Conditions may never be better to spur construction of the Nabucco pipeline project, which would help wean the European Union from its dependence on Russian energy supplies. However, the European Union still seems reluctant to commit fully to the pipeline.
The proposed 3,300-kilometer-long Nabucco gas line would run from the Caspian Sea region via Turkey into Eastern and Central Europe. Although construction is scheduled to start in 2010 and the pipeline is expected to start delivering gas three years later, experts warn the project is far from a sure thing.
The recent gas dispute between Ukraine and Russia demonstrated a clear need for a rethinking of European energy policy, some experts say. Nabucco so far has been at the center of the discussion about potential new sources of energy. "There isn't a PR campaign in the world that could have given the Nabucco as much attention as the Russian-Ukrainian dispute did," a Hungarian government spokeswoman, Bernadett Budai, said. "This is the best opportunity in years to make progress."
Amanda Akcakoca, an analyst at the European Policy Centre, a Brussels-based think tank, suggested that the Russian-Ukrainian row at least got EU officials to refocus on the question of diversifying the bloc's energy resources. "The issue of energy diversification should be taken more seriously and so far there are signs that this is being done, but, as they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating," Akcakoca said.
Akcakoca made the comments prior to the start of a January 27 energy conference in Budapest, where, to the disappointment of some analysts and energy executives, top EU officials declined to take a big bite into the Nabucco project. While expressing vague notions of support for the pipeline, it seemed clear that Brussels doesn't wants to make financing immediately available that could kick-start the construction process.
Europe currently gets a quarter of its gas from Russia, with 80 percent of it coming through Ukraine. Some countries, like Bulgaria, are almost entirely dependent on the Russian energy behemoth Gazprom for their gas. Thus, tens of thousands of Bulgarians were left shivering in the winter cold after the supply going through the Ukraine was cut early in January. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Nabucco to a great extent has come to symbolize the EU's struggle to find a common energy policy. The multi-billion-dollar project has been stalled by several questions about long-term viability. Most importantly, the question continues to linger about how the pipeline will be filled. So far, only Azerbaijan has committed itself to supplying gas to Nabucco, but it can only fill a fraction of the pipeline's capacity. Other potential suppliers, such as Turkmenistan or Iran, are currently problematic suppliers, either for logistical or political reasons. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Nabucco is also under threat of being undercut by Moscow, which is suggesting Europe diversify its gas shipment routes (though not its supply) via construction of South Stream, a pipeline that would bring Russian gas under the Black Sea to Bulgaria.
"What we have is a series of agreements and a theory," says Bulent Aliriza, director of the Turkey Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, referring to Nabucco. "It's got problems all the way down the line."
Other critics worry that Nabucco is being billed as a kind of panacea for Europe's energy woes, without taking the discussion of what real energy diversity and security would mean any further. "Simply building a pipeline slightly south is not a strategic issue; it's a regional one," says Andrew Monaghan, a research advisor at the NATO Defense College in Rome. Monaghan recently wrote a paper examining Nabucco for the European Parliament. "What I'm saying is that we should consider enhancing the process, not simply changing the line and hoping that will create a better picture."
The EPC's Akcakoca says that if Europe doesn't want to face another winter without gas, Nabucco must be part and parcel of a unified EU energy policy. "Overall [the EU's] energy policy is quite weak, because each individual member state negotiates its energy deals," she says. "There needs to be one EU energy policy, full stop. That's what they should be aiming for."
Editor's note:
Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul.
