Khazar Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 (edited) http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/cau/c...2_211_2_eng.txt Interesting article above from IWPR, mentioned the fact that Georgian and Azerbaijani authorities could have had pipeline go through Akhalkalaki, but either due to the presence of Armenians or the Russian military (probably both), they had it go near Borzhomi instead. "The man who is now president of Azerbaijan has also pointed the finger at the Armenians. In February this year, Ilham Aliev, then vice president of the Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR, now president of Azerbaijan, said that 'certain forces have always sought to hamper Azerbaijan's oil projects. However, they have only resorted to extreme tactics at the very last stage, when there is no other way to hold the project back. All this is the fault of Armenia and its communities abroad, as well as certain groups that are in league with them'. " In terms of the Artsax conflict: What worries me is not the huge revenues Azerbaijan will be making and potentially building up its military, but the fact that with the oil flowing, America will be regarding Azerbaijan as its new little brother to protect. Edited December 28, 2003 by Khazar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 ....If the oil flows at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectra Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/cau/c...2_211_2_eng.txt Interesting article above from IWPR, mentioned the fact that Georgian and Azerbaijani authorities could have had pipeline go through Akhalkalaki, but either due to the presence of Armenians or the Russian military (probably both), they had it go near Borzhomi instead. "The man who is now president of Azerbaijan has also pointed the finger at the Armenians. In February this year, Ilham Aliev, then vice president of the Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR, now president of Azerbaijan, said that 'certain forces have always sought to hamper Azerbaijan's oil projects. However, they have only resorted to extreme tactics at the very last stage, when there is no other way to hold the project back. All this is the fault of Armenia and its communities abroad, as well as certain groups that are in league with them'. " In terms of the Artsax conflict: What worries me is not the huge revenues Azerbaijan will be making and potentially building up its military, but the fact that with the oil flowing, America will be regarding Azerbaijan as its new little brother to protect. I don't think it's a bad news at all. The Baku's oil capacity is very little. The capacity of oil that Baku has shown to its British partners (British Petroleum) was calculated by former Soviet Union. If you remember, British party didn't want to continue its oil pipeline construction in Azerbaijan. I personally think it will be very bad idea to have the pipeline go over the Armenia. If Armenian Government agrees with the above, then Armenia should be aware of possible terror threat. If you can imagine, a terrorist blows up the pipeline, can cause a very bad damage to the Armenian soil. Ilham Aliev is a very little person to point a finger at Armenia. Due to Turkeys blockade to the Republic of Armenia, Armenia has lost and still uses large amount of profits. Although Turkey cannot be a trusted parent to Armenia since the Turkish Government does not want to recognize the genocide crimes against the Armenians in late 1880's until 1920's. Therefore I personally think that Armenia should never agree with proposals made by Turkey or Azerbaijan. If the Azerbaijanis are concerned about so called "occupied" lands, then they should never mention that Artsax was an Azeri land. Artsax was and will always be an Armenian land. It is true that the former Soviet Union had taken the Armenian land, Artsax, from us, but we have fought against violent Azeris who were trying to commit yet another genocide in Sumgait in early 1990's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 A side economical feasability, extraction of crude oil from the Caspian sea (I think more appropriate is to call it LAKE) is related to bunch of legal issues that will hamper any exploration for a long time. Only very naive (there are no naive businessmen in oil and gas business) can think that someone will invest $5bln without being sure of the revenues. Plus, Oil and Gas Contracts are very unhuman. High revenues for which SOCAR guys are dreaming can only be generated with certain type of contracts and over long period of time. Given the high risk, even if the probable quantities of oil are in place, such revenues are highly unlikely to be negotiated. Caspian is a Lake! Keep in mind that! Regards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khazar Posted December 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 I don't think it's a bad news at all. The Baku's oil capacity is very little. The capacity of oil that Baku has shown to its British partners (British Petroleum) was calculated by former Soviet Union. If you remember, British party didn't want to continue its oil pipeline construction in Azerbaijan. I personally think it will be very bad idea to have the pipeline go over the Armenia. If Armenian Government agrees with the above, then Armenia should be aware of possible terror threat. If you can imagine, a terrorist blows up the pipeline, can cause a very bad damage to the Armenian soil. Ilham Aliev is a very little person to point a finger at Armenia. Due to Turkeys blockade to the Republic of Armenia, Armenia has lost and still uses large amount of profits. Although Turkey cannot be a trusted parent to Armenia since the Turkish Government does not want to recognize the genocide crimes against the Armenians in late 1880's until 1920's. Therefore I personally think that Armenia should never agree with proposals made by Turkey or Azerbaijan. If the Azerbaijanis are concerned about so called "occupied" lands, then they should never mention that Artsax was an Azeri land. Artsax was and will always be an Armenian land. It is true that the former Soviet Union had taken the Armenian land, Artsax, from us, but we have fought against violent Azeris who were trying to commit yet another genocide in Sumgait in early 1990's. I agree that the pipeline poises a security problem wherever it is laid, but that is still bad news for Armenia as the three countries it is going through all border it. My concern is the larger west/east dichotomy. Ilhamchik is a little man any way you look at it, but now, with oil originating from his country flowing out to the west, and particularly to America, Azerbaijan is automatically put into a sort of protectorate status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khazar Posted December 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 A side economical feasability, extraction of crude oil from the Caspian sea (I think more appropriate is to call it LAKE) is related to bunch of legal issues that will hamper any exploration for a long time. Only very naive (there are no naive businessmen in oil and gas business) can think that someone will invest $5bln without being sure of the revenues. Plus, Oil and Gas Contracts are very unhuman. High revenues for which SOCAR guys are dreaming can only be generated with certain type of contracts and over long period of time. Given the high risk, even if the probable quantities of oil are in place, such revenues are highly unlikely to be negotiated. Caspian is a Lake! Keep in mind that! Regards! I agree with everything you said, and in fact, myself always doubted the whole project's feasibility - but the reports of pipelaying already at various points along the route worried me. It is the first action after years of just talking. It will be interesting to see how authorities in Russia, Armenia and Iran respond to this, if at all. I haven't heard anything yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 It will be interesting to see how authorities in Russia, Armenia and Iran respond to this, if at all. I haven't heard anything yet. Yep, You got me right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khazar Posted December 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Ok, ok. Point taken. But if they do...I'll be the first one back here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectra Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Human rights and environment groups [1] investigating BP's highly controversial Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline today (Weds) called the decision by the UK Government to provide $150 million in support for the project politically motivated. The project would see a 1,750 km oil pipeline being built through Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. The groups expressed surprise at the benefits the UK Government's Export Credits Guarantee Department claimed would come from the Baku project [2], given that many of the claims are contradicted by readily available evidence. It includes claims that the pipeline "will serve to promote regional stability", despite the fact that in the past two months, there has been a revolution in one of the pipeline's host countries, Georgia; elections in Azerbaijan that have been called "fraudulent" by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe [3]; and major bomb attacks Turkey. Similarly the Government touts "the establishment of high quality operations to international standards", when a recent report from the Baku-Ceyhan Campaign identified no fewer than 173 violations of mandatory World Bank standards [4]. The UK Government's Export Credits Guarantee Department's claim that "significant temporary employment will be created" comes in the same week that workers building the pipeline in Georgia went on strike in protest at reportedly receiving less than 50 US cents a day [5]. Hannah Griffiths of Friends of the Earth said: "The UK Government shouldn't be using taxpayers' money to support projects that will further fuel climate change. We're bitterly disappointed that despite its so-called commitments to the environment, ECGD is still supporting unsustainable projects." Anders Lustgarten of the Baku-Ceyhan Campaign said: "It's clear the UK Government has decided to back the Baku project for the same reason everybody else has: massive political pressure from the US." Greg Muttitt of PLATFORM, one of the groups involved in the campaign, added: "We presented the Export Credits Guarantee Department with extensive research showing how the pipeline violates their own standards on numerous counts. It seems the standards don't count for much." Kerim Yildiz, of the Kurdish Human Rights Project, another group in the campaign, said: "The ECGD maintains that the project complies with international human rights and environmental standards. This is clearly not the reality. The Kurdish Human Rights Project is in the process of submitting cases to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of a large number of villagers, who state that their human rights have already been violated". Nick Hildyard of the Corner House said: "The Government has recognised the project is not yet satisfactory and has set conditions before cover is made available. No money should be provided until the public has been able to comment on the conditions and on BP's fulfilment of them. Taxpayers must be satisfied that BP has addressed longstanding concerns over compensation and new allegations - admitted by BP - of faulty welding." Notes [1] Groups involved in the Baku-Ceyhan Campaign, which has extensively investigated the BTC project and advocates that it should not be awarded public money while it still fails to meet mandatory human rights and environmental criteria, include Corner House, Platform, Friends of the Earth and the Kurdish Human Rights Project. [2] See ECGD's announcement and note of decision of December 17 2003 at http://www.ecgd.gov.uk/news_home.htm?id=5932 [3] BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, 24 November 2003, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE and Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe: "You know that not only in Georgia but also in Azerbaijan and Armenia - two other countries in that important region - there were fraudulent elections quite recently." The full interview can be found on the BBC website. [4] For this report, compiled as part of the 120 day disclosure period for the BTC project, and other independent analysis included reports of mission to the region and interviews with affected people, see www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/btc_eia_review.pdf (PDF†) [5] See "PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS IN GEORGIA STRIKE FOR PAY INCREASE" RFE/RL, Dec 16 2003 Source: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releas...bakuceyhan.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Spectra, Welcome to HyeForum! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectra Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Spectra, Welcome to HyeForum! Thanks gamavor! I find it exciting here. But also dangerous on taking adviced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastia Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 You guys, why do I have the feeling that the oil in Baku is going to be finished the second they are done building this pipeline? HaHa... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahumyan Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Theres plenty of oil in Baku, if not the capitalists would not have invested money in order to get the oil out. The pipeline is an excellent example of how the ruling class puts its interests above those of anything else. It is claimeed that Capitalism is efficient, if so, why isnt it going through Armenia? I would like to see the reaction of the Armenians here who seem to worship America and all the "aid" its given to Armenia, and how it will stop when Armenia is no more use to the USA. As for the solution, the only solution is the combniation of the workers uprising of all the transcaucausian nations, to take power into their own hands and make decisions democratically, according to the needs of the region and for the benefit of the region, not for the benefit of the capitalists in Baku, Tiblissi, Ankara, London or Washington... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahumyan Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 As a sidenote, i dont think we should be too worried as the money generated from Azerbaijans oil will not be going to the Azerbaijani people and their national budget, but rather into the pockets of the Capitalists, therefore a tiny amount will actually go to a possible war effort against Armenia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Will someone enlighten me about possible terror threats such as terrorists blowing up a pipeline several feet under the ground and with security provided (not by BTC but as a responsibility on the part of the host government) and why such things were not made to happen elsewhere in the world? Being in possession of the rarest things in the world is not always flattering, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Additionally, although I haven't read anything about terms, I am inclined to think it is naive for one to believe that Azerbaijan won't be gaining plenty of revenue from the pipeline project. That potential always exists and really depends on how your government can negotiate, if it cares to, and on whose behalf it acts. I don't know about oil, but most countries subject the exploitation of non-replenishable resources to blazing taxes ("state royalty"). Puppet governments and post-colonial African countries which have already been meddled in for some time have shown the poorest record in their performance - but among them Botswana stands out. Read on: http://www.7mac.com/blackstar/Africa%20Wat...amond_wars2.htm If De Beers wasn't able to turn Botswana inside out, that tells you something about how the country took good advantage of its circumstances. I don't know what this talk about involving Armenia is, since it wasn't an issue at the outset, but if it came strictly as a business proposal it could later be used to secure NKR, even if Azerbaijan became filthy rich. It wouldn't even have to be used. It would settle itself out. Just my opinion. That's why I don't understand this talk, unless even the Azeris realize their claims over NKR are weak and not worth the $$$. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 I read the article, and I agree with those that said that not passing the pipeline through Javakhq because there are Armenians there will do no good, and I hope the route is the World Bank's proposal as mentioned. Even if it doesn't fuel separatism, it won't ease the tensions. This is a mistake made by governments who are xenophobic about their minorities (China regarding Xinjiang) and who will refuse to see these minorities as assets or those that are purely negligent and moronic (in Turkey's case, poor infrastructure and investment in eastern Anatolia in the decades preceding the so-called "Kurdish struggle" that sold itself to the ruling religious party at the expense of the one legal more or less Kurdish party). Everyone has seen the results - violence. And nobody wants that and shouldn't want it for themselves or anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahumyan Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 if Azeri budget gets as much money as nigerian does from its oil, Armenians should be laughing. I think were unnderestimating the power of the capitalists here and how much they take from the oil. the government gets a tiny penny from it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward demian Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 That pipeline is like a bottle of good wine sitting in the sun. Eventually it will burst. Any one person with a rifle and a few tracer bulets can blow it up fro afar. The important thing is that there are other pipelines allready in the area from the soviet days. I also believe that the oil processing centers are in Armenia. I think that once the oil is in circulation it will find its way to Armenia by way of Georgia and Iran. Allready there was a minor scandal about sales to Armenia. Money has no consciounce or nationality. We can depend on the Turks to do with their money what they have allways done. Squander it or steal it. Let it go through. We'll find a way to utilize it. In the end money will seek safe harbors. Armenia is the only country without any internal strife. Business will naturally gravitate to Armenia because we are businessmen first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Will someone enlighten me about possible terror threats such as terrorists blowing up a pipeline several feet under the ground and with security provided (not by BTC but as a responsibility on the part of the host government) and why such things were not made to happen elsewhere in the world? Being in possession of the rarest things in the world is not always flattering, you know. Stormy, why terrorist? It could be preemtive strike implemented by Russian or Armenian forces to eliminate Al-Qaida or Chechen terrorist bases in Azveristan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Stormy, why terrorist? It could be preemtive strike implemented by Russian or Armenian forces to eliminate Al-Qaida or Chechen terrorist bases in Azveristan. My question was based on someone else's commentary as to why it shouldn't go through Armenia. Demian, I believe the corresponding plants in Armenia have been closed for some time. I may be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khazar Posted December 28, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 (edited) It is claimeed that Capitalism is efficient, if so, why isnt it going through Armenia? I would like to see the reaction of the Armenians here who seem to worship America and all the "aid" its given to Armenia, and how it will stop when Armenia is no more use to the USA. It's funny when you look at the map of the route, it makes this obvious zigzag to avoid Armenia. It's just such a glaring middle finger to Russia/Armenia/Iran. As a sidenote, i dont think we should be too worried as the money generated from Azerbaijans oil will not be going to the Azerbaijani people and their national budget, but rather into the pockets of the Capitalists, therefore a tiny amount will actually go to a possible war effort against Armenia It's not the money that Azerbaijan will be receiving (whether it's going into the pockets of those in power or to the people) - it's the political value of having a major oil pipeline on your territory. When it comes time to really settle the Artsax conflict, Azerbaijan will be more than delighted to use this pipeline to its advantage. And we're not talking about just Azerbaijan, we're talking about Turkey too. They can both use this pipeline as political currency. The US will now be more likely to seek a settlement to the advantage of the countries it has invested in. I read the article, and I agree with those that said that not passing the pipeline through Javakhq because there are Armenians there will do no good, and I hope the route is the World Bank's proposal as mentioned. Even if it doesn't fuel separatism, it won't ease the tensions. This is a mistake made by governments who are xenophobic about their minorities (China regarding Xinjiang) and who will refuse to see these minorities as assets or those that are purely negligent and moronic (in Turkey's case, poor infrastructure and investment in eastern Anatolia in the decades preceding the so-called "Kurdish struggle" that sold itself to the ruling religious party at the expense of the one legal more or less Kurdish party). Everyone has seen the results - violence. And nobody wants that and shouldn't want it for themselves or anyone. Good point. And going back to what Shahumyan said about the fact that the money will obviously benefit those in power...I think that if this project was to really benefit the common people of Azerbaijan, all the calls for war and other such populist rhetoric by the Az. opposition would somehow seem irrelevant and out of place. But I'm afraid the common peoples' expectations are exceeding the benefits they will get, and that's not good for anyone. Furthermore, the marginalization and the denial of a secure economic future for a national minority like the Armenians of Javakhk, (or in a number of other cases, as was mentioned the Chinese and Xinjiang and the Uighur minority, etc.) is such a paranoid, short-sighted move. All the human potential in those regions that could benefit the state as a whole are foregone, and thus, the cycle of isolation, poverty and discontent continues. Edited December 28, 2003 by Khazar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastia Posted December 29, 2003 Report Share Posted December 29, 2003 You guys, check out the map http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/oil/caspian.gif haha , they named one of the oil fields "Artsax", and another one "nachijevan" the black line is the one that exists right now the dotted one is the one they are talking about making and the green one is what the russians want (I guess). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spectra Posted December 29, 2003 Report Share Posted December 29, 2003 (edited) Theres plenty of oil in Baku, if not the capitalists would not have invested money in order to get the oil out. The pipeline is an excellent example of how the ruling class puts its interests above those of anything else. It is claimeed that Capitalism is efficient, if so, why isnt it going through Armenia? I would like to see the reaction of the Armenians here who seem to worship America and all the "aid" its given to Armenia, and how it will stop when Armenia is no more use to the USA. As for the solution, the only solution is the combniation of the workers uprising of all the transcaucausian nations, to take power into their own hands and make decisions democratically, according to the needs of the region and for the benefit of the region, not for the benefit of the capitalists in Baku, Tiblissi, Ankara, London or Washington... I don't think there is a plenty of oil in Kaspian sea/lake. If there was such thing, then Russians would've used it by now. I see this British Support as a "Who Is Next To Invade?" part of project. I hope the British taxpayers will not allow the government to use the 1.5 billion dollars for the "pipeline", who knows what pipeline may turn into? A weapon for chechens? A reason to have the American Army in Azerbaijan for upcoming invadion of Iran? Edited December 29, 2003 by spectra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shahumyan Posted December 29, 2003 Report Share Posted December 29, 2003 sincec when did the capitalists tell the people where money was going?? im a british taxpayer, no bastard told me where money was going... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.