The Western Side of the Pipeline War: On the Brink of Failure?

Readers: apologies for the week-long absence. I am back from vacation. Now, on to the latest in the pipeline war.

Another domino has fallen in Russia's relentless advance in the European natural gas pipeline war. After Monday's visit to Budapest by Russia's probable new president, Dmitri Medvedev, Hungary's prime minister is expected to sign the deal in Moscow tomorrow.

That's after an astutely run offensive in which Medvedev and his mentor, Vladimir Putin, have already recently signed on Bulgaria, Austria and Serbia, not to mention the prize in the contest -- Turkmenistan. These countries are now Russia's partners in the construction of a huge new natural gas pipeline system, Moscow's aim being to project power into Europe through dominance of the continent's gas market. Mathematically, Moscow's aim would be represented as: Economic power = Political power.

After all this, is there any reasonable case favoring a rival pipeline plan championed by Washington and the European Union? Generally, my own rule of thumb in pipeline politics is that no deal is a deal until Sumitomo's lengths of steel cylinders actually arrive on the spot, and welding begins. And they haven't.

Consider the first battle of this East-West pipeline war -- over the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, connecting the Caspian and Mediterranean seas.

On Oct. 11, 1998, The New York Times committed a stupendous blunder. As readers of The Oil and the Glory know, the newspaper's lead story that Sunday, written by my former colleague Steve Kinzer, declared White House-backed Baku-Ceyhan to be "on the brink of failure." Less than a year later, a deal for the line was a reality.

Kinzer's mistake was in focusing on the big picture and armchair analysts in Washington and London, all of which indeed did make the strategic pipeline look to be dead. What he and these pundits missed were the facts on the ground -- from Central Asia and the Caucasus, it was clear that the pipeline was going to happen. Principally, Azerbaijan President Heydar Aliyev -- who had his hands on 5.4 billion barrels of oil that floundering Big Oil was desperate to develop and sell -- wanted that pipeline. It helped that essential NATO member Turkey wanted the line, too, as did the 800-pound gorilla, the White House. But the main thing was the insistence of Aliyev -- the essential man on the Caspian. Big Oil had to build it, and today, it's mightily glad it did so, since it's delivering about 1 million barrels a day of oil onto the tight world market, entirely free of interference by Moscow.

Yet today Heydar Aliyev is dead, and the Caspian is surrounded by presidents with, to put it kindly, shorter geopolitical stature. Big Oil seems to be absent the big corporate personalities who in the 1990s got in the sauna with one or more of the Caspian presidents, downed some vodka shots, and emerged with rights to huge reservoirs. And the White House lacks the vision to assign a political heavyweight -- in the 1990s, it was Clinton and Al Gore themselves, in addition to National Security Adviser Sandy Berger -- to spearhead a deal.

As for the future, there's no sign of the Bush administration suddenly changing course. The word is that Condi Rice will appoint Bush family friend Donald Evans to general the western battle. But Evans lacks the star power for instant success, and the longevity -- he will be out once the next administration takes power next year -- to manage through sheer effort.

Big Oil has been slow to snag a natural gas deal in Turkmenistan that would jump-start the western-backed Nabucco pipeline. And, short of a trip to Camp David, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov isn't suddenly going to grow a spine.

Meanwhile, Putin and his protege Medevedev are running Moscow's battle plan personally.

So, at the risk of repeating the Kinzer Blunder, Nabucco does appear to be on the brink of failure.

Of course, lightning could always strike.

Photo: Axel Rouvin
Rights: Creative Commons