Talk:Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan High‑importance

	Azerbaijan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Georgia (country)

	Georgia (country) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Georgia-Russia crisis

From the looks of it this pipeline may possibly be a underlying reason for the recent events in Georgia. Worth investigating? Mabuse (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where does it all go??

It seems as if this pipeline avoided going through Armenia. Does anybody know why?
H Padleckas 20:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Armenia is the least stable of the three Caucasian republics, and relations between Turkey and Armenia are rather poor, not to mention that Armenia and Azerbaijan have been fighting a border-dispute war on and off for the past 15 years. —thames 21:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This route was chosen based on geostrategic interests. Armenia is aligned with Russia--Confuzion 01:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's no conspiracy. The pipeline is primarily an Azerbaijani project (to benefit their own oil industry as well as Baku as a Caspian port). Armenia and Azerbaijan have a cease-fire but are basically at war. It would be foolish for the Azeri government to run a strategic economic asset through enemy territory. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Armenia also has no diplomatic relations with Turkey. There have certainly been border problems - the border between the two countries is currently closed and has been for some time. The issue has been in the news only this week. -- ChrisO 15:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey has had a closed border with armenia since about '93 because they are aligned with Azerbajian. 96.231.1.42 (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC) coach.[reply]

(It should be noted, though, that it has been suggested that this is a gross overestimate, with Azerbaijan's oil reserves estimated by some to be a mere 32 million barrels.) <- The pipeline is projected to transport oil from Central Asia (through the Caspian), and not specifically Azerbaijan--Confuzion 01:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the previous answers are misleading: a) The pipeline is *not* "primarily an Azerbaijani project." It is primarily a British Petroleum-European-U.S. project whose secondary goal is to enrich Turkey, Georgia and mostly Azerbaijan. b) Turkey and Armenia do not have diplomatic relations because of Turkey's refusal to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and because of its ethnic ties with Azerbaijan. c) Armenia is *not* "the least stable of the three Caucasian Republics"; Georgia and Azerbaijan are far more politically unstable, having seen many more changes in government than Armenia since independence. d) The only reason Armenia is ostracized from this deal is because it is surrounded by political enemies who happen to be backed by poweful Western oil interests.

Treaty of Kars link explains one reason for closed Turkish-Armenian border.

I've added some explicit 'Western interests' phrases as there was (is) too much Western and US ethnocentrism in the article - these pipeline routes have been chosen to favour Western allied interests in particular. Emerging industrial giants like Russia, China and India have an interest in direct oil routes and pipelines also. I don't really like this article, it's too 'cosy' and 'oily' (no pun intended) around Western interests and 'oil panic', and political and commercial power plays. I dispute the 8-9% of Middle Eastern oil export to US figure supplied, it could be more like 12% - ~20% of ~60% imports - hence the increasing role of unsavoury geopolitics in the region, the desire to get around OPEC countries in general (40% of US imports), not to mention profits made by infrastructure (pipeline) companies. http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#imports http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

--Sean01 00:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush in Georgia

Interesting. A pipeline opens, running through Georgia, and Bush visits Georgia to anounce that democracy is succeeding in the country and that the U.S. should support them! Ulterior motive? Maybe...

(Only 'maybe'???)

The US backed the Rose Revolution but the pipeline was in the works for many years before that. Nobody benefited from Georgia being a failed state, except perhaps Russia (who still has "peacekeepers" in Georgia). --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the pipeline was in the works under the Shevardnaze government in Georgia before the Rose Revolution occurred. Russia is still sponsoring separatists in Georgia (in Abkhazia and South Ossetia). —thames 14:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didnt some guy throw a grenate at bush but it didnt explode? Baku87 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Couple Questions

The map shows an existing "crude oil" pipeline ending at the Black Sea, the "Western Early" I think they're calling it. How has that line fared with regards to war, environmental concerns, earthquakes, etc? It seems to pass through a lot of the same territory, and answering these questions would seem to help predict the impact this new longer pipeline will have. Also, besides length is there any difference between the Western Early and BTC?

The WE appears to be a much smaller pipeline with a lower throughput (100K barrels per day); also, it goes to the Black Sea, so it still faces the problem of congestion in the Bosphorus. -- ChrisO 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Druzhba pipeline, and shouldn't the Main Page say that this pipeline is the second-longest in the world? That's what this article says.

Thanks, that's been corrected now. See Druzhba pipeline for more info on that subject. -- ChrisO 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The map makes a distinction between crude oil and oil pipelines, with the "Western Early" marked as "crude oil" and the BTC as "oil." Does that mean that the BTC line is made to transport partially refined oil?

I think they both transport the same thing. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/azerbjan.html :

Azerbaijan's increase in oil production since 1997 has mainly come from the international consortium known as the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC). AIOC (partners: BP, Unocal, SOCAR, Inpex, Statoil, ExxonMobil, TPAO, Devon Energy, Itochu, Delta/Hess) operates the offshore Azeri Chirag and deep water Gunashli (ACG) mega-structure (see Map 1), which is estimated to contain proven crude oil reserves of 5.4 billion barrels according to the field's operator and largest stakeholder, British Petroleum. According to the AIOC the field reached an average daily output of 144,000 bbl/day in June 2004 , mostly from the Chirag-1 stationary platform. This production has been dubbed “early oil” by the company, and is currently exported through the “Western Early Oil Pipeline,” which extends to the Georgian port of Supsa on the Black Sea (see Map 2). -- ChrisO 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I missed any answers in the article.

Dependence of the USA

From the article:

Although some have touted the pipeline as potentially removing the dependence of the US and other Western nations on oil from Russia and the Middle East, in reality the vast majority of oil will still come from those regions. The pipeline will, however, help to diversify the global oil supply and so will insure to an extent against a failure in supply elsewhere.

Doesn't the USA receive its oil from Venezuella? Do they get any oil from the Middle East? at0 23:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check out e.g. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/september96/iraq_oil_9-5.html - figures it gives are 2/3 of all global oil reserves are located in the Middle East, 50% of all global oil supplies come from the Middle East and 8 or 9% of US oil supplies come from there. So it's a significant figure. A loss in ME oil (from Iran or Saudi Arabia, say) would have a major impact on the US economy - the BTC pipeline helps to insure against that to some degree. -- ChrisO 00:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking

It would appear that the BTC pipeline is ranked third in length behind the Lakehead Pipeline in North America, which includes one path dating to 1953 that is 2,840 km in length (additional pipe brings the total to 4,990 km, though that makes a "system" rather than just a single pipeline). A map of the U.S. portion is here, and a very approximate route can be seen by mapping Redwater, Alberta to Sarnia, Ontario (the actual path is more direct) —Mulad (talk) June 28, 2005 06:38 (UTC)

Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline

This article states that "The related BP-led project to construct a trans-Caspian gas pipeline to from Kazakhstan to Turkey finished in July, 2006". That's incorrect, because:

no gas pipeline was finished in July 2006
Later this year will be finished South Caucasus Pipeline (also known as Baku-Tblisi-Erzerum Pipeline). But this pipeline as nothing to do with gas from Kazakhstan or from Turkmenistan as long as Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan will be built.
There is intention to build the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, but nothing decided yet and the future of this project remains unclear.

For these reasons I'm deleting the above-mentioned sentence. I also plan to write an artcile on the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline soon. Beagel 17:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish economy

This article is not about Turkish economy only, but rather about a project involving three countries and operated by an international consortium. Therefore I think it's not correct to put "Economy of Turkey" template into this page and I will revert last editions. I have nothing against if the relevant category will be added (together with Economy of Azerbaijan and Economy of Georgia).Beagel 11:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Environment

"[Because of catalytic converters,] each of the 7,600 hp (5,700 kW) engines have reduced their carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds emissions by greater than 90% providing a significant air quality improvement over the 350 tanker shipments through the Bosphorus.[36]" ???

This is not supported by the reference, AND is not credible. No catalytic converter could possibly reduce CO₂ emissions of an engine 90%. Someone should look into who inserted this comment and review their other edits.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This insertion is here This is the only edit from this IP address. Beagel (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps the intended comparison was of the CO₂ and VOC emissions of the tankers vs. the pump engines.--IReceivedDeathThreats (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel section out of date?

The "Possible transhipment via Israel" seems very out of date - if I understand it, it's saying "Israel might get some of the oil from the BTC pipeline". Israel is currently getting 20% of their oil from Georgia, some of which they get via the BTC pipeline: [1] [2] [3]. If anyone feels confident in doing so, please update this section! Also, the Georgia page has a similar oversight, which I've brought up in the talk page. Thanks! --Eeblet (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't knew. My understanding is that this section deals with possible transit shipments through Israel. I don't knew if there are any current transit shipments. If you have any idea how to improve this section, feel free to go ahead doing this.Beagel (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of some amateurish nonsense

The only reason that the route through Georgia was chosen was because the more direct route through Armenia was impossible due to the ongoing war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. There are no credible sources that say otherwise. Meowy 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully. I did not revert your edits, I restored references. In your post at the talk page you did not say why you removed references – you explained the change of text which I agree with you. Beagel (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought that your edit was a revert to restore everything, hence my terse edit summary. I should have looked more carefully. However, those two sources are not needed. The eurasianet source says nothing about the actual route. "Armenia: A Neighbor from Hell?" (aside from the fact that it is a piece of propaganda, written by Sedat Laciner) also says absolutely nothing about the route of the pipeline. Meowy 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to this paragraph, which is more neutral and already in use in this article. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks. BTW, the pipeline was closed in August 2008 because of the South Ossetia War - the mention of the closure as a result of an explosion is correct but I think the delay in reopening it was due to the war. However I don't have a source for this. Some source is also needed for the PKK claim - although they claimed it, there was doubt at the time that the explosion was a result of sabotage. Meowy 20:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide somehow not a factor in route?

There was a long-time and well-sourced mention in this article of the Armenian Genocide, and Turkey's denial of it, as contributing factors in Turkey and Azerbaijan opting to route the pipeline through Georgia. That mention has since been scrubbed, incorrectly or out of political motivation. Are we going to claim otherwise with a straight face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find the sources, it might be added. There were no sources where you added it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were sources for several years to that effect, which have recently been scrubbed but should be returned. They will be added soon. Please stop chasing around undoing edits to unrelated pages, and please allow time in these articles for the work to unfold in a collaborative fashion.

Regarding the "weasel words" tag, the previous version had it "impossible," which is false. Of course it was never impossible to route the pipeline through Armenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the previous sources as of 6 August; the sources did not mention the pipeline, nor did they use the word "genocide", so could not be used to support the issue. Got any more sources? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph has one reference, which on the page 114 says: "At its inception, BTC was conceived as a Baku-Ceyhan direct pipeline, which due to reasons of geography would directly cross Armenia. Heydar Aliyev hoped to use the prospect of the pipeline crossing Armenia as an incentive for the latter to return Nagorno-Karabakh. When Yerevan refused, Azerbaijan (with support from Turkey) decided to deny Armenia integration into regional projects, and to deprive it of access to Western markets via Turkey. Clearly, Armenia has suffered a significant loss due to the fact that the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline now bypasses the country on the longer and costlier Georgian route." So, the reference gives the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a cause and says nothing about the Armenian Genocide. If there are reliable sources confirming the Armenian Genocide as a cause for the pipeline routing, they should be added. Otherwise, it should removed from the text. Concerning the claim that this was well-sourced previously, it was not. You could see from the previous topic on this page and from the edit summaries why this text was removed and was not supported by reliable sources. Beagel (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources, but I think it would be best for the article to restore the ones that were originally included for several years, which will require some time to sift through old edits. It does not seem that that part of the article changed all at once on 8/6, but with several edits over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the history of this article and the first time the Armenian Genocide mentioned in this article was on 14 August 2005 by this edit of anon user. There was no any kind of references supporting this claim. Coincidentally, this anon IP address from the same area and by the same ISP as yours. This statement staid unchanged (and also unsourced) until this edit this edit by me during extensive cleaning up of this article. The statement was removed because I was unable to find any reliable source supporting this claim. Armenian Genocide issue was reinserted again on 15 July 2008 by another anon user without any reference by this edit. This was reverted by user:El C and was reinserted again by the same anon user, this time with these references [4], [5]. However, these references did not make any linkage between the Armenian Genocide and the BTC pipeline. It staid this way until 6 August 2009, when after active editing of several users it was agreed that these references are not reliable sources for above mentioned reasons and the Armenian Genocide issue was removed again. So, there had never been any reliable sources supporting this claim.Beagel (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this article, but it seems that Wikipedia policy is that controversial material should not be added to articles until the correct sources are found. Talk page discussion is fine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 100 ducks swimming around without feet?

Under the Technical Features paragraph there is a sentence that I doubt is correct.

"Out of all of the pipeline, there are 100 ducks swimming around without feet."

I do not believe this is correct, after being transported 1000 miles under pressure in an oil pipeline the ducks, with or without feet will not be swimming around. I think this sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysonRichard (talk • contribs) 16:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

The introduction says that the pipeline started pumping in May and that the oil didn't reach the end of the pipeline until May the following year. The references are broken links. Anyone know if this is a typo or if it should both be 2006? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheerioswithmilk (talk • contribs) 20:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is correct. Beagel (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]