"The demand for gas in Europe is expected to increase considerably in the upcoming two decades. Sufficient gas reserves are available around Europe to meet this future increase in demand for European gas - which is not unexpected. The biggest challenge, however, is how this gas can best be transported to consumers. At present sizeable enough capacity does not exist for transporting these gas volumes to European gas markets." These words stem from the Nabucco homepage. But do they necessarily prove Europe’s need for Nabucco?
The pipeline project Nabucco was poised to lead the EU out of the Babylonian captivity, as the dependence on Russian gas was caricatured by the media referring to Verdi’s opera after which the project was named. New EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger even promised to support the pipeline with 200 million Euros in order to become less dependent on Russian gas.
Critics always pointed out Nabucco's capacity problems due to lacking gas supplies and referred to the alternative projects Nord Stream and South Stream. Why shouldn’t they be supported? The catch was their Russian sponsorship. Oettinger claimed the end of bilateral agreements, specifically targeting Russia and Germany, and pointed out an absent “spirit of solidarity” in the Nord Stream project. He proclaimed a new energy policy at the EU level, launching the pan-European pipeline project Nabucco. Some scepticism remained.
Now Oettinger himself has acknowledged the doubts on Nabucco and the realism of Brussels’ energy policy. In an interview he rated the likeliness of Nabucco's realisation to about 65% and stated that the pipeline wouldn’t come on stream until 2018. It is not Oettinger’s assessment that is remarkable – these numbers were neither a secret nor unrealistic. It is remarkable that Oettinger changed his mind only one day after his announcement. Nabucco had contradicted immediately and insisted on 2014 and Oettinger agreed upon.
How can the EU Energy Commissioner say 2018 one day and 2014 the next? It is remarkable that a supporter of Nabucco like Oettinger showed enough realism to point out the deficiencies of the project or at least assessed it genuinely. It is quite more remarkable that he changed his mind after Nabucco felt offended. What happened?
The key to this question can be found in another of Oettinger's statements. In the interview mentioned above he called Nabucco a "prestige project". According to Wikipedia "Prestige is a word commonly used to describe reputation or esteem, though it has three somewhat related meanings that, to some degree, may be contradictory. [...] Originally, prestige referred to pomposity, which was taken as a sign of poor taste. In this regard, the word had strictly negative connotations. Indeed, the root of the word ‘prestige' comes from the Latin praestigum, meaning a delusion or a trick."
Taking into account this meaning of prestige, Oettinger has revealed his energy policy as more obliged to Nabucco’s reputation than to the realism of existing deficiencies of the project. This doesn’t mean that Nabucco should be condemned, but it is important to point out its shortcomings and to question its timeframe. Furthermore, Nabucco’s competitors should be integrated into the European energy policy without discrimination. Apparently, Brussels doesn’t weigh the disadvantages and advantages of Nabucco and its competitors impartially. There are double standards for Nabucco and its competitors.
It is time for realism in European Energy Policy. If the Energy Commissioner doesn’t expect the realisation of Nabucco until 2018, he should dare to hold up his opinion. Otherwise the pipeline should instead be named after Wagner’s opera ‘Götterdämmerung’ and its theme “be true – whatever happens”.
Jakob Schirmer is a research assistant at the University of Goettingen.
Related Material from Atlantic Community:
- Shakti Prasad Srichandan: The US Stakes its Claim in the Arctic
- Joshua Posaner: Political Pipelines as Diplomatic Fault Lines
- Jean-Pierre Schaeken Willemaers: Biomass, An Energy Source of the Future?
- 6
March 29, 2010
Member deleted
I described how China has came to game to take big share of Turkmenistan gas. This gas was one of the last hopes for Nabucco to fill its planned pipeline.
For contest between EU’s Nabucco and Russia’s South Stream China’s actions favor later. Today’s arrangements are securing gas for South Stream while Nabucco still is searching supply. It is more clear that Nabucco should be filled with Iraqi and/or Iranian gas and political aspects related to this may delay finding(private) investors and the implementation of project as whole. In bottom line while Russia is taking its part from old gas fields and China from old and new gas fields the Nabucco pipe still is more than half empty.
From 2015 South Stream is scheduled to take gas into the EU via Bulgaria. A northern branch ends up in Italy via Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia and eventually Austria. A southern route takes the gas through Greece and under the Adriatic Sea to Italy. With Slovenia Russia has all the necessary European partners for us to be able to complete its project. During Summer 2009 there was discussions if South Stream could pass Bulgaria. Russia however agreed on 6th August 2009 with Turkey about energy cooperation with South Stream and also development of Blue Stream pipeline between Russia and Turkey under Black Sea so South Stream has secured also an alternative route. After that the discussions between Bulgaria and Russia got a new boost.
Russia made already on May 2009 a proposal including the South Stream gas pipeline to pump natural gas from Russia to the Balkans and onto Europe in a list of EU priority projects. The U.S./EU backed Nabucco project had been included in the list, but South Stream not yet. From my point of view I would like to see EU to change priority status from Nabucco to South Stream. Nabucco could still be kept alive in case to wait stabilisation in the Middle-East.
More about background of Nabucco/South Stream battle in my articles “Is it time to bury Nabucco?” http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/is-it-time-to-bury-nabucc... and “EU’s big choice – Nabucco or South Stream?” http://arirusila.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/eu%e2%80%99s-big-choice-%...