map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Features

Germany's Gas War? Nabucco Vs. South Stream -- And Schroeder Vs. Fischer

Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer is now a lobbyist for the Nabucco gas pipeline project.

Last updated (GMT/UTC): 03.07.2009 17:11
By Bruce Pannier
It's been an up-and-down year for the Nabucco natural gas pipeline.

Just as work on the long-stalled project seems set to finally begin, some shift -- usually at the hand of Russian energy giant Gazprom -- alters the commercial landscape and Nabucco's chances appear to recede.

But the pipeline's supporters have just selected a big name in European politics to help push the project toward realization -- Joschka Fischer, the former head of Germany's Green Party and the country's foreign minister from 1998-2005.

Fischer faces some serious obstacles in jump-starting Nabucco -- the would-be cornerstone in Europe's drive to kick its Russian energy habit, which has failed to attract commitments from suppliers and consumers alike.

Not least among them is the fact that Nabucco's rival pipeline projects have a powerful lobbyist all their own -- Fischer's former boss, ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who has spent four years on the payroll of Russian energy giant Gazprom.

Isn't It Ironic?

Federico Bordonaro, a senior analyst at the Italy-based security assessment group equilibri.net, says Nabucco's selection of Fischer makes sense but is still a "bit ironic."

Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder
"Joschka Fischer was for a long time an important personality in Mr. Schroeder's government in Germany," Bordonaro says. "When Schroeder was chancellor of Germany, Fischer was foreign minister. And because Schroeder was appointed by the Russians as a lobbyist inside Gazprom, having Joschka Fischer on the Nabucco side is like having part of Germany with the Euro-Atlantic vision of the energy game in Eurasia -- as opposed to Schroeder's side, which is actually pro-Russian, if we want to speak in these terms."

Schroeder has been key in helping Gazprom push forward on the Nord Stream project, a natural gas pipeline that aims to eventually deliver some 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) from Russia to Germany via the Baltic Sea.

Nord Stream is due to become operational in 2011 and reach full capacity the following year. Germany -- and Schroeder -- has helped override any official resistance to the project within the European Union.

But it is another Schroeder-backed Gazprom project that presents Nabucco with its main competition -- South Stream.

Gazprom, whose frequent disputes with transit country Ukraine have it exploring alternative export routes, is hoping to use South Stream to carry a third of its gas deliveries to Europe by 2015. Under the terms of a new deal with Italy's Eni, South Stream's capacity could reach 63 bcm annually.

Russia is now actively courting supplier states like Azerbaijan, Iran, and Turkmenistan -- as well as a key transit country, Turkey -- to sign on to the South Stream project.

'Well-Established...Network'

Fischer's daunting task, as Bordonaro explains it, is to convince those countries and others to throw their support instead behind the 31-bcm-capacity Nabucco, which traverses roughly the same route and would draw on many of the same suppliers.

Path of the Nabucco pipeline
"Joschka Fischer has a vision of Europe as a federal entity. His aim has always been that of creating a strong, united Europe predicated on federalism. And also Joschka Fischer is one of the most favorable pro-Turkey members of the German political landscape," Bordonaro says.

"And because Turkey is absolutely key to the Nabucco project, I think that another big reason for appointing Mr. Fischer was his already well-established diplomatic network, contacts with Turkey but also with other southeastern European countries such as Bulgaria and Romania," he says.

Though South Stream promises to deliver twice as much gas to Europe as Nabucco, the Nabucco project still offers something the Gazprom scheme can't -- an opportunity for the EU to reduce its dependence on Russian natural gas.

Some 25 percent of the EU's gas imports already come from Russia. January's gas cutoff during a Kyiv-Moscow transit dispute served as a painful reminder to many officials in Brussels to avoid greater reliance on Russian energy.

Uphill Battle

Even so, Fischer faces an uphill battle. Several Southeastern European countries envisioned as potential Nabucco partners have already signed deals with Gazprom on South Stream.

Azerbaijan this week signed a deal to sell an unspecified amount of gas to Russia; last week another supplier, Kazakhstan, said it would have no extra gas to sell to Nabucco in the near future.

Still, there have been signs of progress. Five transit countries for the Nabucco natural gas pipeline -- Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, and Austria -- are due to sign an intergovernmental agreement in Ankara on July 13 to allow it to pass through their territories. Germany will also attend the signing ceremony, as an observer.

It remains to be seen whether Fischer's addition to the Nabucco team will keep the project on track for its anticipated 2014 launch date. But Bordonaro praises the appointment as a savvy and logical move -- much as Schroeder's was for Gazprom.

"The Germans have tried to become the dominant diplomatic element in Brussels and Strasbourg, and it was interesting to note in the last four or five years that many key posts in the European Union -- especially in the industrial sector and the commercial sector and financial sector -- were occupied by Germans," Bordonaro says.

"So I think that when both the Russians and the other players want to find a lobbyist, they very naturally look at Germany first. In this respect, I am not surprised that Schroeder and Fischer were the two [chosen]," he said.
This forum has been closed.
     
Comments
by: Nodar from: Tbilisi
July 12, 2009 22:31
Obviously it is better to diversify the power of the gigantic countries.EU is good example of it. we do expect from Nabucco decentralisation of the finances through this continent.

by: Konstantin from: Los Angeles
July 10, 2009 05:50
Armenia is already a Russian ally.
If Georgia fall, so will all Caucasus, CIS and Eastern Europe.
Gasprom is Russian Empire's Monopoly of world conquest, like a dream-book of Russia - "Hyperbolouid of engineer Garin"...
If Russia would be benevelant as you presume, it would welcome NABUKO, no Sea-lines but strait logical lines through Eastern Europe, returning to Georgia and Moldova invaded territories, to CIS stolen Union property and military hardware, it would repent for its crimes and put on trial their guilty.
The "good" Russia would love to do that.
The evil Russia do evil to all neighbors and to Civilized World, wile slandering against them...

Konstantin.

by: Zoltan from: Hungary
July 07, 2009 13:06
Wolfgang, I more or less agree with you.

But saying that your proposal would "require minimum investment" is a bit false.

Constructing a gas pipeline under the see streching from Georgia to Bulgaria 1000 km long is not as cheap as you might think.

Even the Russian North Stream is only 320 km long.

I would prefer transportation of LNG from Batumi (Georgia) to Burgas (Bulgaria) and from only that point using pipeline.

Still building LNG terminals can provide supply routes to other alternative suppliers like Qatar for example.

by: Wolfgang Wittgenstein from: Bregenz, Austria
July 06, 2009 17:45
Uncertainty regarding Turkish participation, its constant blackmailing and current rapid Islamization of Turkey are extremely worrisome processes for EU. EU, then, must minimize Turkish participation to as little as possible. There seem, however, to exist a very practical and often not-talked-about hub and spook option that EU must seriously consider. Main line should be laid along Baku-Tbilisi-Suspa on the Black Sea and from there laid under the sea (yes, by passing Turkey altogether) to Chemomorets (Burgas, Bulgaria, EU). From Burgas the supply line will be split into northern and southern sections. Northern section will run through Romania and Serbia. The southern line will turn south into Greece and would terminate at the Greek port of Igoumenitsa where the gas can be condensed into NLG or the line may be continued undersea into Italy, which is already well connected with France and Switzerland etc. To strengthen and to diversify routes and supplies, EU should immediately bring Armenia under its umbrella and make it the main supply hub because of its extremely strategic location and its stability. Armenia can and will NEVER blackmail the network because it’s a landlocked country that needs as many transportation options as possible. Armenian gas will come from Baku-Suspa line as well as from Iran (already connected and functioning), Turkmenistan (Turkmen-Iranian networks are already connected) and even as far north as Kazakhstan since Kazakh-Turkmen-Iran-Armenia network is currently functional and in use. Armenia’s main exporting route would be through Baku-Suspa pipeline (by passing Turkey). To diversity supply routes a high capacity line from Armenia to Turkish port of Ceyhan needs to be put in place. This line can be supplemented with gas from northern Iraq, thus further diversifying energy sources. The Armenia-Ceyhan line will come extremely handy in case of instability in Georgia which is inevitable due to lingering conflicts. By making Armenia a hub (which is a much more stable country than Georgia), EU can switch supply routes back and forth as needed from Armenia-Suspa-Burgas to Armenia-Ceyhan and the scheme will have the participation of all producing countries of the region, namely, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan. The bottom line is that this plan will require minimum investment, and will provide less dependency on Turkey and Georgia, yielding maximum participation. It will be almost bottle-neck-free and choke-free. No country could then blackmail the system because the system has been designed with extreme flexibility in mind.

by: Alaverdi
July 06, 2009 17:04
Nabucco should be referred as freedom Line as simple as that. It is small window of freedom But yet this is all we got so far.
If Turkey is cooperating all the better.
The gas & oil in question does not belong to Russia, Russia has enough their own resources to manipulate the world. Why should Russia be allowed to sell resources of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan & Turkmenistan? When other countries agree to take only transportation fee?
Ukraine is transporting country But so is Russia, Russia is only transporting resources of other countries but yet it sells as their own.
Nabucco is a small window of freedom & regardless of prejudice of people it will be disastrous this opportunity will slip away, prejudice or not all will suffer, suppliers & costumers. Russia as only remaining transporter of foreign resources & only supplier with large resources will be only part with full gain. I do not invest in somebody's account by depleting my own funds. It is illogical to me how EU proposes to survive with this kind of investment.



by: Zoltan from: Hungary
July 06, 2009 10:17
Relying on countries like Azerbaijan or Turkmenistan does not mean for me more stability compared to Russia.

Do we expect that these countries will behave more responsibly than Russia?

I also miss a real and comprehensive strategy about energy diversification. New pipelines as the Nabucco could be only one alternative source not the only one.

Regarding liquified natural gas epxerts use to say that it is much more expensive. But if we build a brand new pipeline which streches thousands of kilometers we should calculate with the cost of costruction of this pipeline also. Wwhich is a huge addition to the cost of the gas.

And still why do we expose ourselves to Turkey so heavily? Don't we expect that Turkey will use its control over the pipeline for pressing Europe as Russia does now?
Is a Turkish leverage better than a Russian one?

Europe's fear is baseless. Russia have so far never used gas deliveries as weapons. Taps were closed only in cases when the buyers didn't paid on time. Which can not be considered as "war" or "punishment".
If the buyer pays well Russia do not close any tap.

Building the Nabucco gas delivered through it will be more expensive compared to Russian one because of the huge costs of pipeline construction.

by: Marco Borg from: London
July 04, 2009 20:50
I think Nabucco is mostly bluff and giving all that leverage to Turkey is re-creating the Ukraine problem in a resource-poor Asian Islamic country whose Prime minister said "The minarets will be our bayonets"

by: Peter from: Germany
July 04, 2009 04:53
Let's not forget that the traitors Schroeder and Fischer were the ones who irrevocably abandoned nuclear energy thus creating Germany's dependence on fossil fuels and a few despotes' good will.

by: Ustinov from: Ukraine
July 04, 2009 03:06
Is this article paid by Turkey? because it is telling that EU has no brain and it is based on wrong analysis because;

1- Cutting of Russian gas to Europe by Ukraine is not any way of Russian fault. the problem was Ukraine did not have money to pay its bill and tried to create a conflict to get aid from EU. one understand Ukraine position but you can not blame Russia for it !

2- the aim of the matter is to create competition and competition is good for every body and it makes good business sense. Does Nabucco plan satisfy regional stability, financial viability or it is a scam. Azerbaijan may be playing politics like playing Russia against EU by signing contract with Gaspron, this is to heat up the market and to bring interest. After all it is EUs money if the project fails.

3- with new technologies like importing liquefied gas, EU could have more stable and cheaper supply of gas even the responsibility of delivery can be taken by the gas supplier such as providing their own vessels.

4- at this point, Nabucco project is relying more on spin and personality than knowing who are the suppliers, how much gas they have, what is the real cost and how reliable are these governmets who supply gas.
For these you need more studies than colorful brochures.
     
TEXT SIZE - +

Follow Us On Twitter

Keep up-to-date on all the latest news from RFE/RL's broadcast region by following us on Twitter:
~ You can find our instant news feed at @RFE_RLNEWS.
~ An obsessive Kremlin watcher? Follow our blog at @PowerVertical.
~ Human rights abuses chronicled at @RightsWatchdog.
~ News, comment, and the odd silly dictator story at @TransmissionRFE.

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile