Nabucco and Trans-Caspian: Times Change, Pipeline Politics Goes On

On one hand, Turkmenistan is in the catbird seat. Exxon, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhillips are salivating over the country's onshore natural gas fields, in particular South Yolotan-Osman, the fifth-largest natural gas field in the world. It's fawned over by the U.S., in particular Richard Morningstar, the special U.S. czar for Eurasian energy.

Yet all is not well in Ashgabad. Four months ago, there was an explosion at a natural gas line connecting the country to Russia, effectively Turkmenistan's sole natural gas customer. Since then, the line has been fixed, yet the natural gas flow has failed to resume. Why? The global financial crisis. Natural gas demand in Europe -- which had been buying up the Turkmen gas through Russia's good offices -- has plummeted. So have prices. Moscow has told the Turkmen that it wants to renegotiate the volume-and-dollar terms for the gas. The Turkmen have protested that a contract is a contract -- a favorite expression that the Turkmen perhaps have learned from Western oilmen over the years -- and so the flow remains halted. With it, Turkmenistan is losing an estimated $1 billion a month in revenue, or about $4 billion to date. That's a lot for a place like Turkmenistan.

There's another problem. It's the pipeline politics in which Turkmenistan is a player, voluntarily or not, by dint of its location in great game territory.

Since the mid-1990s, Washington has pressed Turkmenistan to agree to an extension of the region's new East-West natural gas network that would connect the country with Azerbaijan, and onward with Europe. The rationale was that, in the same way that Azerbaijan and Georgia have ostensibly won some political breathing space from Russia because of the construction of the Baku-Ceyhan oil line, Central Asia and in particular Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan would benefit through the proposed trans-Caspian natural gas line.

Demands for bribes, Russian protests, war in Afghanistan, and gaffes of various sorts have confounded the trans-Caspian. But now it turns out that events may have wholly overtaken the linkup of Central Asia to the balleyhooed East-West Corridor in any case.

First, in its latest iteration, the trans-Caspian was ultimately supposed to feed Nabucco, a natural gas pipeline to Europe, which has ended up at the butt end of continued utility bill spats between Russia and Ukraine. But now it seems that Europe may very well become awash in natural gas from shale deposits within Europe itself, and liquified natural gas shipments from Qatar and elsewhere. In other words, the need for Nabucco -- and natural gas supplies all the way from Central Asia -- has diminished.

But what of Turkmenistan's gas? In terms of Russia's rivals, it turns out that the Chinese have gotten there first. I personally thought the notion was far-fetched, but the Chinese are actually on the verge of finishing the first phase of the Turkmen-China natural gas pipeline, which looks like it will begin flowing by the beginning of next year. Since South Yolotan-Osman are situated in far eastern Turkmenistan, even if one of the western Big Oil companies gets a piece of these fields -- still only a remote possibility -- they will ship east, not west.

In other words, there appears to be little reason for the U.S. to focus on the trans-Caspian any longer, either, except for its own, parochial sake, and not for any larger policy reason, such as how Baku-Ceyhan broke Russia's monopoly over energy transport in the Caucasus.

We'll keep hearing about these lines. And we'll write about them in this space. But their time has passed.

As for Turkmenistan -- it will find its own way.

Becoming a Central Asian Dictator: Family Helps; So Does Medical Training

We have just a few examples of what it takes to assume control in one of the Caspian's more serious dictatorships. One best way of course is to be the dictator's offspring. But Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov triggered a search for the dentists of current dictators when he rose to Turkmenistan's leadership in 2006 on the sudden death of President Saparmurat Niyazov.

Now, however, the readers of Central Asian tea leaves may have to recast their successor-guessing net. It turns out that surgeons may do as well.

As Turkmenistan.ru reports today, Berdymukhamedov surpassed himself and actually performed cancer surgery on an unidentified patient from the Balkan Velayat province of western Turkmenistan. Well, he did have a bit of assistance -- two German and one Turkmen specialist were on hand with anesthesia and a helping hand.

This news is attracting attention. In Britain, the BBC reports that the tumor, declared benign, was behind the patient's ear. In Taipei, Taiwan News notes that some think that Berdymukhamedov's book on medicinal plants should be adopted in the training of health workers.

In other words, in terms of analysis, this development could shake up politics. In Kazakhstan, for instance, former first son-in-law Rakhat Aliyev is currently on the outs after unfortunately plotting a couple of coup attempts against President Nursultan Nazarbayev; he is on the run and living in exile in Austria. Central Asia's best analysts say this permanently puts the kabbosh on Aliyev's political ambitions. But these experts need to take into account this Central Asian shift: Aliyev is a trained surgeon.

Anyone have a list of the surgeons of Uzbekistan?

The Oil and Glory Interview: U.S. Eurasian Energy Czar Richard Morningstar

Richard Morningstar talks much about déjà vu. In the late 1990s, then-President Clinton appointed him as Washington’s first special envoy for the Caspian Sea. Against strong headwinds, he attempted to persuade, cajole and muscle Big Oil into building the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. A hostile BP, Exxon and other companies declared that they would love to build the line, but that there simply wasn’t enough oil. Russia said it might fire on any installations built in the sea. Time and new turmoil within the oil industry changed BP’s attitude, and the geostrategic pipeline became a fact in 2006. Today, after a decade teaching law at Harvard and Stanford, Morningstar is back in the same job. The task? To persuade not just companies, but also several countries to build yet another pipeline – a much-troubled natural gas line called Nabucco. He just attended a signing ceremony among five of the proposed transit countries in Ankara. O&G caught up with Morningstar by cellphone as he passed through the Frankfurt Airport on the way back to Washington.


O&G: Nabucco supporters argue that the pipeline is necessary because Russia uses or will use its dominance of the natural gas supply in Europe for political leverage. Is the argument valid?

Morningstar: That gets into why Russia does what it does. Does Russia play commercial hardball to get the best deal it can, or as a political weapon? I think that Russia does want to maximize its commercial benefit. The result is that sometimes it has political implications. The benefit of Nabucco is that it does provide diversity of gas supply to Europe. It does develop the Caucasus and Central Asia. Though Nabucco won’t cure Europe’s energy security, it will provide a natural gas source, especially for countries that were cut off during the disputes between Russia and Ukraine.

Q: Some people including me thought that, had events turned out differently in Iran, it might have become the needed source of natural gas for Nabucco. Are the post-election events in Iran a setback for Nabucco?

A: It had not been anticipated that Iran gas would be part of Nabucco. Our policy has been clear – we don’t think that Iran should participate in Nabucco now. We’ve reached out, but it takes two to go to the prom. I don’t know what impact events of the last few weeks in Iran will have. If we can resolve our nuclear issues, we might be able to resume normalized relations.

Q: There is as yet insufficient natural gas to support Nabucco. Are the Europeans getting the cart before the horse in terms of emphasizing the pipeline before having the gas?

A: This reminds me of the talk in 1998 and 1999. At that time, the talk was that there wasn’t enough oil for Baku-Ceyhan. Sure enough, BTC is up and going. The supply issue needs to be dealt with, but this agreement [in Ankara] will help push those issues.

Q: But BTC started off with a supply of oil in Baku. Nabucco starts off with none.

A: But there was also a lot of concern in the early years that there wouldn’t be enough oil out of the western Caspian. That “you are on a fool’s errand.” We stuck to policy, and it ended up working out. The Ankara ceremony is similar to those early days.

Q: Is Nabucco getting away from its original reason for existence, which was to provide Turkmenistan and the rest of Central Asia with a non-Russian transportation corridor?

A: If Iraqi gas can be part of the project, that would be great. Azeri gas will be absolutely critical to this project. Turkmen gas will also be important. It may come after Azeri gas.

Q: You speak as though you are confident that Turkmen gas will supply Nabucco.

A: There are going to have to be steps. I was in Ashgabad on Friday, and the president stated strongly and publicly that Turkmenistan wants to contribute gas to Nabucco.

Q: Is Nabucco more of a European issue than a U.S. issue?

A: It’s clearly a European issue. I think we have significant interests as well. They are, one, increasing overall production; two, creating diversity in the European supply and enhancing energy security. We want to see a strong Europe. And three, helping the development of the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Q: What about shale gas, which has been discovered in Europe. Isn’t that something that can help to substitute for gas from a Nabucco line?

A: The Europeans think that shale gas will be much more successful in the U.S. than in Europe.

Q: And LNG from Qatar and elsewhere? Can’t that serve Europe?

A: LNG will be part of it. We are strongly supporting the southern corridor. But it is still only one part of a puzzle. Alternative technology and LNG will both be part of the puzzle. Also the natural gas interconnections between the countries. It may be possible to get the pipeline sanctioned on the basis of Azeri gas.

Q: You are saying that the pipeline is financeable just on the basis of gas from Azerbaijan?

A: The companies and governments say the project is financeable. They are confident they will have enough gas. I am not in a position to say that the pipeline is financeable just on Azeri gas. The European Union has some money – 5% -- and the EBRD is also willing to get involved.

Q: What do you think about the addition of Joschka Fisher, the former German foreign minister, to the Nabucco team?

A: He’s a tremendously dynamic person. He’ll add a lot of vigor to Nabucco. It’s fascinating given the role that [former German Chancellor and Nord Stream Chairman Gerhard] Schroeder is playing. He has a tremendous reputation and lots of influence in Europe. He can help to unify Europe’s position.

Exxon: Late, But Always the Bride

Exxon was late getting onto the Caspian in the 1990s, but it still ended up with pieces of prime real estate. On the Baku side, deputy Energy Secretary Bill White interceded to get it a piece of the offshore after Exxon stood on the sidelines while its rivals slugged it out. In Kazakhstan, even GOP heavyweight Jim Baker couldn't persuade Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev to grant Exxon a piece of the ultra-supergiant Kashagan oilfield; Nazarbayev told Exxon the bidding was over. So Exxon simply bought Mobil Oil, which itself was one of the best old-fashioned horse traders on the Caspian and had grabbed huge slices of both Kashagan and Tengiz.

Yet none of that meant that Exxon had drunk the Kool-Aid on the Caspian. It was the only member of Big Oil present in Baku to refuse Clinton administration entreaties to help build the geopolitically minded Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.

It's a similar story with Exxon's announcement yesterday that it's investing up to $600 million in an algae-to-fuel venture with genetic biologist J. Craig Venter. I wrote about this for Business Week on-line today. Exxon waited until Shell, Chevron and others dipped their toes into algae, then dove in with Venter, the most famous private genomics scientist in the world.

Quite apart from the long-shot chance that the venture could actually succeed, Exxon benefits from being able to brandish an environmental pin on its lapel, and its association with an authentic biofuels rock star. As Deutsche Bank's Paul Sankey told me in an email, "I think it's part R&D, part PR." Venter himself needed the cash injection, and could earn $300 million from Exxon if he meets certain unspecified project milestones probably associated with the economics of the algae.

The announcement included an ominous note as well as far as I'm concerned. It was that Exxon took this step after a deep-dive evaluation of every alternative fuels technology currently being studied anywhere. Apart from algae, it determined that none of the other potential technologies -- not manipulation of microbes, not the use of yeast, not breaking down cellulose with enzymes -- would produce a commercial product.



Much is said about Exxon, but one indisputable thing about the company in my opinion is that it is deadly serious when it comes to studying how to do something, or how to do something better. Its execution and management of complex energy projects is unparalleled in Big Oil; that is the singular reason why it's so profitable. So if Exxon tells us effectively that, of the currently studied technologies, only algae is going to survive commercially, the opinion must be taken account of.

Il Petrolio E La Gloria

I'm thrilled that O&G's Italian edition has come out, published by Sirente. Perhaps no other oil company has better capitalized on the Caspian era than Italy's Eni, whose mastery at personal relationships in Kazakhstan and Russia has changed it from a tiny, parochial company into a huge player internationally. This edition has a new afterward, updated through April of this year. Welcome to Italian readers.

The Balance of Power in the Former Soviet Union

Moscow's envoy to NATO has signaled that Russia is ready to resume the thaw in relations triggered last month in the G20 meeting in London between presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev. Russia had been miffed by NATO exercises going on in Georgia, and canceled a planned meeting with NATO this month. But now Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's envoy to NATO, says, "We will go ahead with restoring relations." Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said much the same when he met with Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington last week.

Yet Rogozin and Lavrov can behave statesmanlike because in a big way recent events have gone Russia's way.

NATO proceeded with the exercises despite Russia's objections, thus ostensibly demonstrating that no country will determine who can join the military alliance, and where it will act. But look under the hood. One of the nations missing from the games is Kazakhstan -- President Nursultan Nazarbayev declined to send troops to the month-long games. Why did this deft balancer of great powers go along with Russia's wishes on NATO? Perhaps he would have declined even if there had been no Russia-Georgia war last summer, when Russian troops overran large parts of Georgia in anger over Tbilisi's violence in South Ossetia (or perhaps Kazakhstan simply didn't want to go, as the country itself explained.). Yet, Russia's former colonies are behaving with more circumspection than, say, a year ago, and one suspects that the August war is much responsible for that.

A super-smart former senior U.S. diplomat to the former Soviet Union told me yesterday over coffee that the U.S. has not yet lost its influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia; the August events, he said, were "a shot over the bow." But an actual "diplomatic disaster," he said, would come only if Russia actually overran all of Georgia, and seized control of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, along with some of the financial benefits accruing to such a move. In this former envoy's view, possession of the "economic rent" would be "qualitatively different" from the current state of affairs, because it would amount to effective Russian reconquest of the Caucasus and Central Asian states.

Possession of the economic benefits -- meaning the pipeline transportation tariffs -- would be different. But I don't see Russia making such a move, one reason being that it doesn't have to: Actual occupation of Georgia isn't necessary; rather, with the August war, Russia signaled that it is prepared to go to any lengths -- in this case military -- to enforce its will. The outcome has been one 'Stan after another falling into line.

Kazakhstan's non-participation in the NATO exercises is just one sign of that. In another, just two days ago, the European Union signed an agreement that Dan Bilefsky of the NYT describes as intended to speed up the Nabucco natural gas pipeline, the western-backed effort to reduce Russia's energy influence in Europe; Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan -- the current biggest sources of natural gas for the line -- declined to sign. Diplomats told Bilefsky that the three countries did so "because of pressure from Russia." Moreover, after meeting with Medvedev, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev suggested that he will sell his country's natural gas to Russia, at the same time that Europe and Washington have all-but begged him to commit his gas to Nabucco. There has been a mood shift recently in the U.S. on whether Nabucco is singularly important; yet it's one thing determining that in the West, and quite another doing so in Moscow.

Meanwhile, on the military front, there is the U.S. ejection from its military base in Kyrgyzstan in favor of Russia.

Current and former U.S. officials with whom I've spoken in the last week or two hew to the belief that the August events were strategically meaningless to the U.S. That is, that the U.S. retains roughly the same influence across the Caucasus and Central Asia as it did prior to the war.

The truth is that U.S. energy policy in the region is a shambles. A U.S.-Iran rapprochment could change that (there is a genuine chance, for starters, that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will lose the presidential election next month. His three major rivals, while perhaps not differing substantively from Ahmadinejad, are distinctive from him in tone and approach. Talks with the U.S. could be much smoother.).

The State Department has a super-skilled diplomat on Eurasian energy in the form of Dick Morningstar. At the National Security Council, my former Stanford colleague Mike McFaul is clear-eyed on Russia; and, with the Obama administration fixated on alternative energy and climate change to the exclusion of any expertise in oil and natural gas, NSC Adviser Jim Jones is seeking a much-needed senior director for global energy, I'm told.

Washington has no equivalent in this sphere to the roles played in South Asia by Richard Holbrooke and in the Middle East by George Mitchell. Perhaps the combination of talent in State and on the NSC will be sufficient to handle the complex brief straddling the lines of Russia, the 'Stans, Iran, nuclear proliferation and energy.

A New Age in Pipeline Politics?

For the last decade and a half, the main theater for U.S.-Russian fireworks has been pipeline politics. Washington won the first battle with the construction of the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which broke Russia's monopoly on energy exports from the Caspian Sea. But Moscow zoomed ahead in the second round, winning overwhelming backing for its proposed new natural gas pipelines to Europe. Then came the global financial crisis, and the plunge in world energy prices. Suddenly pipelines have seemed passe, and the rivalry instead turned to who controls what military base in Central Asia.

Scroll forward to a European energy summit last weekend in the Bulgarian capital of Sofia. While Washington's new Eurasian energy czar, Richard Morningstar, seemed almost blase about the West's preferred pipeline plan, called Nabucco, he also appeared to re-open the energy contest.

Morningstar's predecessor, Steven Mann, had dubbed the West's promotion of the pipeline as "Nabucco hucksterism." He was describing what he thought was an invalid elevation of the value of a Nabucco line, and its chances for materialization, all the while putting much U.S. prestige at risk in pushing to get it built. Indeed, as recently as three weeks ago, for instance, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza was still talking up the virtues of Nabucco.

Against that backdrop, Morningstar fell in with Mann's line of thinking: "Pipelines are just part of the puzzle," Morningstar said in Sofia. "Nabucco is not the Holy Grail that will solve the problem."

Morningstar's aim seemed to be to take down the temperature. After all, as much as Nabucco is a politically driven project targeted against Gazprom dominance of Europe, South Stream is an equally political response to Nabucco. So if the imperative for Nabucco is removed, what is the place for South Stream?

Hence, Morningstar also said: "Our feeling is that the financing of South Stream will be costly, and it is not clear how the material will come."

Along the same lines, last week U.S. Deputy Undersecretary of State George Krol was even more dramatic. In the Turkmen capital of Ashgabat, Krol opened the door to shipping Turkmen gas via Iran, according to a piece by Dierdre Tynan at Eurasianet. If that happens, it is truly a new age in pipeline politics.

Labyrinth Out in Paperback

The updated version of Putin's Labyrinth is out today. It brings events in Russia up to date, including the collapse of the economic miracle with the plunge in oil prices and the global financial crisis, and the January natural gas stand-off with Ukraine. This version is also indexed. Your comments are welcomed.

Nabucco Hucksterism, Iran Pollyanishness, and a $5 Billion Bribe. The Oil and Glory Interview: Steven Mann

On Thursday, a ceremony in the State Department will mark the retirement of Steven Mann, Coordinator for Eurasian Energy Diplomacy, after 32 years with the U.S. diplomatic service. The 58-year-old Mann served most of the last 17 years in senior positions in the Caucasus and Central Asia: He opened the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan in 1992, was ambassador to Turkmenistan, and tried to negotiate a deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan on Nagorno-Karabakh. For the last several years, Mann was America’s man on the spot in the New Great Game on the Caspian Sea.

I visited Mann at his Chevy Chase home. Amid stacked up magazines and books, Mann told me that Europe’s “energy security” is not necessarily at peril. And, for O&G readers, he broke one bit of historical news: Remember the demise of the trans-Caspian pipeline in the chapter An Army for Oil? The one in which then-Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov persisted in demanding a $500 million bribe of the Bechtel-General Electric consortium? It turns out that Niyazov originally requested $5 billion. The edited interview:

Q – Does the U.S. need a high-level ambassador on Eurasian energy? And what is your advice going forward?

A – Yes it is helpful. But we also have to get away from Nabucco hucksterism.

Q – What is that?

A – In terms of the wrong lessons learned from [the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline], the wrong lesson learned is to adopt a project and attempt to bring it about through political will. I think so much of the governmental activism on both sides of the Atlantic the last few years has been devoid of a commercial context. There have been quite a number of officials who know very little about energy who have been charging into the pipeline debate. Nabucco is a highly desirable project, don’t get me wrong. But there are other highly desirable projects besides Nabucco. And the overriding question for all these projects is, Where’s the gas?

Q – South Stream was Putin’s response to Nabucco. Did the U.S. blunder by promoting Nabucco before having the commercial context?

A – In terms of whether we are talking EU or US diplomacy, I think you have to be credible. All too often we’ve gotten out ahead of the commercial realities of Nabucco. You have to be able to point to an upstream supply. You have to have a commercial champion. And governments don’t build successful pipelines. Consortia do. The object of any envoy should be to get all those stars aligned before you give the full embrace to any project.

I think Secretary Clinton will bring a more unified focus to the U.S. effort. In the previous administration, we had six special envoys on energy in the State Department, and three deputy national security advisers on the [National Security Council] staff.

Q – Is that too many?

A – It’s four too many in State. And three too many at NSC.

Q – The stated reason for Nabucco is to diversify Europe’s energy supply. Is that a valid enough reason for U.S. involvement? And is European energy security a genuine issue?

A – Anyone who makes that argument knows very little about energy. And I often heard those arguments in the White House Situation Room. Diversification is an objective good. But it can be achieved in ways other than pipelines. The best thing Europe could do for its security is to link its energy grid, which it’s already doing.

Q – Is there alarmism on the subject?

A – The January cutoff of gas through Ukraine only affected 2-3% of European consumers.

Q – So it is overplayed.

A – Yea, I think it was overplayed. What also was underplayed was how successful the Europeans were in shifting gas, linking grids. That’s the untold story of [the January cutoff].

Q – The corollary – that Russian domination of supply equals a political threat in Europe – is that also alarmist?

A – With the EU, I think it’s hard to make that case. That’s the kind of argument that has to be dissected on a country-by-country basis. But Gazprom has been an extremely reliable supplier for 25 years. And I think Gazprom will continue to be an extremely reliable supplier to Europe.

Q – So really one should not be vexed if and when Nord Stream and South Stream are built? And if it takes some time for the ducks to be lined in a row for Nabucco, so be it?

A – Basically, yes. I think Nabucco is far more important to Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan than it is to the EU.

Q – In the late 1990s, there was the initial effort by Bechtel and GE Capital to build a trans-Caspian pipeline from Turkmenistan to Baku.

A – What happened was that Niyazov, with his Soviet mentality, demanded so-called preliminary financing. That is, an upfront payment to do the project. [The consortium] already paid a signing bonus of $10 million. But then Niyazov demanded in the range of $5 billion. Then it came down to $3 billion. And the consortium said, ‘This is utterly unrealistic.’ Niyazov thought they were bargaining. So he dropped the demand to $1 billion; then it came down to $500 million. The consortium said, You have until March 2000 or we walk. And at that time, they walked.

The fundamental problem, and it’s relevant today, is that a foreign investor cannot rely on a governmental entity [in Turkmenistan] to supply the upstream, to supply the product.

Q – Was it ever realistic that Niyazov was going to hook up with the East-West Corridor?

A – It was and it is realistic. Without alternatives to the Gazprom monopoly, Turkmenistan has to accept the price that Gazprom is willing to pay. There is a powerful commercial logic to a trans-Caspian pipeline.

Q – What is the best way today for a Caspian republic to get along in the region?

A – Kazakhstan is a good model of how to develop a Eurasian energy sector. You’re good partners with Russia, but you take advantage of foreign technology and capital.

Q – Does Russia have a role in helping to create a thaw between the U.S. and Iran?

A – Every time there is a substantial political change in the U.S., the oil and gas industry gets up on its tip-toes and says, ‘Aren’t we about to have a change in policy?’ You saw this with the Bush-Cheney election in 2000; the industry thought now was the time it would happen. You saw it after the [2001] invasion of Afghanistan, with certain cooperation and contact between the U.S. and Iran. You’re seeing it now with the advent of the Obama administration. So this is something that the oil and gas industry is always waiting for – that change.

Q – You are saying that this is nothing new.

A – It is nothing new.

Yes, But Will An Obama Visit Put the U.S. Back in the Great Game?

President Obama has told a senior Kazakhstan official that he intends to visit the Central Asian nation, a senior American official has told me. The visit comes as Russia has rolled back U.S. power in the region after a decade in which Washington established military bases there and encouraged the construction of non-Russian energy pipelines to the West.

Yesterday, Reuters reported on a Kazakhstan statement about an invitation issued to Obama by Kazakhstan Senate Chairman Kasymzhumart Tokayev, who is second in the line of power to President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

In an email exchange, a senior Obama administration official confirmed the report. He told me that Tokayev issued the invitation while meeting with the U.S. president in Istanbul this week. Tokayev happened to be in town for a conference called the Alliance of Civilizations, and Obama met him along with a dozen heads of delegation.

On meeting Obama, Tokayev invited him to Kazakhstan. "Obama responded that he knows well the importance of Kazakhstan and intends to visit, but does not yet have a fixed date scheduled to do so," the administration official said. One opportunity would be July, when Obama plans to visit Moscow.

No U.S. president has ever visited any Central Asian country, though the U.S. had a military base in Uzbekistan until it was ejected in 2006, and another in Kyrgyzstan, which is scheduled for closure in July. The closure of the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan came in February after Russia promised the country more than $2 billion in loans.

For an excellent synthesis of the retrenchment of U.S. power, and its replacement by Russia, read this piece by the FT's Charles Clover and two colleagues.

Blunder: A New Age for Russia

My friend Zach Shore, who teaches at the Naval Post-Graduate School in Monterey, usually writes about foreign affairs with a historical bent -- on militant Islam in Europe, and on Hitler. Now, though, Shore has taken on a sweeping, big-picture theme -- how and why people get trapped into fixed mindsets, and from that make incredibly terrible decisions.

Shore calls his book Blunder: Why Smart People Make Bad Decisions. Much of this slender, thought-packed volume has to do with war and foreign affairs, including events in Russia (which is why I am blogging on the book). But he also applies his theory of cognition traps to business.

In any case, I have wanted to write a couple of year-end looks at the news, including Russia's very different place domestically and internationally from just a few months ago.

In August, Putin's Russia seemed unstoppable, specifically after its five-day war with Georgia punctured the appearance of a new era of U.S. power in the former Soviet Caucasus and Central Asia. Georgia seemed the crowning achievement of a several-year-campaign of projecting Russian power over its borders after a decade of retrenchment following the Soviet collapse. On O and G, we have covered the Gazprom-led rivalry with the West to build new natural gas pipelines into Europe. Russia's Nord Stream and South Stream pipelines appeared to beat out the West's proposed Nabucco pipeline without breaking a sweat.

Not any longer. Simply put, Russia is in trouble. Its much-ballyhooed $600 billion cash reserve base dropped by a quarter by Dec. 1, to about $450 billion, and even further since. Much of that has gone to bailing out banks, select oligarchs and propping up the ruble. But with no sign of an end to the global recession, Putin is allowing the ruble's value to decline rather than pouring limitless reserves into the currency. This Wall Street Journal interview with down-on-his-luck oligarch Oleg Deripaska tells it extremely well. (Note to Barack Obama's Russia team: South Stream is on hold for at least 18 months or two years; Russia doesn't have the wherewithal to finance it; Nord Stream is more likely, but again financing will be a problem. That is an opening that was not present before the financial crisis.)

One thing that Deripaska points out in his conversation with The Wall Street Journal is that a big part of the Russian financial miracle was not oil-driven, but debt-driven. The Putin era's new generation of oligarchs, like Deripaska -- men who obtained ownership of large parts of Russia's industrial sector in the last few years -- is lining up for a bailout from some $110 billion in foreign debt coming due next year. According to Bloomberg's Yuriy Humber and Torrey Clark, that's twice the debt owed in Brazil, China and India. The oligarchs are seeking some $78 billion in loans.

Social tension is rising, and Putin is tightening up. He has significantly broadened the definition of treason. And the Duma has extended the presidential term to six years from four years; should there be a sign of a dire future threat to Putin's popularity next year, look for a snap election and Putin's return to the Kremlin. Short of that, Dmitry Medvedev will remain as president.

In an email exchange, here is how Zach Shore wrapped up Russia's conundrum in the context of the lessons of Blunder:

Russia's recent recession is tied up in cognition traps, the rigid mindsets that invariably lead statesmen into blunders. Just one of them is Cure-allism, the dogmatic belief in panaceas. Cure-allism sabotaged Russia's 1990s transition to a market economy when Western advisers applied the supposed panacea of shock therapy. Cure-allism exacerbated the Asian financial crisis of the late nineties, which engulfed Russia, when IMF experts applied their deregulation dogma to countries needing more regulation, not less. And it has fostered the current global meltdown by insisting on the deregulation of banking and investment schemes.

You might think that after suffering so often from Cure-allism's fallout, Russian leaders would be especially wary of wedding their economy to any one panacea. Yet Russia has allowed its recent growth to be overly fueled by gas and oil prices, believing that these goods could solve the country's deeper revenue problems such as a weak banking sector and an inadequate tax system. Rather than solving Russia's ills, the irrational faith in energy exports has once again revealed the self-destructive folly of Cure-allism.

Washington Pay Attention: Silver Clouds in Moscow

For the diplomatically stretched United States, there's a possible silver lining in the cloudy financial turmoil in Russia.

Russia's financial regulators today yet again halted trading on the ruble-dominated stock exchange, the MICEX. They acted just after the MICEX opened, and kept traders at bay for two hours before reopening the exchange. At the close of the day, the index had fallen by 6%; it also fell 5.5% yesterday, and is down by about 50% for the year.

Meanwhile, also yesterday Prime Minister Vladimir Putin coughed up $50 billion on top of the previous $130 billion he has injected into Russia's financial system to keep the economy from completely locking up. The subprime collapse is one matter. But the plummet in oil prices is also hurting the country. According to a story today by my friend Charles Clover at the FT, Russia's budget will go into deficit if oil prices fall below $70 a barrel, which isn't the loopy notion it seemed just a month or so ago (they dropped to about $97 yesterday). This latter data point is especially interesting because, when I was researching Putin's Labyrinth in Moscow last year, a Kremlin official told me that the budget would remain in balance at $39-a-barrel oil. What a difference a year makes.

All of this means that Russia's high-flying financial health is wholly different from even a month ago, in addition to that of the western banks and investment banks that have underwritten Russia's foray into global finance.

In a nutshell, there's serious reason to doubt that Russia can raise the money any time soon to carry out its grand energy strategy -- a new natural gas pipeline network stretching from Turkmenistan into Europe.

Washington -- with its myopic focus on Iraq and neglect of its long-cultivated policy on the Caspian Sea -- has been handed a gift of a pause in the seemingly inexorable march of the Nord Stream and especially South Stream pipelines. As O and G readers know, these two pipelines -- championed through the peripatetic work of Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev -- are behind the potent rise of Russian influence in Europe.

A previous posting on this topic provoked reader alarm that Europe will go dark and cold without these new pipelines, an unwarranted reaction considering that Europe uses just half the capacity of the three Russian natural gas pipelines that currently serve it. Nord Stream is arguably a good idea, but South Stream is purely political, a geostrategic ploy to pre-empt the equally political, western-backed Nabucco natural gas pipeline.

How long the pause in Russia lasts depends on who you talk to, but one or even two years are entirely reasonable projections.

That's a window for a Western oil company to get an on-shore natural gas deal in Turkmenistan, which would be key to any resurrection of moribund Nabucco. If the next president, whether John McCain or Barack Obama, rapidly launches a well-considered and -led strategy -- meaning recruiting an American graybeard of the gravitas of Jim Baker or Zbigniew Brzezinski as spearpoint -- he could possibly salvage some of the lost U.S. political and economic influence in the region.

One sure thing is that the window won't remain open. When it closes, Putin will be back as Europe's most dynamic and determined leader.

The CIA, Secretiveness and Jim Giffen's Gamble

Jim Giffen, a New York man accused of passing oil company bribes to Kazakhstan’s president, has asked a federal judge to determine whether U.S. intelligence agencies are purposely withholding documents that the defense says could exonerate him.

In a letter on Giffen’s behalf, his lawyer, William Schwartz, also asks U.S. Judge William Pauley to determine whether his client – whose trial has yet to be scheduled five years after his arrest – has been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Earlier this month, Pauley suggested in court that the delays may have gone on too long.

The Giffen case has attracted attention as the largest Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecution since the 1977 law took effect. Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case. In Kazakhstan, the case is known as Kazakhgate.

The 67-year-old Giffen doesn’t deny the government’s charges that he passed along some $80 million in payments from U.S. oil companies to Nazarbayev and other officials from the country. But he has invoked a so-called “public authority” defense, asserting that he had reason to believe that U.S. intelligence agencies knew and approved of the payments because Giffen served a useful role for the U.S. as a Nazarbayev confidante. In order to prove his claim, Giffen has requested a trove of documents from the CIA. In an April hearing, a U.S. prosecutor told Pauley that he would produce some of the documents by September.

Giffen in fact had contact with the CIA for more than three decades as a businessman dealing with the Soviet Union and then post-Soviet Kazakhstan. During the Soviet period, he and other American businessmen were effectively required to brief the CIA after visits to the Soviet Union -- it was a price of being permitted to deal with the enemy in a relatively free manner. After the Soviet breakup, Giffen shifted to Kazakhstan, and he continued to make his visits to the agency, something he regularly noted at the time to acquaintances as a seeming sign that he was plugged in at the top in Washington.

In invoking the novel defense, Giffen has seemed at least in part to be gambling that the highly secretive Bush administration would refuse to turn over documents for public review, and that thus some of the charges might be dropped since he couldn't defend himself without the papers. The latest news seems the first indication that the strategy may pay off.

Giffen’s letter – dated Sept. 8 and entered into the court file yesterday – was triggered by remarks made by Pauley in Giffen’s hearing on Sept. 5. In the hearing, assistant U.S. attorney Stephen Ritchen said he didn’t have the CIA documents, and the usually patient Pauley for the first time suggested that the government demonstrate that it is serious about trying the case. He said he might order intelligence officials to appear and explain themselves. According to the latest court docket, Pauley has scheduled a closed hearing Sept. 25, apparently with representatives of the intelligence agencies.

``At some point, the government has to decide whether it wants to go forward,'' Pauley said Sept. 5, as reported in a story by Bloomberg reporter David Glovin, who has covered the case almost from the beginning. ``Oftentimes, there's nothing more effective than having to look at a federal judge and explain why you haven't done what you're supposed to.''

Pauley said, ``Five years -- that in itself is punishment and hardship'' to Giffen. ``I'm reaching the point where I can't let it go on for years.''

Asked why the CIA has not complied with the request for documents, CIA spokesman George Little said in an e-mail response to me yesterday, "The CIA does not, as a rule, comment on matters pending before U.S. courts."

In his letter, Giffen asks Pauley in the Sept. 25 hearing “to determine whether any delays in production to date have been the result of deliberate inaction or indifference on the part of those agencies such that Mr. Giffen’s rights to a speedy and fair trial may have been compromised.”

The Sweep of Georgia's Impact

I'm just back from two weeks in Kazakhstan, looking at the ripples from the events in Georgia. The short takeaway is that Russia's short, victorious war will be felt for years to come all the way from Central Asia to western Europe. Here is the piece in this week's Business Week.



What doesn't seem to be much appreciated is that the main problem isn't really Georgia. It's that Georgia is the thread hanging off the tattered sweater; you pull it, and the sweater falls apart. Not counting the suddenly transformed politics of the Eurasian continent, but just economics, will Azerbaijan and Georgia manage to widen the Caucasus energy corridor to accommodate another 1.5 million barrels a day of Kazakh oil over the coming years, as Kazakhstan would like? What of hopes to diversify Europe's natural gas supply? The answer to both is "perhaps," but that Russia will have to be accommodated.

What would Russia want in exchange for allowing the corridor expansion to go through? For starters, as it's made plain, it wants all of the Azerbaijan state's natural gas supply, the very same volumes that the State Department is pushing President Ilham Aliyev to ship to Europe. As for Kazakhstan, it's not clear what it will be asked -- President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the balancer of great powers, has already been so deferential to Vladimir Putin that one wonders what more there is to surrender. From Europe, Putin would like continued demand for Russian gas at current or greater volumes.

One thing that's sure is that Russia doesn't have to use its Army again. Having deployed it once, Putin has made his point. Besides, Russian energy pipelines provide it all the leverage it needs without its army.

While You Were Involved in War

In the midst of Vladimir Putin's land grab in Georgia, BP suffered another blow in its oilfield tussle in Russia. Last week, a Russian court barred Robert Dudley, the CEO of BP's joint venture in Russia, from running the company for two years. Now BP is trying to figure out how to secure its Russian assets, which account for a quarter of the company's global production.

BP and its partners at TNK-BP -- four Russian oligarchs who are mainly financiers and bankers -- have been in a dispute since spring. In a nutshell, the Russians value the company for the dividends it pays out; BP sees the company as more of a growth play, and wants to plow as much of the oil profit as possible back into the company. While that sounds like a balancing act managed at almost all companies around the world, it's turned ugly in this case.

As O and G readers know, I see this brawl ending badly for BP. Given the pressure the Russians have brought to bear, with the obvious collusion of the Kremlin (it's absurd to claim, as the Russian partners have, that an army of inspectors could have a free-for-all at the company unless the Kremlin were okay with it), I don't see how BP comes out with anywhere near its current 50% share of TNK-BP.

Indeed I think it's entirely possible that the British company is forced out entirely. In that case, BP itself -- meaning the global oil company -- is at risk; Wall Street will pummel its share price, and that would make it a vulnerable target for takeover. Some predict that Shell is the likeliest suitor, and I agree.

The partners are scheduled to meet to brawl again face to face on Sept. 25.

After Georgia, A Day of Reckoning For Washington

Russia says it will start withdrawing its troops from Georgia tomorrow. If that truly happens -- and there are contrary signs -- a new, probably far more important stage of the Georgian crisis will begin. That's the assessment of the affair by the arc of countries -- from Europe, swinging south and east to the edge of western China -- that are directly affected by what Russia does.

How these countries perceive the U.S. response to the war in Georgia will determine whether Russia has effectively crippled a hard-fought, 15-year-old American effort to inject itself as a power in Russia's backyard.

So far, much ink has been spilled over whether the U.S. and Russia are in a new Cold War. In Washington, we hear that the era of a post-Soviet U.S.-Russia alliance is over. The Kremlin counters that the West is intent on provoking it, and thwarting its natural rights as a great power.

The truth is that Moscow's presumptions are essentially correct -- the U.S. has conducted a definitively anti-Moscow policy on Russia's western and southern rims, one dressed up as reformist- and energy-minded, but nonetheless centrally designed to contain Russia within its borders.

But this policy well-suits American security aims, and those of the West as a whole. Conceived in the Clinton administration, it foresaw this very day, when then-forlorn Russia would regain its feet and possibly threaten the independence of its traditional colonial backyard.

One thing to keep in mind is that Russian disgruntlement with Georgia didn't originate with NATO expansion, Kosovo independence, Russia's resurgent petro-power, or Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's alleged jokes about Vladimir Putin's height.

Russia's first military attack on Georgia was not ten days ago but in 1993, when Moscow backed Abkhazia in its military separation from Georgia. In the subsequent years, then-Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze was twice nearly assassinated, attacks that, in interviews with me and others, he blamed on Russia and his insistence on Georgia becoming the strategic transit route for the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.

In other words, there's strong reason to believe that nothing Saakashvili did, short of capitulation to Russian domination of Georgia, would have satisfied Moscow. Friends tell me that Shevardnadze finally found an accommodation with Russia. If so, it was an accommodation that included the threat of assassination if he went too far.

Georgia wasn't the rationale behind American policy. But the Caspian Sea policy, conceived, as O and G readers know, by a today-forgotten National Security Council officer named Sheila Heslin, did attempt to get Russia accustomed to living within its own borders, and not threatening its neighbors.

The policy was dual. It involved a continuation of the expansion of NATO initiated by President George H.W. Bush, in order to prevent a future, resurgent Russia from gobbling up pieces of the former Soviet bloc in eastern and central Europe. And, on the Caspian, to the south of Russia, the U.S. promoted the construction of energy pipelines to link the Caucasus and Central Asia to the West, and provide them the financial wherewithal to withstand any Russian economic pressure. As a transit point for three of the new pipelines, otherwise-isolated Georgia, situated right on Russia's border, became a U.S. strategic partner.

After 9/11, the Bush administration -- carrying the policy further -- established military bases in Central Asia for the assault on Afghanistan, and then left them in place after the Taliban were dispersed.

The policy made sense considering U.S. interests. The West had a stake in making sure that Russia did not again become a threatening power; by encouraging Russia not to expand back into its former Soviet lands, it might express its nationhood in other ways, such as in business. (For those who see all policy as oil-generated, remember that there was no oil shortage in the 1990s; oil was much-discussed, but it was an instrument of policy -- how to give the Caucasus and Central Asia some breathing room from Russia -- rather than the rationale for it.)

Many of the eight presidents of the region embraced the U.S. agenda. At once, there was a lever against centuries-old Russian dominance.

But ten days ago, Russia put that declaration to the test. With its assault on Georgia, it seemed to expose the U.S. policy as a superpower vanity.

And it seemed true that Washington was caught off-guard. It seemed either to have forgotten the rationale behind its Caspian Sea policy, or, more probable, to have staked its policy on the hope that by now Russia had changed, and would not rotely use its military in the face of a perceived challenge.

Whichever the case, Russia's invasion of Georgia threatens the very real gains of these 15 years. If Russia is seen to have come out ahead, the U.S. may retain its influence in Europe, where Moscow could even suffer a backlash -- Europe could decide after all to build new pipelines to diversify away from Russian natural gas. But America's carefully built role as a great power in Russia's south would be in jeopardy.

The Central Asian and Caucasus leaders are watching.

I myself wonder now whether it matters if Russia in fact does withdraw all the way into Abkhazia and South Ossetia (which I doubt. I think Russia will maintain at least some troops outside the territories. It seems improbable that Russia will entirely give up the ground it gained within Georgia proper.).

Russia has demonstrated that it can and might cross borders of its former Soviet colonies when it sees fit. In Russia's view, these are not international borders; they are Georgia, they are Kazakhstan, they are Azerbaijan -- not real independent states, but former Russian territories.

Ultimately, Azerbaijan's Ilham Aliyev, Kazakhstan's Nursultan Nazarbayev and Turkmenistan's Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov -- the stewards of the region's great energy wealth -- understand the language of power.

They understood when a parade of American officials visited and argued that it was wise to cultivate a relationship with the most powerful nation on Earth.

The trouble is that, these days, it's not clear any longer that the U.S. is very powerful in its declared zones of strategic interest.

It's Official: The Caspian is a Terrorist Target

The surprise isn't that terrorists appear to be responsible for an explosion that has shut down the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, and sent world oil prices up. It's that no such attack occurred earlier in the Caspian Sea region.

On Tuesday, a pump near the eastern Turkish town of Refahiye blew up. The thousand-mile pipeline, which connects the Caspian and Mediterranean seas and ships a million barrels of oil a day, could be shut for two weeks.

A Kurdish rebel group known as the PKK says it's responsible for the explosion.

If accurate, the attack underlines the vast target presented by the energy infrastructure that's gone up on both sides of the Caspian, and on into Turkey, since the 1991 Soviet collapse.

During the 11 years I lived on the Caspian, I frequently asked oilmen and diplomats about any precautions being undertaken to prevent terrorism, say, at the Tengiz and Kashagan oilfields in Kazakhstan, and the offshore Baku fields in Azerbaijan. After all, the Caspian is just north of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with all that implies. These fields currently export about 1.3 million barrels of oil a day, and the volume will increase to about 4 million barrels a day in about a decade or so.

I never got back anything but blank stares. I assumed that meant the threat was understood, but that no one was going to discuss preventive measures in place.

But this week's blast makes me wonder. BP deliberately built the pipeline underground, mostly to prevent the siphoning off of oil by thieves, and to forestall attacks by the various militant groups that populate the Caucasus and Turkey.

The vulnerable spots were always the eight pump stations along the route -- they are completely in the open. NATO and the U.S. had sent trainers to help assemble a strong protective force for the entire infrastructure, and I had assumed they were particularly concentrated at the pump stations.

Security may be particularly tight at the stations. But the apparent attack shows that the infrastructure remains vulnerable.

Guest Column: America's Ostensible Ally in Baku

Next week, Dmitry Medvedev travels to Japan for his first G-8 summit as president of Russia. But before that, he is on a three-day trip to Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. If the West hasn't taken note of that, it should -- Vladimir Putin and now Medvedev have neatly cemented strong relationships with the oil- and natural gas-rich Caspian countries of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, nations that during the 1990s the U.S. sought to bring into the Western fold. These countries continue to be strategically important, both because of the tight energy supply, and because of the energy independence they can provide to Europe. In an email exchange, my friend Tom de Waal -- co-author of the classic Chechnya, and author of the trenchant Black Garden -- told me that in The Oil and the Glory I overplayed Azerbaijan's alienation from Russia. His argument was compelling, and I asked him to expand it into a guest column. The result follows.

By Tom de Waal

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev arrives in Baku today.

In the West, there is a widespread assumption that Azerbaijan is an ally, and in the same anti-Russian camp as Georgia. I think that is a misperception. Azerbaijan is now developing a foreign policy of “complementarity,” which used to be the aspiration of the Armenians – be on good terms with everybody and get the best out of everybody. The model here is Kazakhstan, rather than Georgia.

Actually this was always the case. I suspect the Azerbaijanis have always been good at delivering the message in Washington, “You are our main ally and friend” and then going to Moscow and repeating the same refrain. Heydar Aliyev, the first post-Soviet Azerbaijani president (and father of the current president), was careful to keep good relations with Russia; before he talked seriously to Western partners about the non-Russian Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, he got a Russian oil pipeline in place – the so-called Early Oil line from Baku to Novorossiisk. Aliyev also wanted to give the Iranians a stake in the offshore Azerbaijani oil consortium, known as AIOC, but was of course over-ruled by the Americans. Aliyev kept his good contacts in Moscow, but was held back by Boris Yeltsin’s personal antipathy to him -- although he did successfully bury the hatchet with another Gorbachev-era reformer who had been his enemy in the Politburo, Eduard Shevardnadze.

Once Vladimir Putin came to power, Aliyev made it a strategic priority to rebuild relations with Russia. Aliyev was very successfully at charming the Putin Kremlin, and his daughter, Sevil, made a useful marriage with a well-connected Moscow Azerbaijani, Mahmud Mammadquliyev. The elite-level relationship has deepened under his son, Ilham Aliyev.

Medvedev, with his background as former chairman of Gazprom, the Russian natural gas giant, now speaks the same language of money and energy as the Azerbaijani elite. They must find it a relief not to have to bother with all that talk of democratization and human rights that enters conversations with Western politicians.

The Georgians enjoy the access they get in Washington but I wonder if they secretly envy the lobbying power in Russia of people like Vagit Alekperov, the Azerbaijani chairman of Lukoil, who have made sure that Azerbaijan doesn’t suffer the kind of boycotts, visa bans and border closures that the Georgians do.

The price for Azerbaijan is that it will not pursue NATO membership, which would alienate Russia, but I believe that is not a big priority for the country’s elite. The Azerbaijanis now feel secure enough because of their vast and growing oil wealth. Moreover, NATO standardization would also threaten to bring unwelcome transparency to the notoriously corrupt Azerbaijani armed forces.

This is not a love-match but a marriage of interests—as indeed is the Azerbaijani-U.S. relationship. Both Baku and Moscow are still capable of actions that hurt ordinary people:

In Azerbaijan, the authorities have needlessly banned the re-broadcasting of Russian television channels, barring Russian-speaking pensioners who cannot afford satellite television from their only form of entertainment; in Russia, the authorities have played to a xenophobic constituency by stopping Azeris from trading at markets. The newspaper commentariats in both countries continue to exchange hostile remarks, and men like former Azeri presidential adviser Vafa Guluzade continue to blame all of the country’s ills on the Russians.

But on an elite level, there are plenty of common interests. And consider also an opinion poll conducted by Azerbaijani political analyst Rasim Musabekov in Azerbaijan in February 2008.

Asked to name the three nations friendliest to Azerbaijan, 89% of Musabekov’s respondents unsurprisingly named Turkey. But Russia came in second place with a 20% vote of approval, well ahead of the United States, which was named by 5.7%, just behind Iran and on the same level as Ukraine.

This suggests that, on the street level, Russia and Russians remain popular with ordinary Azeris. They are still on the same wavelength in a way that Americans or Europeans will never be.

O and G Goes Live on Business Week

Business Week has imported O and G into its on-line magazine. Here is the link. O and G readers can continue to receive RSS feeds through the usual site, but you ought to take a look at the Biz Week offerings, both the enterprise stories and its other bloggers. There is good smart stuff.

The King is Dead. Long Live the King.

So much for friendly-old Berdy.

Radio Liberty has sent around a statement that one of its contributors in Turkmenistan was beaten and tortured in recent days for refusing to stop reporting for the American-funded broadcaster. Sazak Durdymuradov, whom Radio Liberty says is a history teacher who files reports on educational and constitutional reform, was seized from his home three days ago. According to the report, his beating and torture occurred at the same time that senior Turkmen officials were talking with European Union officials about human rights in the capital of Ashkabad.

Western governments have largely withheld judgement on Turkmenistan's new president, Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, hoping that he is different from his megalomaniacal predecessor, Saparmurat Niyazov. Berdymukhamedov has raised hopes by taking down ego-driven statues memorializing Niyazov, and reviving the right of young Turkmen to a full education, among other things.

But the human rights situation doesn't appear to have changed much.

Photo: Nicolai Bangsgaard

Rights: Creative Commons

Accumulating Shoes

We now have a better understanding of why the consortium developing the biggest new oilfield on the planet has expeled its boss, Italy's Eni -- yet another two-year delay has been announced in first oil from the offshore Kazakhstan field. From a contractual startup of 2005, the Eni-led consortium now says it will produce its first barrels from Kashagan as late as 2013, according to a statement by Kazakhstan Energy Minister Sauat Mynbayev.

So yet another shoe drops in Kazakhstan. This pearl of a field -- depending how technology advances, Kashagan contains anywhere from 15 billion barrels of recoverable reserves and up. That's fifteen elephants, the industry term for a monster oilfield -- has been beset by so many delays that one wonders when it truly will come on line.

Mostly at fault are the problems bedeviling the entire industry -- spiraling production costs, and a shortage of equipment and labor (Note to college-age O and G readers: if you study engineering or geology, you are all-but guaranteed a well-paying job).

Yet Eni has long seemed far over-stretched. From a tiny state-run oil company in the early 1990s, it has grown into a hugely successful heir to the Seven Sisters, the most successful of the West's Big Oil companies at finding comfort with the world's autocrats. Where its brethren bicker with Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin, Eni has found a comfortable embrace.

But that's resulted in an embarrassment of riches. Eni has too much on its plate. A few months ago, Eni lost its operatorship of Kashagan. Publicly that act was attributed to Kazakhstan's new assertiveness and demand for an equal share of Kashagan. But it's clear that Eni's partners in the field themselves would have acted sooner or later.

The problem with banks: My former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal published a scoop yesterday on the ongoing saga of some $80 million in Swiss deposits belonging to Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev and a couple of associates (since a subscription is required to view, I found this link to another site). It's written by Glenn Simpson, Susan Schmidt and Mary Jacoby.

Some nine years after the money was frozen in a money-laundering investigation (the cash came from U.S. oil companies that got deals in the 1990s in Kazakhstan, including at Kashagan), the Kazakhs have said they are willing to give up the money for charitable purposes. Yet the money remains frozen, according to the piece, in part because the U.S. says the charities that the Kazakhs have in mind are too closely linked to the Kazakh government.

Photo: Joe Shlabotnik

Rights: Creative Commons

Will No One Have Sympathy for a Fallen Middleman?

Readers of O and G know that Dutch oil trader John Deuss has led a largely charmed life. He earned hundreds of millions of dollars as one of the world's premier oil traders in the 1970s and 1980s. He went into oil drilling in the U.S. and Nigeria. And, in terms of the Caspian, he was in the middle of one of the era's high-tension geopolitical gambits, tying up Chevron for a couple of years in the construction of a big oil pipeline from Kazakhstan's Tengiz oilfield. To get him out, Chevron had to muster the combined weight of the U.S. government, the World Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Still, it required the death of his chief patron in the Sultanate of Oman before he finally threw in the towel, and went on to new adventures. Here he's pictured in the 1970s, when he ran his own magazine, called Chief Executive.

But the jet-setting life seems over for Deuss, who for almost two years has been embroiled in legal trouble in the Netherlands and the U.K. in an investigation of his banking activities in Bermuda and Curacao. I'm told he's not living the high-life any longer. And a court in Bermuda recently rejected his latest effort to clean up his name.

One problem is that he can't seem to cash out of the accouterments of big wealth. His 187-foot sailing yacht Fleurtje, on which he wined and dined western oilmen during the Caspian era, has been on sale for about $14 million since late 2006. No buyers.

He's had no better luck in the sale of Windsome Farms, his uber-luxurious, 123-acre estate and champion horse-raising facility in Wellington, Florida. One O and G reader tells me it's going for $62 million. But an ad says Deuss wants $49 million. Whatever the case, you must take a peek at the photos in the link. It looks pretty relaxing (as does the yacht). Here's a map of its location.

Perhaps one of the Caspian's nouveaux riche is looking for a ready-made throne?

Latest Score in Love versus War

In recent months, Italy’s ENI has seemed to have hit upon the winning formula in Big Oil’s battle for survival against the march of petro-states across the globe. ENI chairman Paolo Scaroni’s approach has been simple – jump in bed with your adversary. So you have had ENI saddling up with Russia’s Gazprom, Hugo Chavez’s PDVZA, and most recently Qatar Petroleum.

Scaroni’s strategy has been the polar opposite and, so far, more successful than ExxonMobil’s confrontational style toward the more assertive petro-states such as Russia and Venezuela.

But a scoop by Guy Chazan in today’s Wall Street Journal shows that co-habitation goes only so far. Turkmenistan, for instance, is so miffed with ENI that it refuses to issue visas to its senior executives. That’s important, because Turkmenistan is one of the world’s only largely untapped petro-states welcoming exploration offers from Big Oil. Chevron, BP and others have put much effort into winning access to fields there.

Based on ENI’s record, don’t be surprised if Scaroni himself tries to swoop into Turkmenistan to smooth over the situation.

Photo: Chrispitality
Rights: Creative Commons

Baku oil legend Nikolai Baibakov Dies at 98

As readers of O and G know, many historians think the second half of the 20^th century would have been dramatically different had Hitler’s troops reached Baku. Hitler needed Baku’s oil to fuel his war machine, and when his army failed to penetrate the Caucasus after its 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, it was the beginning of the end for Nazi-era Germany.

Just in case Hitler’s troops were not stopped before they reached Baku, Stalin entrusted one man with making sure that the Nazis could not avail of the city’s legendary oil. This man, who ordered the fields plugged up with cement, was Nikolai Baibakov, who died yesterday in Moscow at the age of 98.

Baibakov – Stalin’s oil commissar and for two decades the director of Soviet economic planning – was born in the Baku oilfield of Sabunchi; his father had worked in the Baku oilfields before him. So he knew intuitively what Stalin was so worked up about. A superlatively colorful actor in the biggest events of recent history, Baibakov recalled with black humor some of his encounters with the murderous Stalin.

In a 1998 interview with The Petroleum Economist, Baibakov said Stalin pointed two fingers at his head and said, “If you fail to stop the Germans getting our oil, you will be shot. And when we have thrown the invader out, if we cannot restart production, we will shoot you again.”

Those were the tenor of the times. Oil engineers from Baku, accused of crimes such as being the relative of the Czarist-era oil barons, were loaded into railcars with their families like cattle and shipped to Siberia to start new oilfields.

A New York Times obituary quotes Baibakov's reply as to whether his fellow oil officials were shot during those days: “Yes, several.”

Then, as now, Russia’s entire economy was dependent on oil and the revenue from oil exports

C. Boyden Gray: Ho-hum on the Caspian

The Bush administration has finally named a senior diplomat to challenge Russia in the pipeline war in Europe. He is C. Boyden Gray, the Bush family friend and GOP partisan lawyer.

As O and G readers have read over the previous months, Russia and the West, particularly the U.S., have been in fierce competition to control the natural gas supply to Europe, and ultimately to influence the continent's politics. Under Vladimir Putin's determined, hands-on leadership, Russia has been far in the lead and, unless something changes fast, will win the contest.

Hence a push within some circles, including Senator Richard Lugar specifically and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in general, for Washington to get serious by naming a prominent senior statesman to spearhead the U.S. effort. The first nominee was Thomas Pickering, but his personal finances turned out to be a conflict of interest. Then, someone suggested Bush family friend Donald Evans, the former Commerce secretary, but that also went nowhere.

Now the administration has settled on Gray, who was counsel to George H.W. Bush, and named as a recess appointment by President Bush as envoy to the European Union when the Senate refused to confirm him.

Gray comes from similar aristocratic stock as the Bushes -- with inherited wealth, his father was secretary of the Army under Harry S. Truman, and his grandfather was chairman of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. He graduated from Harvard, and clerked under Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren.

I'm perplexed. Is this the man to general the West's battle against one of the world's consummate players of brutal market economics, namely Vladimir Putin?

To find out whether I'm simply out of the loop, I took a sampling of some of the best-connected readers of O and G. As usual, this sampling will be anonymously sourced:

1. "Doesn't sound like the person we need to bring some coherency to our policy in that part of the world."

2. "(The Senate Foreign Relations Committee) pressed Condi hard to DO SOMETHING, so, [this is] more or less her saying ‘Get this off my plate!’ This was the political compromise. Politics, not grand strategy.”

3. "[Gray's] pluses -- close to the White House, maybe gravitas (but he is a pompous ass), smart guy. Minuses -- intensely partisan, loves to hector the EU, does not know energy, [does not speak] Russian. Bottom line -- not great but could be worse."

4. "Really lousy appointment. Can hardly think of anyone worse."

What's obvious is that no one of significance would accept the appointment. Which is why you have Rice simply adding new duties onto an existing envoy's portfolio. Which is also why the announcement was made in a one-paragraph statement issued with no fanfare.

In other words, this is a dull spearhead.

Guest Column: Khanna Explains The Second World

Today we have the pleasure of helping to launch a terrific new book. It's The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order, by Parag Khanna, director of the Global Governance Initiative at the New America Foundation. I asked Parag to write for the blog today not only because of the quality of his book, but because his travels took him through our turf, and he came away with a different take from my own in some cases, in particular about Gazprom. Without further ado, here is Parag's posting:

Thanks very much to Steve (with whom I share a terrific editor at Random House) for allowing me to post an introductory note on this esteemed blog about my book, which has been released today.

The book covers my travels through about 40 countries to look at their changing and increasingly multi-directional leanings, and focuses on societies that are increasingly divided socially, politically, and economically between haves and have-nots, winners and losers, first- and third-worlders -- hence the "second world." It's a happy coincidence that the countries of interest to O&G readers used to be called the "second world" until the term fell out of use. I spent quite some time in Ukraine, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and the like for my research.

I want to jump into two ongoing debates: Gazprom/Europe and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization/Afghanistan.

Very often Gazprom diplomacy and Russian diplomacy are taken as synonymous, and recently the two have appeared as well-coordinated as Chinese synchronized divers. But we should not forget last year's tiffs with Belarus, and the current bickering in Ukraine, both of which serve as examples of corporate logic undermining diplomatic logic.

Gazprom's demand that Belarus -- Russia's only major ally in the former Soviet Union (alongside perhaps Armenia and Tajikistan) -- pay market prices didn't win it friends other than those who saw bankruptcy and incorporation into a State Union with Russia as desirable. It also woke up EU members to the need to diversify fast.

And in Ukraine, the creation of RusUkrEnergo to continue Gazprom's bullying for constant pay-outs on amounting arrears has only alienated wider segments of Ukraine's leadership. One can only imagine that the population is as well, meaning that future election outcomes may not be as close a split between Russian and Western -leaning sides as has been the case to date. Gazprom logic would care little for such an outcome. But an increasingly Russia-skeptical Ukraine could abandon caution and welcome overtures from NATO more than it has to date -- making Putin's worst fear a reality. Diplomacy is about making friends, while corporations exist to make money. Unless Russia balances the two, oil and glory may not be forever connected.

Furthermore, the argument that Russia has Europe permanently over a barrel on gas supply assumes a long-term Russian stability while ignoring that it is Europe that can invest in diversification over the long term, drawing more oil/gas from North Africa, for example, thus gradually increasing its leverage over Russia.

The other issue is the recent talk of NATO reaching out to China (perhaps via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, known as SCO, though Russia for obvious historical reasons wants no part in any Afghan operations) to potentially run a Provisional Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan, or run one jointly with other nations, even the U.S. Apparently the offer was made, and China was enthusiastic, but their letter to the State Department is said to have gone unanswered for lack of coordination with NATO or a decision on how exactly to respond. So the U.S. may have dropped the ball. (Any updates/insights on this would be appreciated.)

Across the 'Stans, it's only a matter of time before NATO and SCO mingle ever more closely, and friction possibly occur. Rumors from on the ground (yet again) that the Kyrgyz might demand a shutting of America's Manas base have such maneuvering at their root. So concrete outreach between the two "alliances" beyond mundane briefings in Brussels would be where geopolitics and diplomacy intersect today. That could be quite exciting to watch unfold as NATO stands on the brink of failure in Afghanistan while Chinese and Iranian infrastructure projects -- such as in Tajikistan and Afghanistan -- move forward across the region, eventually allowing the two to connect safely overland.

Will it be the new Great Game or new Silk Road? I predict both: America continues to support political liberalization in the region, meaning some opening to greater cross-border flows, while also hoping to maintain lily-pad like bases across the region. From China's view, it too requires open borders to facilitate its exports while importing energy, and through the SCO sees itself ever more as a contributor to regional stability. Throw in Russia and Europe and you have a recipe for all the intrigue and mystery that characterized both the Silk Road and Great Game eras.