islands:.
 * Not really. There were/are lot of different pipeline projects. Haig proposed inland pipeline through Iran. This pipeline is already built, although without Alexander Haig. And the provided link is mainly about Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, other story again. Beagel 08:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, I am sure I saw Haig mentioned once as suggesting not Iran but the Caspian Sea as a way of circumventing Russia. But then again, perhaps that was an oil pipeline.


 * And there are more coincidences: and . --Pan Gerwazy 23:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please describe, exactly what POV problems there are? Beagel 08:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we do get Haig sourced to this, we will have to mention his involvement in the Chechnya group (although I seem to remember it was recently renamed to refer to the whole Caucasus). Being close to Chechnya, the pipeline could be kept safe if Chechens supported it - I do not think Islamists terrorists would then dare to touch it. --Pan Gerwazy 09:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the structure, I propose the article be re-written in chronological order. That would be much more understandable than what we have now. --Pan Gerwazy 09:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion copied from talk pages
I really have no problems with your version of the page. Pan Gerwazy does, so it's up to him to explain it, as he promised he would. I also can't find anything about the Prikaspisky (North Caspian?) pipeline, by which all Turkmen gas is currently transported to Europe. It'd be great to have at least a stub. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here I am. POV does not necessarily mean partisan or enemical to one side in a "conflict", but could simply mean that you are looking at it from one side only. Let us look at this case. Obviously one reason only for this line: circumventing Russia beacuse of what happened during the Ukraine-Gazprom crisis. Yes, there was a problem between Russia and Ukraine, but claiming that this means bypassing Russia is the only answer for the future of energy in Europe is POV - Ukraine was not entirely blameless there. Unsurprisingly, a lot of the references you are giving are based on Vladimir Socor. You do realize that even the Turkish Weekly reference is based on him? I add a few more points. No mention that the project is the brainchild of Haig, as I mentioned, and of the Burgas-Alexandropolis alternative for Eastern Europe (although it is mentioned in at least one reference). The Piebalgs reference may actually be only Andris Piebalgs, one EC commissioner, approving a plan of six private companies to finance a feasability study. By the way, you omitted to add to the article that in 2006 Kazakhstan was mentioning 2015 - while in 1999 deliveries were promised for 2002! Contrary to what the the article seems to suggest tacitly ("during the OSCE meetings"), I believe that there was no OSCE involvement there. Reference 5 is really about the OSCE and the conflicts and human rights situation in the Caucasus. Reference six is about three countries involved in the Caucasus part of the line using the occasion to sign a treaty and Turkmenistan associating itself with it. May be a question of language: whoever wrote this may not have understood the implication of the exact phrase. I doubt very much whether the OSCE could actually get involved in this. Russia happens to be a member. But combining OSCE and Piebalgs creates the impression of massive European interest in this line. May be the case in some East European countries, i.e. the Baltics, Rumania and Poland, but doubtful for the rest of Europe. The critics section may perhaps also refer to the line isolating Armenia (is in one reference already), the fact that the more southerly lines are, the more exposed they are to the danger of Islamic terrorism, and of course that Russia may actually start to concentrate more on delivering to China and East Asia.--Pan Gerwazy 13:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (Copied from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beagel")

After your comment on my talk page I am even more confused. I have created several articles about different oil and gas pipelines and definitely not because to put any certain line. This article never consists something like "bypassing Russia is the only answer for the future of energy in Europe". Yes, it said "Since January 2006, the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline project has been reactivated, probably also because of Russian gas disputes with some of its neighbours.", but the gas disputes were mentioned just to give one possible explanation why discussions about the pipeline restarted. However, as a speculation (although sourced), which is not the most important part of this articles, which is the pipeline, not Rusiian energy relations, I removed the part mentioning disputes.

Concerning looking from one or another side, exactly which information from which side is missing? I rather prefer that kind of articles to consist mainly technical information. Of course, in some cases you need also political background, but no more than necessary. And I use sources, which write about the pipeline, and you can't use "other side" sources if they don't.

OSCE conference. Well, when I started this article I wasn't very experienced editor. I used lot of material, but instead of making references, I made the external links section and included only links focusing on the pipeline. Right now I am not able to find the exact source, so I replaced it with other one and changed the text accordingly (which is more correct now, I think). And yes, In September 2006 I didn't edited the text very carefully.

As I already sayd, Haig proposed INLAND pipeline through IRAN. This is the Korpezhe-Kurt Kui Pipeline, built in 1997. Through Iran, it's connected with Turkish gas grid.

The Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline is the OIL pipeline, not a GAS pipeline. So, Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline is not alternative to the Trans-Caspian Gas pipeline.

Different dates or deadline are quit natural. In 1999, the agreement with private companies was already signed, and everybody expected the pipeline to become operational in 2002. As it was mentioned, the project was postponed in 2000 and discussions restarted only in 2006. Even no new intergovernmental agreement is signed and certainly there is no contracts with the private companies, so it's natural that the expectations have changed.

Concerning your proposals include political situation in Caucasus or Russian energy deliveries to Asia, they are more wider than the subject of this article. Maybe to start Geopolitics of Caspian energy resources? There is also Energy policy of Russia.

As our discussion is about how to improve the article, I propose to copy our relevant comments to the talk page of the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline.Beagel 19:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you are right about Burgas-Alexandropolis. That should go (perhaps under "See also") to the article on the oil pipeline. I meant it as an alternative to the Nabucco line, of course.


 * Deleting every mention of Russia in the article is actually a very bad way of trying to get rid of POV. The POV would still be there, by way of the references chosen. A far better idea would be to actually give the reason ("circumventing Russia" in the definition at the start) and then explain why the thing was revived in 2006. A short sentence, with a link to Russia-Ukraine gas dispute would be appropriate.


 * The different timelines are indeed normal, but the expected time lapse before operation has gone up from three to nine. Now, this is of course OR (particularly since it will be difficult to find a West European source saying this Putin coup does not really mean much for gas consumers in Western Euope - if it is not important, newspapers do not write about it) but I guess this may be the reason why the West European reaction to the possible failure of this line is rather subdued: in nine years' time, the question whether China will be able to afford paying European prices for gas and oil will be far more important than the possible existence of the Transcaspian pipe line(s).


 * As for the OSCE, as I thought, the problem will be language-based. It is partly to do with the passive voice there. OK, I will try to fix that.


 * I would also add Energy policy of Russia and a ref to the Belarusian oil hitch to "see also", by the way.--Pan Gerwazy 09:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The azerbaijan today link
"The US Government Commences Lobbying Trans Caspian Pipeline Of This Project". For some time I was unable to open the site, but now I can. Unbelievably, that is really the title of one of their articles. And it is also that text that appears when you press "home". Probably because it was one of their lst articles at that url. Recently, the url for Azerbaijan Today became "http://www.azerbaijantoday.com/index.php". The English also improved. --Pan Gerwazy 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Red herring"
From today's Financial Times:

Jonathan Stern, head of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, describes the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline as a "red herring":

"There is no gas to fill it, no money to finance it and no immediate market for it to serve", he says.

--Ghirla-трёп- 20:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101051159/https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552643 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552643
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115205405/https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)