Talk:Nabucco pipeline/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The present description appears quite naïve, as there is no mention of any problems and conflicts, e.g. the competing South Stream pipeline, the problems for a joint partnership and the issue of providing sufficient gas supply to feed it. And the map looks somewhat "censored" as the possible link to Iran is missing. There is much more information available in other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drylexx (talk • contribs) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As everybody can see the route goes via Georgia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Caucasus_Pipeline so the map is wrong. --Schwarzschachtel (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain, why in this case the name Nabucco pipeline is more accurate than Nabucco pipeline? Beagel (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the article fully explains the geopolitical motivations for the project: the need to transport gas outside of Russia's sphere of influence. It also needs to mention the Ukraine fuel crisis as the final impetus. --Hooperbloob (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Will the treaty have any effect because going through the NKR and Armenia look to me to quicker but then again Azeris would want the NKR back and Armenia will never give it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N8Riley (talk • contribs) 13:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nabucco will start in Turkey and any potential feeding pipeline is not a part of the Nabucco project as such. In addition, the South Caucasus Pipeline, which will transport Azeri gas to Nabucco is already in operation. And from the political side, of course there is unsolved issue of NKR. Beagel (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two maps in the article now. I think one was sufficient. One in the infobox was perfect. Tuscumbia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC).

One third of all nations recognise Kosova, so I guess it is time to face the facts and change the map accordingly. --92.74.26.115 (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --92.74.25.238 (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Criticism sections says right now: "Only a small number of European countries support the project^[1] : the central europe countries which will be at the receiving end of Nabucco. The larger western countries, such as Germany with Nord Stream, the UK with the Norwegian gas (and its own), Italy with TransMed, and Spain with Medgaz already have built or devised alternatives, and are not concerned by the project."

I marked it OR. That's true that the pipeline does not concerns all EU member states. It is also true that some countries are openly skeptical and this should be mentioned in this section. E.g., Germany and Italy are mentioned in the referred in the New York Times article as preferring Nord and South Streams. However, it is not automatic that if the country is not concerned, it means that it does not support the project. Saying so, particularly not giving references, seems OR. Therefore, I would like to propose following wording for this paragraph: "There is no support the project by all European countries. The larger EU member states, such as Germany and Italy, prefer accordingly Nord Stream and South Stream projects to Nabucco.^[1]" Beagel (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It actually is more complete than this. UK has gas, either theirs or Norwegian or Nord Stream. Germany has Nord Stream. Italy and Spain have north african gas. France has gas terminals. BeNeLux has any of the above. All the larger, richer countries already have a solution - only the former FSU countries have this matter pending. So it should say :

"Most European countries do not support this project. The larger EU member states (Benelux, France, Italy, Spain, UK) already have alternative solutions, or decided to invest in a competitor pipeline, such as Germany with Nord Stream^[1]."--Environnement2100 (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Once more, 'not concern' and 'not support' are not the same. You may support (morally, politically etc) even in case you does not need it for your country or if your country is not concerned. It is not enough to say that 'France has LNG terminals, therefore it does not support the pipeline'. To say that that 'France does not support the project' you need reliable source confirming that France's position is that France does not support. Otherwise, it is original research, which is the problem now. Beagel (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that a country has a solution by having alternative supplies through other pipelines does not mean that country cannot and does not support a particular pipeline. A country may seek more alternative supplies depending on its political and economic agenda. Germany is one of the strongest supporters of Nord Stream. So what? They can still seek more reliable sources for any given reason such as to decrease political dependence on Russia. Same applies to France, Italy and other countries which may have plenty of supply at the moment. So, to allege the above mentioned countries do not support the pipeline based on current availability of sources from Russia is not really correct. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I remove the last unsourced addition to this section, because:

• Saying that Nord Stream and Ttans-Sahara are competing projects is true in very general. However, taking account that the main market for Nabucco is in CEE, it is not correct to say that they are competing project. At least, reliable source is needed to say that they are compiting with Nabucco.
• the Pan-European Oil Pipeline is an oil pipeline project. How it competes with the gas pipeline?
• South Stream is a direct competitor to Nabucco, but this information is already given in this section.

In addition, there is no reference(s) added to say that these projects are alternatives to Nabucco, so there is nothing to do with

I absolutely agree. The main competing pipeline is South Stream, not any other mentioned. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This project is really a planned project, not proposed. It was already proposed when the leaders of five companies met and discussed the initiative. Project company was put in place, funding searched for, political support obtained, etc. This is a planned project which is in one of preliminary stages. Please discuss so we know if we need to change the wording or not. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, proposed : decision to build is not made, see

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE61321B20100205?sp=true. This source already is in the article : please read the article before posting.--Environnement2100 (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was planned and not proposed until the latest developments. The news you posted the link of are rather new and I had already added a few lines in the article describing the current status. See here [1]. Thanks a mil for a follow up though. Tuscumbia (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Should the project which has established project company, has the European Coordinator appointed by the European Commission, has prepared feasibility study and signed intergovernmental agreement (ratified by some countries concerned), but which final investment decision is not made yet and depends on the results of the open season for contracting pipeline capacities (and it is still possible that the investment decision will be negative), to be called a proposed pipeline or a planned pipeline? Please see also the discussion above.Beagel (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Reuters article of 5 Feb 2010 clearly states "Nabucco consortium aims to finalize investment decision of the project by the end of 2010 following an open season process", so it seems to me that use of the adjective "planned" is controversial at best. In this case
  WP:RS for citing this use of the description "planned" otherwise it's just an OR position. -- TerryE (talk
  ) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my edit [2] and explanation above. The project was being planned until the recent when it started losing wider support and financing was still not confirmed. I guess what I am trying to say is that with all meetings, MOUs, established project company, etc the project is planned yet can be abandoned. Proposed in my understanding means something in proposal stage. I do agree that planning of EPC has not started and may not start which for many people makes it proposed project vs planned. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • From what I just checked in news articles, it is proposed, they don't even know exactly what tracing the pipline will take, also it seems that only Azerbaijan agreed providing the oil at this time and does not have the capacity to feed the pipline, given it's low reserve. I wonder how Tuscumbia came to the conclusion that it is planned. -RobertMel (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not come to conclusions that it was planned. The article said it was planned and I supported the wording planned vs proposed when the other editors debated on it. The reason I supported the word planned is stated above. To me, proposed means it's at a stage when the proposal is put through for the parties invited or involved to review a particular project, conduct a feasibility study, etc. (eg. White Stream). For instance, there are projects which were abandoned due to lack of financing or unsatisfactory results of the feasibility study (eg. Baltic Gas Interconnector). The term planned, in turn, implies a project which had gone through stages of meetings, MOUs, has an established project company (eg. South Stream), etc. but it might as well end up like Baltic Gas Interconnector due to lack of financing or any other reasons. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several articles and news coverage which write it is proposed. So using one word against the other is a judgement call. even with propositions approximative dates for the construction are given, there are negotiations and even signatures. I would be planned when there are signatures from the parties which makes of the project viable. Was there such a signature ever? -RobertMel (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There are just as many articles indicating it is planned. Therefore, this is not about judgements. You really don't have to have a signature for start of EPC to say it is planned. There are a number of signatures on MOU's and financial papers indicating it is planned. So, if there isn't a signature approving an EPC, that doesn't make it unplanned. That's the whole notion of planning. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a gas pipeline, not oil pipeline. It is true that the final investment decision is postponed until the end 2010. At the same time, it seams to be misunderstanding that planned project means project which will be implemented with 100% of certainty. Even the best planned projects not always reach to their final stage of implementation. Concerning the Nabucco project, there are several aspects which typically characterize planned projects. Namely:

• the feasibility study of the Nabucco project is done. That means that you are already started to plan the project.
• the project company is established. Usually you don't establish a project company just for case without starting to plan the project
• The intergovernmental agreement is signed and already ratified by four countries of five. Again, it is more typical for planned projects than just for proposed projects.
• The European Commission confirmed yesterday that it will provide €200 millions to the project in the framework of its Economy Recovery Plan. The precondition for applying for financing from the recovery plan was certain maturity of the project, so just a proposal was certainly not enough to get this financing.

Beagel (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The project was first floated in 2002 ; 8 years later it still has no identified clients, no budget signed, and not even suppliers, as noone knows whether the gas in the pipe will come from Azerbaijan or Iraq or even Egypt. Proposed sounds good enough.--Environnement2100 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that Europeans are human rights pussies, but still is this really an issue? Do people care about the human rights in Saudi Arabia? I don't think so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.70.66 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Environnement2100 continues to insist that due to gas deal between Iran and Iraq according to which Iraq will import gas from Iraq "the projects expectations in Iraq being toned down, Iraq is actually going to import gas, from its neighbour Iran, as of 2013." However, this is a original research as the provided reference says nothing about the impact to Nabucco or any other potential gas export from Iraq to Europe. Import in some part of the country does not exclude export from other parts (Iraqi Kurdistan). Therefore, I remove this addition as original research. Please to not re-add it without providing reference explicitly saying that due to gas import deal from Iran, potential export from Iraq to Nabucco (or more broadly to Europe) is jeopardized. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Prospects Appear to Dim for EU-Backed Gas Pipeline November 19, 2011 by Marc Champion and Joe Parkinson, excerpt ...

Prospects for the European Union's favored Nabucco natural-gas pipeline project appear to be dwindling, weeks before a consortium of Caspian Sea producers is due to choose one of four planned pipelines to carry its gas to Europe. This week, Azerbaijan said it plans to build its own pipeline through Turkey that would run parallel to Nabucco's planned route. At the same time, the U.S. softened its years-long support for Nabucco, saying it now backs any of the four alternatives so long as they will deliver gas to the most "vulnerable" EU states.

99.56.120.136 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The German language page for Nabucco calls it cancelled in 2013 and I had also read that in Der Spiegel. Since I am no expert and don't know much more about the whole thing, I'm putting this here.

I was a bit baffled by the sentence "The Nabucco project is backed by the European Union and the United States...'. The EU often provides funds for necessary projects but in the United States it is all private corporations, so saying the "United States" support it, looks a bit wrong. It should have probably said which American companies were behind it to which extend, and if government money was in it to which extent. The way it reads, it looks like a backing by a country which can only have political reasons. We know they like to put their finger in anything that weakens Russia, which could well play a role here, but leaving things to guessing is not helpful. Anyway, Nabucco is history, one can only learn. 144.136.192.10 (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I propose to merge

Merged. Beagel (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)