US companies such as Chevron and Exxon
Mobil are most likely going to acquire shares of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil
pipeline, Plamen Rusev, Director of the Bulgarian branch of the Trans-Balkan
Pipeline company, told Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency).
In an exclusive interview for
Novinite.com, Rusev has stated that American oil interests active in the Caspian
and Black Sea region are watrching closely the situation with the construction
of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline, a joint project of Bulgaria, Greece,
and Russia to transit Caspian oil bypassing the Turkish Black Sea
straits.
The Trans-Balkan Pipeline company was set
up in February 2008 by the governments of the three partner states in order to
oversee the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline construction and to operate the pipe
once it is completed, and is registered in the
Netherlands.
In mid June 2010, the Bulgarian
government and Prime Minister Boyko Borisov suggested strongly the country might
not proceed with the project due to environmental concerns. The Bulgarian
government's decision is formally pending on the environmental assessment of the
pipeline expected in Ferbruary 2011.
“Americans are rich people. Rich people
only buy fully furnished homes. It is more expensive but this is what they
prefer. Poor people buy greenfield apartments. So don’t be surprised – once the
Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline starts running – when you see American
companies acquire shares in it. They will buy shares – either from Bulgaria, or
from Greece, or from Russia. They are carefully observing the project, and are
awaiting its completion and start of operation. They will pay more but they
won’t leave it outside of their control because it is their oil that will be
running through it. This is the truth,” declared Rusev, the head of the
Bulgarian branch of TBB.
“As much as our Russian colleagues might
not be happy with this, there will probably be participation on part of these
American companies in the future,” he said while explaining that potential
Russian “unhappiness” would result from the fact that there will be a larger
number of partners to deal with if shares are sold.
Rusev believes that the fact that the
Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline project has been met with much negativity in
Bulgaria precisely over concerns have to do with the fact that it might increase
Russian influence. In his words, a potential construction of the competing but
now dormant Burgas-Vlore (or AMBO) pipeline, which is basically the same in its
start point, might not draw so much negative reaction in Bulgaria precisely
because it has been put forth by American companies.
“People in Bulgaria should be rational
and should understand that in our case the term “Russian project” is not
meaningful. This is a joint project of three countries, two of which are EU
member states. About 70% of the oil to be transited through it will go to the
EU, 20%-30% to the USA, and a very small percentage to other markets. There is
just no logic in such criticism. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is that
there is a lot of uproar over the fact that one of the projects is Russian, and
the other is American but I think that people will see that the
Burgas-Alexanroupolis pipeline is a good and feasible project and they will
accept it much more easily once it is completed,” Rusev told
Novinite.com.
He is convinced that the progress in the
increased dynamic in the recent months on the construction of the Samsun-Ceyhan
oil pipeline, a competitor to Burgas-Alexandroupolis, has to do precisely with
the fact that the Bulgarian authorities have been dragging their
feel.
The Bulgarian TBB manager has expressed
his expectations for positive development of the project on part of Bulgaria
thanks to the fact that in February 2010 the Borisov government decided to place
the Burgas-Alexandroupolis project under the responsibilities of one single
institution, the Finance Ministry.
Rusev has sought to assuage all kinds of
criticism of the pipe, including by explaining that the technology selected for
the constructed of the project, i.e. unloading the Russian and Kazakhstan oil at
a so called monobuoy terminal located 18 km into the sea and away from the
Bulgarian Black Sea city of Burgas, is the safest
possible.
Much of the fierce criticism of
Burgas-Alexandroupolis – including on part of the Mayor of Burgas Dimitar
Nikolov and local NGOs – has had to do with fears that a potential oil spill in
the Gulf of Burgas could destroy the local environment and tourism
industry.
With respective to the third line of
criticism of the pipe – the fact that it is economically unfeasible – the TBB
Bulgarian manager has declared that there is plenty of Russian and Kazak oil to
be transited through Burgas. He made it clear the final total amount of the
annual transit fee for Bulgaria – informally set at at least USD 35 M – is yet
to be decided upon – but pointed out that this direct fee to be paid to the
Bulgarian government roughly equaled the BGN 80 M that Bulgaria got as combined
taxes paid by its banks in 2009.
Rusev says that if Bulgaria decides to
pull out of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline, thus practically killing the
project, it might suffer not just an image detriment for renouncing an
international agreement but will probably have to pay at least EUR 70 M spent so
far on surveys for the construction, and perhaps as much as EUR 200 M as
compensation to the other parties.
“But all this is just a conjecture, I
hope that this won’t happen in the very least because there are no good reason
for Bulgaria to give up the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline,” he
concluded.
According to latest information announced
end of last week, the internationally sanctioned environmental assessment of the
Burgas-Alexandroupolis project will be completed in February 2011. This is when
the Bulgarian government is expected to make its final decision on whether to go
ahead with the project of not.
The Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline
has been cricitized on environmental, economic, and geopolitical grounds. In
June 2010, the TBB launched a special website presenting visually the plans for
its construction in order to fend off criticism on environmental grounds.