Talk:Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhhorod pipeline

Hoax?
As of the date of this comment, the Trans-Siberian pipeline has not been constructed. The information in this article is not accurate and should be deleted. Rwking2 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The references in the article seem to be legitimate. The authors of the cited articles and book may have been taken in by a hoax, but they do seem to be reliable sources, and I haven't seen any reliable sources indicating that this is a hoax. Since there are reliable sources that verify the contents of the article, the article should not be deleted as a hoax without reliable sources indicating that this is a hoax. Klausness (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've found a reference skeptical of the story, so I've added that to the article. Klausness (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Which pipeline?
There is no Trans-Siberian Pipeline. Based on other information in this article (constructed in 1982; export pipeline from the Urengoy field to Europe) it should be Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline. But this pipeline has nothing to do with Kazakhstan. Based on information about explosion, it should be Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline, but this pipeline was built in 1980. Although this article is named as Trans-Siberian Pipeline (which is clearly misnomer), it says nothing about the pipeline itself. It should be deleted or at least to renamed to reflect that this is about a theory of CIA sabotage.Beagel (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I added some more references. Perhaps you could have Googled "Trans-Siberian Pipeline" before deciding that this was a hoax. It has been referenced (by that name) by Alexander Haig, Ronald Reagan, the British Government, the French Government, and a retired KGB agent. If the pipeline's existance is a hoax, it's not my hoax, it's a global conspiracy involving the White House, the New York Times, CBS News, and the Roswell people. - Eric (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that pipeline doesn't exist. It is clear from the text that it refers to the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline or to the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline. My simple question is to which one. Because in the current text these two pipelines are totally mixed. More tensions in the West were related with the construction of the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline (referred in the western media as West Siberian Pipeline), but the explosion happened at the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline. Googling Trans-Siberian Pipeline is not very helpful — most of hits are trans-Siberian pipeline, which may refer to any pipeline crossing Siberia. And as the article mainly about sabotage act and not pipeline itself, the current name is misleading (and once more, there is no pipeline with this name).Beagel (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, some major sources (including the White House) referred to this contentious pipeline as the "Trans-Siberian" pipeline. Clearly, this pipeline exploded in 1982 (whether due to the CIA or to Soviet failure). Let's find out WHICH trans-Siberia pipeline got everyone all excited before it exploded, and mention that name (whatever the Soviets called it) in the article. I would agree with renaming the article to the proper Soviet name, if we create a redirect and mention that the White House and the western media referred to it as simply the "Trans-Siberian pipeline". - Eric (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian name?
Okay, Beagel says that the pipeline in question is what the Russians called the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk pipeline, but this site says that the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk was built in 1980. Have we got the wrong pipeline? The same article lists two Soviet pipelines built in '82: the Gas pipeline Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod (Russia/Ukraine, 800km) and the Gas pipeline Urengoy - Center 2-nd line (Russia, 312km).. is the pipeline the article refers to one of these?? - Eric (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Several articles say that the pipeline went from Siberia to Western Europe. Is it at all possible that the pipeline that exploded is not the same tube as the pipeline that Reagan wanted Western Europe to refuse to help build? This is confusing. this New York Times article says "Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher criticized the United States today for trying to limit the ability of foreign companies to fulfill contracts for a 3,700-mile natural gas pipeline from Siberia to Western Europe." Well- 3,700 miles = 5 ,954 km. Perhaps it is a series of smaller pipelines that collectively formed the Trans-Siberian pipeline that Reagan and Thatcher were talking about. - Eric (talk)
 * It is possible.Beagel (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the main problem for the Reagan administration was construction of the Urengoy-Uzhgorod pipeline (referred as West Siberian pipeline). I think that this link gives some very interesting information about this subject. But at the same time the Moscow Times reference talks about the explosion on the Urengoy - Chelyabinsk pipeline. And export through Kazakhstan doesn't fit with the Urengoy-Uzhgorod pipeline. This is the main reason for my confusion. I think that maybe we could rename this article for something like Siberian gas pipeline sabotage of 1982. In this case the exact name of the pipeline is not so important.Beagel (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * this book gives more background about US-Soviet energy issues at the beginning of 80s.Beagel (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to suspect that in researching the pipeline explosion (which, you're probably right, was probably the Urengoy - Chelyabinsk), I may have stumbled upon the history of the dispute regarding the construction of a DIFFERENT pipeline (probably the Urengoy-Uzhgorod pipeline that would constitute a section of a greater pipeline to connect Urengoy to Western Europe). It may be that there REALLY WAS an explosion on the Urengoy - Chelyabinsk, and that the hoax mis-told the story as having been a CIA plot to destroy the contentious Urengoy-Uzhgorod. We could really use some expert attention on this one, before we decide how to rename/split/handle this article. - Eric (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * At the same time, Soviet Union used Western technology and software for pipelines. Therefore, it could be or could be not a hoax. It probably deserves its own separate article as an article about sabotage act or wider article about Soviet/Europe/US tensions on gas issues in the 1980s.Beagel (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ---SPLIT!---
 * Okay, since it's now quite clear that these are two different trans-Siberia pipelines, I've separated them. References to the contentious pipeline that the White House referred to as the "Trans-Siberian pipeline" (the Urengoy - Pomary - Uzhgorod pipeline) remain in this article, and the story about the supposed CIA operation to blow up the Urengoy - Surgut - Chelyabinsk I moved to a new article: Siberian pipeline sabotage. Sorry- I got the two different pipelines mixed up. - Eric (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Construction controversy
According to the Heritage Foundation, not only Vietnamese workers, but also prisoners were used on construction of pipelines.[] Beagel (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis
There is a paragraph which says:

''A terrorist explosion damaged the pipeline in Rozhniativ district in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast in May 2014. According to the Russian government owned radio station Voice of Russia terrorist threats against the pipeline were made by Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh in March 2014.''

This is problematic and looks like classical WP:SYNTH. There is no sources saying that an explosion in May was organized by Right Sector; however, the news published two month earlier implies a conclusion that the explosion was work of Right Sector. This is a classical A+B=C which is not allowed. This is even more complicated as the source of claims that Dmytro Yarosh has made these threats is Voice of Russia, which is a Russian government owned radio station, a part of Rossiya Segodnya propaganda channel. Taking account the current situation between Ukraine and Russia, that claim needs reliable sources for verification, if even kept. Therefore, that sentence should be removed. Beagel (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually the next paragraph has similar problem. It implies that there is a connection between explosion and limitation of supplies which may or may not to be the case. There is a same problem with the reliability of the source as Russian government funded propaganda station RT (TV network) is not reliable source per WP:RS. Beagel (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian Vandalism in the "accidents" section
Seems like there's some vandalism in the "accidents" section from someone who doesn't like it mentioning that Russia is being agressive towards Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.215.231 (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Capacity
There seems to be some confusion about the pipeline capacity. It was recently changed to "over 100 billion cubic metres", according to the Gazprom Export website. However, it seems that Gazprom Export labels all western transit through Ukraine as Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod, as it corresponds to the total western transit through Ukraine to Slovakia (without southern transit to Romania and further to Balkan). However, actually there are three different western transit pipelines through Ukraine (in addition to Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod also Soyuz and Progres pipelines) which all together account approximately the same capacity as mentioned in the Gazprom Export website. The capacity of Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod was 32 bcm when opened in 1982. According to Naftogaz, in 2009 the factual capacity of Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod was 27.9 bcm (capacity has decreased due to inadequate maintenance and renovation of the pipeline). Although some renovation works have been started, it is impossible that the capacity has increased more than three times. Therefore, I will restore the previous information. Beagel (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090119235743/http://issi.org.pk:80/journal/2004_files/no_3/article/5a.htm to http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2004_files/no_3/article/5a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Urengoy–Pomary–Uzhgorod 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/20080527194203/http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/NG21.pdf to http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/NG21.pdf

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) 20:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

A threat to the balance of energy trade in Europe
Hi Beagel,

what it is the "balance of energy trade in Europe"? This basically doesn't exist and is a weasel word. So if you don't want to call it "American interests" in LNG export, find a better formulation.

Cheers, Kalimandscharo (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This was not inserted by me but something which was there for eleven years from the very beginning without anybody challenging it. On the other hand, you changed it without any explanation. Situations like this, you get reverted without the second thought. But I agree there were some issues with neutrality and with citing what referred sources are actually say. Therefore I made some neutrality cleanup and included in this subsection only facts included in references. I hope this works. Beagel (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * PS: Talking about the American interest in LNG export in the context of 1981–82 is a nonsense. Americans became gas exporters more than 30 years later.


 * PPS: Please do not create and use several different accounts (please see WP:SOCK).