Russian Mafia: Who is the Executive Director Of TNK-BP

 

Surname: Khan

Name: Herman

Fathername: Borisovich

Position: Executive director of TNK-BP

The Biography:

Born in 1961 in Kiev, in a family of leading scientist-metallurgist. He finished school in 1978. After the school he worked as fitter’s apprentice at the Kiev experimental factory of non-standard equipment; became a fitter of the 2nd category; took great interest in boxing. In 1979 he enrolled in the Industrial-Pedagogical College, graduated in 1982 with honors. He entered the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys (MISA), the Faculty of ferrous metals casting. That was the place he got acquainted with Mikhail Fridman and Alexei Kuzmichev – future partners in the Alfa Group.

In 1988, Khan began to work in cooperative “Cosmos”, rented space in TsUM (unified shopping center) and got engaged in wholesale of garments, footwear and jewelry. Alexander Furman became his first business partner. In 1989, Khan and Furman created their own cooperative “Alexandrina”, in which Furman was engaged in tailoring, and Herman Khan – in supplying works and sales and formally taking up the post of deputy chairman of the cooperative. In March 1989, Herman Khan and Friedman united their businesses. The latter had had the JV “Alfa-Ecoby” business by that moment. In 1990-1992 Herman Khan was the head of the wholesale trade, then the head of the export department of the company “Alfa-Eco”- that was engaged in selling carpets from the Caucasus and Central Asia, perfumes, Czech lamps, agricultural products, sugar under the Cuban contract, liquors, and tea.

In 1992 Herman Khan took over the oil program “Alpha”. In 1995, he headed the raw materials department of “Alpha-Eco”. Later “Alpha” had got a number of projects with Achinsk Alumina Refinery and Zapsib. They traded a bit on the coal market; started delivering oil to Ukhta refinery in the Komi Republic and to Lisichanskiy refinery in Ukraine.

In 1996 Herman Khan obtained the post of president of the company “Alpha-Eco”. The Company began to export oil. The first customer was the company “Galaxy” owned by Leonid Minin, a well known person in the criminal circles in Ukraine. Since early 1998 Herman Khan had become the deputy chairman and the first vice-president of the “Tyumen Oil” Company.

Currently Herman Khan obtains the post of Executive Director of TNK-BP and supervises all operational activities of the company, except for the gas sector; he is a shareholder of TNK-BP and Alfa-Bank and also a board member of the management company “TNK-BP Management”; member of the Board of Directors of “Alfa-Bank” and “Slavneft” and member of the Russian Presidium of the Jewish Congress.

Herman Khan lives in the settlement Razdory of the Odintsovo district, Moscow region; has a gun registration (pistol IZH-71 “) as a security guard of Ltd.”PSA “Alfa-Garant”.

Khan is married to a stewardess of “Transaero”company, brings up two daughters: 1995 and 2001 year of birth
RB.RU RUSSIAN BUSINESS http://www.rb.ru/biz/people/show/10077/
The Dossier:

The first scandal with the name of Herman Khan appeared in the press in April 1995. Members of the Headquarters of Combating Organized Crime of the RF Interior Ministry raided the “Alfa-Eco”offices to detect drugs and discreditable documents. The search was provoked by the fact that in late March – early April 1995 a group poisoning of Khabarovsk residents with sugar had happened. During the investigation it came out that a high dose of drugs contained in sugar had caused the poisoning. It was found out that the containers with sugar had been previously rented by “Alfa-Eco” and used for transportation of consignment to the company «Harmaty and Co» , while Han was one of its founders.
http://lpl.org.ua/biography-13.aspx, newspaper “Version”, 06.06.1999

The press released information that the secret drug-related operations were carried out by the company “Alfa-Eco”, headed by Herman Khan. He was also a founder of a number of firms, including the Hungarian «Harmaty and Co» (jointly with «Harmaty ech Tarrna») and the Czech «Alfa-Eco» (jointly with «Altex Ltd»). According to the constituent documents, both of those firms were engaged in export and sales of carpet products to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. However according to sources in the law enforcement bodies, their statutory activities served as a cover. In fact, «Harmaty and Co» and «Alfa-Eco» were involved in international drug trafficking and narcotic dollars laundering through some of the employees. In particular the companies were the chain links on which the transit of drugs from the South East Asia to Europe had been carried out.
http://www.peoples.ru

In July 10 2003 the Moscow Arbitration Court (Case number A40-49954/02-21-494) acknowledged that the information did not correspond to reality and discredited the honor and business reputation of the Open Company “Alfa-Eco”.

In 1999, as a member of the board of directors of the oil company “Sidanco”, Herman Khan undertook attempts to establish the “Alfa-eko” companies’ control over the enterprises of “Sidanco” which were located in the Saratov and Irkutsk regions. To have an impact on managers and shareholders of “Saratovneftegaz” and “Saratovnefteprodukt” Khan involved criminal structures. They helped to wreck the shareholders’ meetings in both companies twice, local RUOP also assisted to Herman Khan in that case. Moreover Khan pressed in person the business leaders and even the governor of the Saratov region, Dmitry Ayatskov.
Newspaper “Version”, 06.06.1999

In early 2000 they said Herman Khan had a relation to Lieutenant of the General Ministry of Internal Affairs Alexander Orlov, a former assistant and second-hand of the Interior Minister, Vladimir Rushailo. Orlov carried out especially delicate orders of the ministerial command. There was a considerable quantity of materials in special services on Alexander Orlov’s contacts with the prominent businessmen. Herman Khan acted as one of Orlov’s friends and sponsors. Thank to Orlov the structures of the Ministry of Internal Affairs took the side of the businessman and other oligarchs in conflicts with their creditors and debtors: upon the request of one side they beat the debts out of the others. The cost of this was about 50 percent of the amount of the debt.
“Novaya Gazeta” 28.05.2001

In the middle of 2001 Herman Khan was accused of gathering compromising material on the former Natural Resources Minister, Vitaly Artyukhov. At that time the Artjuhov’s file appeared in the editor’s office of “Novaya Gazeta”. It included information on legislation infringements by Artyukhov and in particular denounced Artyukhov of aiding and abetting to plunder of budgetary funds while being the Minister of Natural Resources. The possible reason of Khan’s interest to Artyukhov might have lain in the position of the head of the Ministry of Natural Resources. He could be a figure in a chain of many moves allowing the oligarchs, including Khan, to have an insider in public office, who would be obliged to protect the commercial interests of a certain circle of people.
“Novaya Gazeta”, 30.07.2001

The scandal around the name of Herman Khan took place in December 2002. That time «Alfa Group” formed an alliance with “Sibneft”, and as a result they won an auction sale of the state shares of “Slavneft”. This tactic deprived the government of an additional income that could be obtained through the more competitive auction. “Alfa-group” had been often criticized for its aggressiveness. At that time they started calling Herman Khan the most ruthless businessman of the country.
«The Financial Times», 29.08.2003

In 2003, the State Duma deputy Vladimir Yudin appealed to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Ustinov with inquiry concerning the activity of the “TNK-BP” management. Yudin pointed out that the District Court of New York was preceding the trial against the heads and owners of the company OAO “Tyumen Oil Company” (TNK). In the inquiry the deputy also pointed to the names of Herman Khan, Joseph Bakaleinik, Viktor Vekselberg, Semyon Kukes and Leonard Blavatnik. According to Yudin, the above-stated persons had flagrantly infringed Russian laws on mineral resources, bankruptcy, joint-stock companies, etc. in order to expand their oil business. While doing this they descended on the direct pressure on managers, court and law enforcement agencies. With reference to the documents received from Canada, in particular from the company Norex »(Norex), Yudin claimed that the U.S. court accused the above persons of the criminal cases, such as racketeering (extortion), threatening of physical violence to the heads of ZAO Yugraneft”, OJSC ” Chernogorneft “and” Norex “.
Interfax, 02.12.2003.

At the bottom of the conflict between Norex and TNK was the JSC “Corporation” Yugraneft “, created in 1992 by the Canadian company (60%) and” Chernogorneft (40%) for the small deposits development. In 2000, the bankrupted “Chernogorneft” went to “TNK”, and in summer 2001 the TNK management appointed its own general director of “Yugraneft”. The Khanty-Mansiysk Arbitration Court invalidated the Norex’s contribution to the charter capital of “Yugraneft”, and the share of “TNK” got increased up to 80%. Norex was unable to defend their interests in the Russian courts, and in 2002 filed the lawsuit in New York.
The newspaper “Vedomosti”, 03.12.2003

Press had also exaggerated the visit of Herman Khan to Ukraine in April 2005 in order to decide an issue of introduction of limited selling prices for fuel. Shortly before the visit of Khan to the government of Ukraine, agency “Interfax-Ukraine” had circulated information that the Prosecutor General of Ukraine sent a complaint to the State Property Fund and “TNK-Ukraine” on the illegal privatization of the Lisichansk refinery, owned by TNK-BP. This information allowed the Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to make Herman Khan agree on selling gasoline at filling stations on the prices set by the Ministry of Economy. Immediately after the meeting with Khan, the Prime Minister said that TNK-BP was going to lower prices for gasoline at the filling stations to the level established by the Government.
http://www.newsru.com, 22.04.2005

Herman Khan appeared to be in the conflict epicenter in September 2005, when lawyers, attracted by the International Union of veterans of the armed forces and law enforcement officials had indicated that the “Alfa Group”, co-owned by Herman Khan, had been doing the oil business with law infringements. Herman Khan, Mikhail Fridman, Alexei Kuzmicheva, Leonard Blavatnik and Viktor Vekselberg were accused of fraudulent embezzlement of 40%-stake of TNK, of usage of transfer pricing, tax evasion and fraudulent establishing control over the “Nizhnevartovskneftegaz” and artificial bankruptcy of “Chernogorneft .

At the same time, deputy Nikolai Pavlov complained to the General Prosecutor that representatives of Alfa Telecom offered him a compensation in case he testified at the trial of “MegaFon” (it was a long-lasting lawsuit of “Alfa Telecom” and Bermuda fund IPOC for 25.1% shares of cellular operator “MegaFon”). They assumed that the owner of IPOC, Jeffrey Galmond helped the Union of Veterans of the armed forces “to expose” the Herman Khan’s company.
The newspaper “Vedomosti” 26.09.2005

In spring 2008, the shareholders of TNK-BP came into a conflict because of the consortium AAR (Alfa Group by Mikhail Fridman, Access by Leonard Blavatnik and Renova by Viktor Vekselberg’s) which was representing the interests of the Russian shareholders demanded the resignation of the operating director of TNK-BP, Robert Dudley. They asserted he had been managing the company in interests of the British. One of the main accusations against Robert Dudley was the fact that he exceeded the amount of capital investment over the agreed limit of 3.5 billion pounds up to 900 million pounds. In their turn, the British experts of BP argued that according to the analysis results of TNK-BP and BP reports and data of Forbes magazine about the states of the richest people in the world, Herman Khan had received 2.1 billion dollars of dividends, as well as 1.7 billion dollars on the growth of shares rate of TNK-BP Holding. In early September, the shareholders of TNK-BP agreed that Robert Dudley was going to leave the post of the operating director; the new one would be nominated by BP and approved by the Board of Directors of the company. Insiders of TNK-BP reported on their fears that Russian main shareholder, Herman Khan could use the interim period to take the company under his control and use the financial crisis to restructure the company at his own discretion. In November 2008 TNK-BP announced the reduction of workplaces on 15% due to the rapid decline of oil prices. Some former heads of BP argued that Khan used the reduction as an excuse to oust the former BP representatives from the company.
http://www.newsru.com, 01.12.2008

In January 9, 2009 the owners of TNK-BP signed an amended agreement on joint management of the company. The election of a new independent president of the company and inclusion of three independent members to the board of directors caused conflict of the shareholders around the TNK-BP.
http://www.newsru.com, 11.01.2009 g.

At the same time, the British media reported on the prosecution, which could have led to freezing of the accounts of Herman Khan in the western banks. The conflict occurred because of confrontation between BP, on the one hand, and the Russian partners in TNK-BP, as well as the Russian authorities, on the other hand (the American Robert Dudley who had been appointed by BP to the post of chief executive officer of TNK-BP, left Moscow and went into hiding in Europe). At that time the representatives of BP sought for legal advice in order to initiate proceedings in the commercial court of Sweden against the Russian shareholder consortium AAR (Alfa Group by Mikhail Fridman, Access by Leonard Blavatnik and Renova by Viktor Vekselberg). They charged the shareholders with infringements of corporate domestic law.
Kompromat.ru, 28.07.2008

The conflict occurred in the TNK-BP during the TNK-BP shareholders negotiation with the former general director of Norilsk Nickel, Denis Morozov. Morozov was proposed to take a post of CEO of TNK-BP. According to one of the versions, the shareholders promised that the new director would be able to form his own management team. However in January 2009 they announced that managers-shareholders and operating directors -Viktor Vekselberg and Herman Khan – were going to stay in the new rule. Morozov in his turn insisted on clear delineation of his responsibilities and the powers of the shareholders. Khan and Vekselberg disagreed with Morozov and began to search for the new candidates.
http://www.newsru.com 21.01.2009 g.

At the same time, the British shareholders supported the candidature of Denis Morozov and demanded the resignation of Herman Khan. Otherwise the Denis Morozov’s authority in the company would be significantly limited.
http://www.newsru.com, 19.01.2009 g.

The decision was taken in November 2009 – Board of Directors of TNK-BP unanimously supported the decision to appoint Maxim Barski to the post of the Chief Executive Officer starting from 1 January 2011. Till that time Mikhail Fridman, an executive chairman of the Board of Directors of TNK-BP had been acting as temporary chief operating director.

Lately they have been connecting Herman Khan with the Deputy Prime Minister, Igor Sechin. In the next month or two, an administrative attack on the Agriculture Minister Elena Skrynnik (protege of vice-premier Viktor Zubkov) might be organized by the concerned group of officials. With support of Sechin they try to promote the co-owner of “Rostselmash”, Konstantin Babkin to that place. “Rosagroleasing” is also expected to get changed as they plan to convert it into a state corporation. In this connection a staffing struggle of Sechin against Viktor Zubkov may be initiated in order to relocate AIC. To strengthen his position, Sechin picks up a strong team and Herman Khan is a part of it.
http://www.newsru.com, 10.02.2010 r

 

LukOil's Balkan Interests that could trigger a False Flag- and It did

Lukoil Macedonia wins best foreign unit award

Skopje, 29 July 2012 (MIA) – Lukoil Macedonia has won this year award for the best wholesaler and retailer of oil derivatives outside Russia in a competition with 30 Lukoil branches that operate across the globe.

Since entering Macedonia seven years ago, this is the first award for Lukoil Macedonia, which recognizes its work, services, network expansion and financial results, Lukoil Macedonia said Sunday in a press release.

This year the company has increased the number of gas stations to 19, intending to open two more in the next two months. Hence the number of employees will reach 300.

“This is a period for summarizing the results of our several-year efforts in Macedonia. For us this award is a compliment, but also an obligation to be innovative and advance,” Lukoil Macedonia Executive Director Andrey Kuku says.

Lukoil Macedonia was set up in August 2005, after signing a Memorandum for collaboration between the Government and Russian oil giant. For the last seven years the company has invested over US$ 40 million in the development of Macedonia’s network. lk/12:25

15:18 24/07/2012

MOSCOW, July 24 – RAPSI. The Moscow Commercial Court will hear on August 31 Bashneft-Polyus’ lawsuit disputing the Federal Agency for Subsoil Use’s decision to revoke its license to the Trebs and Titov oil fields in the Nenets Autonomous District and to return it to Bashneft, the court told the Russian Legal Information Agency on Tuesday.

Bashneft-Polyus is a LUKOil-Bashneft joint venture. On May 21, the court ended the proceedings in the lawsuit filed by Bashneft minority shareholders Svetlana Proskuryakova and Pavel Stepanov, having upheld the watchdog’s application.

During the hearing in the first-instance court, the watchdog said it had canceled its order to transfer the license to Bashneft-Polyus on May 18.

In its ruling, the court said the co-plaintiffs’ claims that their rights and lawful interests had been violated as a result of the order were mere conjectures, as no corroborating evidence had been submitted. The court added that the order did not violate the co-defendants’ legitimate rights and their rights cannot be considered as having been violated as the issue was resolved out of court.

At the end of May LUKOIL stated its intent to challenge the revocation in court. It was later reported that both companies sent a letter to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, asking him to reinstate Bashneft-Polyus’ right to develop the field.

The Trebs and Titov oil fields in the Timan-Pechora Basin in the Nenets Autonomous District are considered highly prospective. Their C1 reserves are estimated at 78.9 million and 63.4 million tonnes of oil, respectively. Bashneft won the license tender to develop the fields by offering a bid of 18.476 billion rubles ($574 million). The starting price was 18.171 billion rubles ($565 million).

Bashneft and LUKoil jointly set up Bashneft-Polyus to explore and develop the deposits.

July 25, 2012, Wednesday| 674 views
Bulgarian EconMin Vows Immediate Fuel Price Drop: Bulgarian EconMin Vows Immediate Fuel Price Drop
In the last days, retail fuel prices in Bulgaria approached record high levels registered in end-March over the past few days. File photo

Bulgaria’s Minister of Economy and Energy, Delyan Dobrev, announced Wednesday that emergency measures have been undertaken to reduce the record-high gasoline and diesel prices in the country.

Speaking in an interview for Nova TV, the Minister based his report on receiving information from Lukoil Bulgaria that the company is lowering the wholesale prices.

Dobrev said he is receiving daily notifications on fuel prices in Bulgaria and in neighboring countries, and usually those in Bulgaria have been the lowest over lower labor cost, lower excise duties and lower Value Added Tax, VAT.

“In recent days, however, Bulgaria ranks fifth with Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Luxemburg having lower prices. We should be first or second. This means something has occurred and our prices are in discrepancy. There is such monitoring because the external factors like crude oil prices on global markets and the exchange rate of the USD have the same influence on fuel prices in Bulgaria and in other countries. The fifth place means there are no external causes for the hike, but rather some irregularities in forming local prices” he stated.

The Lukoil Bulgaria CEO, Valentin Zlatev, had explained to the Minister the recent misbalance with the fact that in different countries some manufacturers react faster to the price changes and some slower.

According to Dobrev, the good news is that the said discrepancy has lasted just for a few days, and starting Thursday it will be eliminated with fuel prices in Bulgaria leveled with those in other countries.

He promised that diesel prices will drop by midnight by BGN 0.7, while the gasoline ones will go down by BGN 0.3.

In the last days, retail fuel prices in Bulgaria approached record high levels registered in end-March over the past few days.

Diesel reached the peak rate of BGN 2.73 per liter registered on March 21 (against the backdrop of Brent crude trading at over USD 120 per barrel), but this time the record price tag stayed only for one day.

The most common type of gasoline, A95, sold for BGN 2.66 per liter on Monday, or BGN 0.04 less than on March 21, according to reports of dnevnik.bg.

On Tuesday morning, Lukoil filling stations offered gasoline A95 at BGN 2.64 per liter and diesel for BGN 2.71 per liter (Lukoil is also owner of Bulgaria’s sole refinery, Burgas-based Lukoil Neftochim).

Retail prices went up after an increase in wholesale rates on Saturday (the fourth increase in wholesale fuel prices since the beginning of July).

Since the beginning of July, diesel prices have increased by BGN 0.23 and gasoline prices by BGN 0.18.

Experts have attributed the latest retail price increase to the crude oil price spike on global markets in the past two weeks and the increased USD/EUR exchange rate.

In mid-June, Lukoil Bulgaria stopped providing official explanations for wholesale price movements, saying that the company was being inspected by the Commission for Protection of Competition (KZK).

Bulgaria’s anti-trust watchdog is investigating allegations about a cartel agreement between fuel retailers Lukoil, OMV, Naftex Petrol and Rompetrol.

KZK declared recently that it had detected irregularities but it has not come up with a final ruling on the matter.

ConocoPhillips Co Earnings Cheat Sheet

Results: Net income for ConocoPhillips Co fell to $2.3 billion ($1.80 per share) vs. $3.4 billion ($2.41 per share) a year earlier. This is a decline of 32.4% from the year-earlier quarter.

Revenue: Fell 14.1% to $15.17 billion from the year-earlier quarter.

Actual vs. Wall St. Expectations: ConocoPhillips Co reported adjusted net income of $1.22 per share. By that measure, the company beat the mean estimate of $1.18 per share. It beat the average revenue estimate of $9.07 billion.

Quoting Management: “We are off to a strong start as an independent E&P company and the business is running well,” said Ryan Lance, chairman and chief executive officer. “Our production was on target, our major growth projects are on track and we are continuing to add to our conventional and unconventional exploration inventory. We continue to progress our asset sales program, providing additional financial flexibility to fund our high-margin organic investments. We remain committed to growing our production by three to five percent, improving our financial returns and delivering a sector-leading dividend.”

Looking Forward: Over the past ninety days, the average estimate for the third quarter has fallen from $2.29 per share to $1.17, indicating that analysts are growing pessisimistic about the company’s performance next quarter. The average estimate for the fiscal year is $5.72 per share, down from $8.91 ninety days ago.

Stocks with improving earnings metrics are worthy of your extra attention. In fact, “E = Earnings Are Increasing Quarter-Over-Quarter” is a core component of our CHEAT SHEET investing framework for this very reason. Don’t waste another minute —

If Luk Oil had and still has Shareholders Like BP ,Chevron and ConocoOil,you still think the Burgas Bombing was a terrorist act?

JUST READ THE REPORT! PLEASE DO!!!

View this document on Scribd

its loss-making gas deliveries within Russia and to the former Soviet republics, thelatter for political reasons.
Table 2: LUKOIL Involvement in Foreign Upstream Projects during the 1990s

The Global Expansion of Russia’s Energy Giants

It was thought that Russian oilmen could gain valuable experience producingand upgrading extra-heavy crude. Venezuela, however, is inviting national oil companies (NOCs) instead of global majors to the Orinoco belt, being guidedas much by Caracas’ political agenda as by the promise of upstream expertise orfinancing. In that context, projects implemented by NOCs, led by Venezuela’sfinancially strained and operationally unsophisticated PDVSA, seem rather risky commercially.
A Tale of Downstream Failure
Compared to an impressive upstream track record, LUKOIL’s expansion intothe European downstream was stalling. In the 2000s, LUKOIL failed in its attemptsto buy the Polish Gdansk refinery, the Lithuanian Mazeikiu Nafta refinery, theEuropoort refinery in Rotterdam, and Hellenic Petroleum in Greece.The Greek case shows that these misfortunes have political origins. Between2002 and 2003, LUKOIL and the Greek Latsis Group attempted to buy Hellenic Petroleum. The Russian government wholeheartedly supported LUKOIL’s expansion; in December 2001, when President Putin visited Greece, much attention was devoted to Russian-Greek petroleum dialogueand Vagit Alekperov was a prominent member of the Russian delegation. In 2002 the LUKOIL-Latsis consortium was the only contender for Hellenic Petroleum, but in early 2003 Athens decided not to sell to LUKOIL, stating that the proposal of LUKOIL and Latsis Group was “unac-ceptable from the point of view of [Greece’s] national interests.”
14
The 2008 campaign in the Spanish press, when LUKOIL was negotiating acquisition of 29.9 percent of Repsol, also showed that Europeans feared Russian energy companies to be vehicles of Russia’s political interests and did not dis-tinguish between state-owned and private entities. While powerful, these fear sare not universal, as LUKOIL acquired 49 percent of the ISAB refinery in Sicily from the Italian ERG in 2008. A year later it bought 45 percent of the Vlissingen refinery in the Netherlands from Total. The Vlissingen transaction, clearly, had political undertones, as the deal accompanied President Medvedev’s visit to the Netherlands.
15
LUKOIL is the only Russian oil company to have entered the United States.In 2000, it acquired control of Getty Petroleum, owner of 1,300 fuel stations.In 2004, it bought another 779 retail outlets from its partner, Conoco Phillips;their relations are based on the principle of “your downstream for our upstream.”Nonetheless, since LUKOIL does not yet have its own refinery in the United
Europeans feared Russian energy companies to be vehicles of Russia’s political interests.

States, its business there seems largely a matter of prestige. However, there have been long-standing plans to buy or build a refinery in the United States so as to accommodate its rising oil output in Russia’s north. Together with its partner ConocoPhillips, LUKOIL now intends to invest in a new refinery on the U.S.eastern coast that will focus on processing Russian crude blends.

And the Documentation: BP,Chevron and Lukoil were expecting Profits from the Burgas Pipeline. Easy wasn't it,same Old Game Lads

View this document on Scribd

Please do Read the Intro.Thanks!

REGIONAL ASPECTS OF BOURGAS-ALEXANDROUPOLIS PETROL PIPELINEKonstantin KALINKOV
University of Economics-VarnaVarna, Bulgaria
Abstract
The following scientific research discusses issues, connected to the construction of the Bourgas- Alexandroupolis petrol pipeline, from the point of view of the energy policy of the European Union(EU). The established relations between the EU and Russia lead to a demand for alternative opportun-ities for the construction of such infrastructure. The Bourgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline is the onlyinfrastructural facility in this region that passes only through the territory of countries that are allmembers of the EU (Bulgaria and Greece). This is a circumstance that definitely makes petrol delive-ries more secure. On the other hand the accomplishment of the project needs many regionalecological problems to have been solved beforehand. That’s why the research’s author suggests that such major investment projects of international significance are to be approved in advance by thecountries from the Black sea area. Such a preliminary decision would be a guarantee for preservingthe sustainable development of the Black sea.
Keywords:
European Union (EU), energy policy, petrol pipeline, sustainable development,Black sea area, strait area.
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Bourgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline is the only pipeline that passes only through theterritory of countries that are all members of the EU (Bulgaria and Greece). From this pointof view on the basis of the relation between production and end use, the pipeline is includedin the European energy policy. A part of the pipeline’s supply will be done by the Russianoil-extracting industry, and the rest – by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC) that is of interest for companies like British Petroleum, Shell, Chevron and others (see Fig. 1). Theproduct will be transported to European Mediterranean harbours in Italy, France and Spainand then will reach Holland, Belgium and Germany through the already existing pipelinenetwork. A part of the deliveries (mainly by Chevron) will be directed to the USA

Since Turkey was involved why would Iran be the suspect: the Burgas Bombing & the Facts

Summary Information

Source: Burgas, Bulgaria
Destination: Alexandroupolis, Greece
Ownership: Trans Balkan Pipeline Company
Website: http://tbpipeline.com/
Length: kilometres ( miles)
Capacity: barrels of oil per day
Crude Type: Russian Ural Crude Oil

The Route

Running South West from Burgas on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria, to Alexandroupolis on the Northern coast of the Aegean Sea.

Pipeline Status

ILF was awarded the design in 2008
The pipeline is expected to be in operation in 2013

History

2008 – ILF awarded project design
2011 – The Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water gave a positive assessment to the project

Other Information

The pipeline is one of a number of projects designed to bypass the Bosphorus Straits. The Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan Pipeline which began operations in 2006 is the only one in operation. The Samsun Ceyhan Oil Pipeline and Constanta Trieste Oil pipeline are two other alternatives

Summary Information

Source: Samsun (Turkey)
Destination: Ceyhan (Turkey)
Ownership: TAPCO, ENI & Calik Enerji whilst Rosneft & Transneft have signed an MOU
Website:
Length: 550 kilometres ( miles)
Capacity: 1.5 barrels of oil per day
Crude Type: Russian, Ural

The Route

From Samsun on the Black Sea coast of Turkey, to Ceyhan on the Meditereanean

Project Scope

The oil transportation system consists of the following main components:
New unloading terminal and tank farm close to Samsun
Pipeline from the area east of Samsun to Ceyhan (partly following the BTC corridor) and relevant pump/reducing stations.
The pipeline will be 42-48 inches in diameter
There will be 4 pumping stations
There will be 1 pressure reducing station
Connection with existing Ceyhan loading terminal and additional storage capacity.

Pipeline Status

Planned

Other Information

According to the IEA, compared to other by-pass alternatives, the Project offers the following advantages:
it will benefit from synergies with existing Turkish facilities:(i) from Sariz to Ceyhan the pipeline will follow BTC’s right of way;
Crude oil will be delivered to the existing Ceyhan Loading Terminal, which could be exploited at full capacity.
The route runs only across Turkey, and no intergovernmental agreement should be put in place.
Both unloading (Samsun) and loading (Ceyhan) terminals will allow use of VLCC tankers.
The selected route represents the shortest transhipment distance in the Black Sea, with consequent time and cost savings.
The environmental conditions along the route, as well as appropriate mitigation actions, are well known. Furthermore the pipeline runs in a scarcely populated area, and partly along the BTC corridor, and this will facilitate/expedite the landacquisition as well as the construction activities.

New opening in energy relations between Bulgaria and Russia

 

2012-04-04 | Tomasz Dąborowski
Printer-friendly version

Last week has brought new developments in Bulgarian-Russian energy relations, when the Bulgarian government withdrew from a project to build a nuclear power plant in Belene. This meant the failure of its second flagship energy project developed jointly with Russia; last December, Sofia withdrew from the Burgas-Alexandroupolis (Bulgaria-Greece) oil pipeline project. At this stage, however, Moscow’s reaction to Sofia’s decisions has been surprisingly calm. Despite earlier announcements, the Russian companies have not brought actions for damages against Bulgaria. Moreover, Russia’s Gazprom made a short-term 11-percent reduction in the price of gas to Bulgaria (to last until the end of this year) in exchange for a political declaration from Sofia that it will accelerate its consent for the construction of the South Stream gas pipeline.

Recent events have shown that a compromise solution on the most sensitive issue in relations between the two countries is slowly being drawn up. It seems that Bulgaria will agree to the quick construction of the South Stream gas pipeline, in exchange for preferential treatment for Russian gas supplies, and Russia not imposing any sanctions related to abandoning the construction of the Belene NPP. These arrangements appear to be beneficial for both countries. For Russia, constructing South Stream is a priority for its energy policy; however for Bulgaria, it is essential to maintain correct relations with Moscow and to minimise the potential financial losses associated with its withdrawal from the Belene project.

Bulgaria rationalises its approach to major energy projects

In the past four months, Bulgaria has withdrawn from two of the three strategic energy projects which it was implementing in cooperation with Moscow. Both of the abandoned projects were primarily political rather than economic in nature.

The Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline project served mainly to further the interests of Russia. Its plan included diversifying oil export routes and reducing dependence on transit through the Turkish straits. Bulgaria supported this initiative, seeing it as an opportunity to increase its own transit role in the region, and to emphasise its ‘strategic’ relations with Russia. But the project would not have provided many significant financial benefits for Bulgaria; their section of the pipeline would have been short, which would have translated into low transit revenues. The project also brought about serious objections from environmentalists and protests by local businesses, and so was ultimately abandoned.

Meanwhile, thanks to the Belene project, Bulgaria was to have become an electricity supplier to the Balkan states. This project was also a response to the EU’s demand to close some of the reactors at the Kozloduy plant. However, the Belene project was not supported by reliable financial analyses or forecasts of electricity demand in the region. Additionally a number of errors were made while signing the contracts for the project. In 2008, Bulgaria signed a binding contract to build power plants with the Russian company Atomstroyeksport, despite the lack of sources for financing the investment, or of any strategic investor. Inaccurate records allowed the Russians to increase the contract’s value of €4bn to €6.3bn, as a result of relying on a different method for indexing prices. According to the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Boyko Borisov, this would have lead to the final construction cost rising to over €10bn. In the light of the problems with financing the project, and a dispute over the final construction costs which lasted over two years, Sofia decided to stop the investment. The Bulgarian government, however announced that one of the reactors planned for the power plant in Belene will be used in the power plant in Kozloduy, which is already in existence. Bulgaria has to date spent 700 million euros on the Belene project and has announced it will pay the Russian operators 140 million euros for the first reactor. It is unclear whether Russia’s Atomstroyexport will seek damages for the failure of the contract for the second reactor for Belene to be honoured

Russia’s conciliatory attitude

Moscow’s measured response to the failure of the Belene project and the trans-Balkan pipeline is probably due to the manoeuvring going on around the last of the three major projects: the South Stream gas pipeline. Bulgaria is crucial to this plan because of its geographical location. Moscow wants to obtain Sofia’s rapid approval for its implementation, as some new elements of the EU’s Third Energy Package are expected to come into force in March 2013; these could make it difficult for Moscow to obtain exemptions for the South Stream pipeline from European law. The pressure to get the pipeline project under way also derives from growing opportunities for the Caspian region, which is in competition with Russia, to supply the EU with gas. Bulgaria will thus seek to obtain additional benefits from rapidly approving South Stream’s construction. Sofia is primarily interested in obtaining low gas prices and eliminating intermediaries in its trade with Russia. At the end of this year, the previous contracts for supplying Russian gas to Bulgaria will expire. Sofia will also aim to guarantee high revenues from the South Stream transit pipeline, and also to make the principles of its operation transparent – something which will be extremely difficult for Russia to accept – in line with European legislation.

Bulgarian energy policy unlikely to be re-shaped

Bulgaria’s abandonment of the projects to build a nuclear power plant in Belene and the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline, together with its ongoing talks with Russia on cooperation in the gas sector (both in activating work on South Stream and the new gas contracts), have opened the door to a modification of the energy relationship between Russia and Bulgaria. By initiating a process of limiting the ‘strategic’ dimension of its energy relationship with Russia, Bulgaria has opened the way for implementing new priorities in its energy policy which will not necessarily be in line with Russia’s interests. Reducing spending on major infrastructure projects will increase the chances of completing smaller energy projects, such as modernising coal-based power plants, expanding renewable energy sources, and raising the country’s very low energy efficiency (Bulgaria has the most energy-intensive economy in the EU). This would reduce Bulgaria’s dependence on Russian supplies.

However, the current energy policies are most likely to continue, because of the path dependency tendencies as well as high share of coal and nuclear power in Bulgaria’s energy production (see Appendix). The preparations to modernise and expand the nuclear power plant at Kozloduy indicate that Bulgaria will continue to concentrate on developing nuclear energy. This will open the way for the Russian nuclear industry, which is a natural contender to modernise the Russian-based power plant technologies. It is also unlikely that Bulgaria will increase very low proportion of gas in its energy production. Under public pressure, the Bulgarian government introduced a total ban on the exploration and production of shale gas in January this year. The gas interconnectors currently being constructed will enable Bulgaria to reduce its dependence on Russian gas supplies, but is rather unlikely they will be a “game changer” in the process of setting priorities in Bulgarian energy policy.

Appendix.
Bulgaria’s overall energy balance sheet in 2010

Figures in thousand tons of oil equivalent Gross inland consumption Primary production Import Export
Coal 6828 4 931 1700 46
Crude oil 6095 23 6072 –
Nuclear energy 3849 3849 – –
Gas 2300 59 2 131 –
Renewable energy sources 917 779 7 63
Electricity 495 55 – 826

Total 17829 10234 11743 4507

Source: Bulgarian National Statistical Institute

 

Oil Wars: Iran,USA,Greece & Bulgaria

 

The campaign of the US and Israel together with some European countries, especially Britain and France, against Iran reaches a new level with the embargo on its oil sector. Although a framework of agreement within the EU is reached, the Greek position within this hostile climate is unique.

The Iran situation combines with the freezing of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline project (also called called “Orthodox Pipeline”) which Bulgaria froze under heavy United States influence (as explained later) to make things more outrageous against the right of Greece to choose its energy sources.

Greece is both in the middle of the economic crisis which started in the US with the Lehman Brothers collapse, as well as the Iran-related crisis on its nuclear programme and the sanctions. The EU deliberations to embargo oil shipments from Iran connected these two different situations, under a climate of an outraged Greek public opinion against EU and US for what is perceived as sick injustice against Greece.

To make a long story short, an outside observer needs to take into consideration the following points in order to have an accurate perception of the issue and the elements connected to Greece:

• Greece relies more than 35% on Iran for oil purchase with unlimited credit.
• No other country sells to Greece in that way due to the economic situation.
• The option of Saudi Arabia is fragile due to this country’s support for extremist Islamic activity, especially within the almost 1,500,000 illegal immigrants in Greece (mostly Muslim) who also contribute to the unemployment explosion, in knowledge of the EU and US.
• There is no real trust from Greeks to the West that Greece will continue to get oil from other sources in favorable terms. After all why don’t they do it now and only Iran does it?
• There is not trust for the western accusations on the Iranian nuclear programme, because US and western credibility was practically neutralized, after the “discovery” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were non existent. The totally biased and anti-hellenic media coverage of the economic crisis reinforces Greek reluctance towards western governments and Media.
• The freezing of the Greek-Russian-Bulgarian project for the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline (due to its US-instigated abandonment from the Bulgarian government) combines with prohibiting Iran as supplier and makes Greeks realizing that the US and EU deny Greece the right to choose suitable suppliers: a kind of forbidding Greece to have free choice.
• US and EU mobility to allow British Petroleum continue doing business with Iran in the Shah Deniz II gas project is seen as an outspoken proof of hypocrisy. The reason US and EU officials lobbied to the US Congress for not putting sanctions on British Petroleum, is in order for Europe “to achieve energy security and independence from Russia”: They revealed their real target which is Russia and perhaps China.
• None of them was interested on Greece when Greece was trying to achieve energy security and independence from Turkey through the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline (which would also enhance European independence from Turkey). They want Greece, however, to support their policy towards Iran, risk Greek oil supplies and reserves and at the same time keep the British company in Iran!!!
• Why not similarly giving Greece exemption from the sanctions against Iran, since Iran is the only reliable oil source for Greece which does not ask Greece for advance guarantees and Greece gets long term good prices in the difficult situation that the economic crisis put it.
• Wikileaks documents from the US State Department revealed that previous US pressure on Athens mainly aimed at having Greece as one more “feather in the hat” of Washington. The Americans wanted to demonstrate that European countries were aligned with US policy and Greece was one of the country-trophies. The IRISL Iranian Shipping Lines was the main US target and Greek ship owners were opposing the idea to stop transporting Iranian oil.

Hundreds of millions penalty on Bulgaria

The Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline project aims to transport Russian oil to Bulgaria and send it to the Greek port of Alexandroupolis through a land based pipeline. In this way there will be no need to pass the busy and unstable area of the Turkish-controlled straits between the Black Sea and Mediterranean. Oil would be loaded to ships in Alexandroupolis to go to Europe and elsewhere. It is also ecologically safer since the tanker ships would avoid the trip from Russia to Mediterranean, they will be strained less and the possibility of oil leak would be limited. Delivery times would be faster as well.

The openly pro-US Bulgarian prime minister, stopped the project … “on environmental concerns” (although all studies were giving a green light to the project) because “the people of Burgas did not want it” and because it is not financially viable. It was called “Orthodox Pipeline” because Greece, Russia and Bulgaria are Orthodox Christian countries and the freezing was seen as an American attempt to block Russian expansion in the energy sector even if Greece and Bulgaria were also damaged. The extreme Protestant neo-conservatives in Washington instigated this hostile move against Orthodox countries.

Bulgaria, however, will have to pay penalties for blocking the project. The recent Iran oil embargo surfaced related issues, including the one of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline. The cost for transporting oil through this “Orthodox Pipeline” was calculated at $8 per tone which is almost the same to the one across the straits. The Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline was having higher cost and Turkey asks for a large share of the income. The US intervention in Bulgaria probably had Turkish support because it is forcing Russia not to seek alternative routes.

By pulling out of the project, Greek sources said, Bulgaria is obliged to pay penalties to Greece and Russia. The Greek officials were not the first to say that. Late last year Russian officials pointed out that the minimum penalty is $200.000.000. The maximum may reach the $1 billion level. The Bulgarian side already owed $7 million from its contribution to the project until now and at least the Russian side points out that they will get the Bulgarian government in International Court if they insist on not paying the fine, if the project is completely canceled.

The current embargo on Iranian oil and the global instability in the oil trade that will probably occur, highlight the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline project with greater urgency. It would help the European Union achieve independence from the unstable region of Turkey (due to the Kurdish, Armenian and Greek problems it faces), but non-european (American) interests block it.

The Greeks see that they are dragged to a situation without immediate Greek concern and with no real ethical base. The Iranian nuclear programme is not a serious topic for the Greek society in the hierarchy of concerns. However the difficult economic situation (in which Iran is the only supplier of oil offering unlimited credit) is now seen as being manufactured by the EU and the US. Just to make an outline of the injustice the Greek public sees in the western attack against Greece and its reputation, we mention the following:

• Germany owes many hundreds of billions of euros to Greece from the money the Nazis stole (“Forceful loan” from occupied Greece to Nazi Germany). Hitler started repaying the “loan” back to Greece but after the German collapse, the next German governments do not discuss the German debt to Greece. This amount together with all recognized German financial obligations towards Greece, surpasses 700,000,000,000 (700 billion) euros, in today’s prices if we take into account the interest rates. There is NO EXAGERATION in this, this is money Germany REALLY owes to Greece.
• The corruption money from defence procurement, the C4I System for the 2004 Olympic Games, etc are many tens of billion of euros and European (especially German) companies have a large share in this money laundering. This is money from Greek taxpayers which went to the pockets of sponsors of European (and other) political parties.
• Part of the Greek bonds, are corruption payments in defence and public procurement projects to foreign companies-political parties.
• The Greeks DID NOT want to abandon drachma. They did not want the euro, because there was no benefit for Greece, on the contrary the Greek society was damaged. Goldman Sachs, with the (German-educated) prime minister Kostas Simitis and in knowledge of Washington and Berlin, altered the Greek financial data. Berlin wanted one more country into the Eurozone, Washington wanted Greece to be used as trigger if it wanted to create problems in the European Union.
• No western Media (including the BBC) published any of these at least to a comparable degree with the attacks against Greece

Greece was called to agree to serve foreign interests (of doubtful information and ethical basis), participate in the embargo and enter into an energy risk, while those who ask Greece to do these, deliberately put it into this difficult economic situation. The first thing that should be done, is to make sure, those who owe money to Greece would pay and Greece would not have any financial problems. The Greeks did not realize that the top EU level have more corruption.

Farosradio.gr

 

A Flashback to The Burgas-Alexandroupoli Pipeline Project: Who Dumped Whom

 

Russia Mothballs Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline Project
February 21st, 2011

Jamestown.org: On February 17, the stakeholders and supervisory board of the Russian-led Burgas-Alexandropolis oil pipeline project shelved the project in all but name. The host countries, Bulgaria and Greece, had (each for its own considerations) recently suspended payments to the project company. The meeting decided to lay off staff and give up rented office space of the project company. Moscow has not given up officially on this project, and has scheduled a follow-up meeting for June. But Moscow does plan a pipeline via Turkey (the Samsun-Ceyhan project) as an alternative option (Interfax, Novinite, February 17).

Led by a consortium of Russia’s Transneft, Rosneft, and Gazpromneft, the shelved project envisaged building a trans-Balkan pipeline from Burgas on Bulgaria’s Black Sea coast to Alexandropolis on the Greek Aegean coast. Vladimir Putin oversaw the launching of this project in 2006-2007 while president of Russia.

The line was intended for Kazakhstani and Russian oil, delivered by overland pipelines to Russia’s Black Sea coast at Novorossiysk, and requiring an outlet to the open sea. Those volumes are due to increase from production ramp-up in Kazakhstan and expansion of the Tengiz (Kazakhstan)-Novorossiysk pipeline. With the Turkish Straits already congested, and unable to accommodate more tanker traffic, the Burgas-Alexandropolis pipeline was planned as an extra outlet from the Black Sea, bypassing the Bosporus Strait.

The project envisaged moving at least 35 million tons of oil annually, on Russian medium-size tankers from Novorossiysk to Burgas, onward by pipeline from Bulgaria to Greece, and onto supertankers at the deep-water port of Alexandropolis.

This project would have resulted in the first-ever oil pipelines controlled by the Russian government in European Union countries. US and European companies, which account for most of oil production in Kazakhstan and have built the pipeline to Novorossiysk, would have depended on the Russian government for the terms of transit through the Burgas-Alexandropolis pipeline. Although situated in EU territory, this pipeline would have been immune to the EU’s legal and regulatory framework.

Greece eagerly cooperated with Russia on this project, but the financial crisis forced the Greek government in 2010 to suspend payments to the project company. Some in Athens, however, hold Bulgaria’s current government and the West responsible for the project’s demise. Greek Deputy Prime Minister, Theodoros Pangalos, speaking at a Greek-Russia Society conference last December, accused the Bulgarian government of deliberately stalling under “strong Western influence” and that of “international oil companies linked with the US government” (Theodore Tsakiris, “Burgas-Alexandroupolis: Death of a great pipeline project ?” European Energy Review, February 17).

Bulgaria’s right-of-center government of Boyko Borissov, which defeated the Socialist Party in July 2009, promptly suspended Bulgaria’s participation in all three Russian-led energy projects (Burgas-Alexandropolis oil pipeline, South Stream gas pipeline, Belene nuclear power plant project) pending detailed review. Of the three projects, Burgas-Alexandropolis is the most sharply questioned in Bulgaria. The anticipated transit revenue is deemed too small to justify hurting the tourism-based economy on the Black Sea coast, which is of national importance to Bulgaria. It is feared that oil tankers shuttling off the beaches could discourage tourism, even before oil spills or accidents that are believed to be “waiting to happen.” Burgas and other municipalities on the Black Sea coast have voted against the project in specially called referendums.

The Russian-led Trans-Balkan Pipeline Consortium prepared the requisite Environmental Impact Assessment Study during 2010. Bulgaria’s Environment and Water Ministry, however, found multiple deficiencies and omissions in the study, and returned it to the project consortium on November 10 for further work. A resubmission was expected, but is not known to have materialized (Novinite, BTA, February 16, 17; European Energy Review, February 17). According to Bulgarian experts, the country would not have to pay compensation if it withdraws officially from the project on the basis of the environmental impact assessment.

Moscow structured the project company so as to guarantee Russian control. In January 2007, the state-controlled Transneft, Rosneft, and Gazpromneft formed the “Pipeline Consortium Burgas-Alexandropolis,” to act as project conveners. In March 2007, the intergovernmental agreement was signed in Athens, with Putin attending. In December 2007, the “Trans-Balkan Pipeline Consortium” was formed, with the three Russian companies holding an aggregate 51 percent (coequally divided between them). Bulgaria took a 24.5 percent stake, the Greek joint venture Helpe Thraki (which includes Hellenic Petroleum) 23.5 percent, and the Greek government a 1 percent stake. Bulgaria’s right-of-center government transferred the Bulgarian stake from certain interest groups into the Finance Ministry’s jurisdiction.

The project envisaged transporting 35 million tons of oil annually in the first stage, to increase to 50 million tons per year in a follow-up second stage, from Burgas to Alexandropolis. The line was to run for 280 kilometers, including 166 kilometers on Bulgarian territory. Project costs, initially estimated $900 million, rose to an estimated $1.5 billion (Novinite, February 9). The trans-Balkan project’s apparent demise should strengthen Turkey’s hand in negotiating the terms of the trans-Anatolian project, Samsun-Ceyhan, with Russia’s government and companies.

Thu, Dec 08 2011 09:07 CET Bulgaria’s Government has decided to withdraw from the Bourgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline as it is no longer considered financially and economically viable.

The decision was announced on December 7 2011 by Energy Minister Traicho Traikov and Finance Minister Simeon Dyankov after a Cabinet session.

“According to the analysis of the oil pipeline project, it cannot be implemented under the terms of the 2007 agreement,” Dyankov.

Bulgaria has offered to terminate the trilateral agreement with Russia and Greece by mutual consent. If the two countries reject the request, Bulgaria will pull out of the project in 12 months. Despite the withdrawal, Sofia will meet its financial commitments to its partners, Dyankov said.

The Cabinet also passed a decree to raise by 12.8 million leva the capital of Project Company Bourgas-Alexandroupolis Oil Pipeline BG to settle its obligations to other shareholders in Trans Balkan Pipeline (TBP), the project company behind the oil pipeline.

According to Dyankov, there is no threat for Bulgaria to be penalised for its decision as the country had worked over a year with international companies and law offices.

Bulgaria’s decision to scrap the project comes a month after the Environment Ministry gave its approval to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the project, submitted by Trans Balkan Pipeline.
Greece is ready to renegotiate the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline to become profitable for Bulgaria
December 18, 2011 | Filed under: Geopolitics

Greeks are willing to renegotiate the conditions for the construction of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline in order to realize the project, said Minister of Environment, Energy and Climate Change George Papakonstantinou, answering Victoria Mindova’s question “What is your position concerning the Burgas-Alexandroupolis project after Bulgaria’s withdrawal? ” Papakonstantinou replied, “The Burgas-Alexandroupolis project remains extremely important to us and we are willing to accomplish it. We are sorry for the specific position of the Bulgarian government at the moment and we would like the existing problems to be solved. We are ready to negotiate again with the other two parties to find an opportunity to realize the project in a different form.”

Greece continues to seriously express its willingness to realize the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline despite Bulgaria’s firm position that it would like to abandon the project. While the situation with the pipeline is being clarified, Greece is seeking ways to utilize unused deposits of mineral resources because, despite the goodwill of the government, the development of renewable energy sources is still lagging.

Greece is one of the European countries with significant deposits of mineral resources. The latest data show that the deposits in the country are worth € 28 billion at current prices, said Yiannis Maniatis, Deputy Minister of Environment, Energy and Climate Change. 75% of the production of Greece, which corresponds to approximately € 1.5 billion, is exported. This sector employs 23,000 people directly and another 100,000 people indirectly. He believes the country is able to expand the extraction of mineral resources, which will significantly increase and improve the trade balance and the budget revenues.

There will be a ministerial invitation to tender for the development and extraction of gold, copper, silver and other metal mines in the area of ​​Kilkis by the end of the year. Initial estimates of operating revenue reached € 1.5 billion, which could be developed to reach turnovers of up to € 7 billion. Maniatis promised other government auctions would follow until March 2012. This will allow competitive private interests to enter the energy and extractive sector, which will break the state monopoly in this field.

Based on these plans, Maniatis expects that in the next 10 years, Greece would be able to meet between 20% – 30% of its energy needs from its own primary resources. “Every year, Greece spends about € 10-12 billion for imports of 99.5% of the oil products we need. The energy programme we have developed now will allow us to reduce its imports by 30% within 10 years due to the local production development.”

Another trick that can help the recovery of local economy and meet European Union targets for a cleaner environment is the renovation of old buildings. It improves energy efficiency of houses, reduces energy consumption and brings new life to the faded construction sector. The poorest households who cannot afford to repair or fix them own the most energy inefficient houses. “From this perspective, subsidizing the renovation is social policy. Materials and labour in this sector are mainly Greek, which will give additional impetus in recovering the local economy. By improving the energy efficiency of buildings alone, we can restore 15,000 jobs.”

Reforming the public sector functions and improving the public administration in Greece are of utmost importance. Now is the time, when the country can correct the mistakes and make a new start. In this sense, each ministry has a large amount of responsibilities that it should meet in order for the process to move forward.

The first concrete step by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change in the process of relieving the state bureaucracy is the change in the law permitting natural compliance. About 23,000 such permits upon submission of the initial project plan are issued in Greece each year, which is a huge number in comparison with France, for example, which issues about 2,000 permits per year. The difference is that now the Ministry will give more importance to the phased control than to the original project approval, which may subsequently be amended. “The formation of a provisional coalition government was an important step to restore economic stability in the country. It will not be achieved unless the different forces in the country leave Lucas Papademos to do the work in the best possible way. Instead of making plans for the next election, it would be better to think about the next generations,” said Maniatis in his commentary on the state of the political system in the country.

Source: grreporter.info

 

The Burgas Bombing: False Flag of a bigger project tied to the abandoned Pipeline?

 

This is a story, indeed a unique inconceivable story of human kind and simultaneously a diplomatic beast incomparable to any other. It is one of the various theories of “how we got to where we are and why we currently face crisis that seem insurmountable” [i] The breakdown of the world’s economic system and specifically of healthy nations, structured upon a phenomenally ideal world model is being pushed into a newly adventuress world order. It seems as the foundations of the “world- castle” are trembling; or more as a top secret mission in progress, before the omnipotence of those who will lose the most or from those that will gain the most. It is a story of intrigues and political game; but mostly a “chess game” of national dominance. It is the truth, similar to that ignored by those that experienced WWI and WWII. The enigma as set forth by major “unimportant” inspirations, and this is true, before a parent committing suicide for not being able to provide for his children. Under this consideration my intentions are far from blaming or implying but mostly attached to a quest for truth. The truth, million of people around the world are experiencing as an ostensive economic crisis.

The traditional “once upon a time” part of a common make-believe story is replaced by the pragmatic negotiations involving the new European energy security policy[ii]-the New European Transmission System. Among them were the construction plans of the Burgas- Alexandroupoli pipeline (Table 1),the Nabucco pipeline [iii](Table 2),and the South Stream (Table 3)…with an end, yet to be revealed. All three pipeline projects – and many others-were considered of critical importance, not only because they implied major strategic policy, but because they illustrated an invisible battle of interests between the Western world and Russia[iv]. One front, European Union and United States[v] backed up the Nabucco project[vi], because ‘it represents a diversion from the current methods of importing natural gas solely from Russia,”[vii] while Russia, logically, backed up Southern Steam. Greece comes into the scene when negotiations took place for the Burgas-Alexandroupoli project, and when she had to clarify her position; to align with the EU and US or to promote the Southern Steam, which will strengthen her strategic role[viii]. Eventually the Southern Stream was promoted to accelerate supply for the Greek market and to secure supply for Europe[ix] On the other hand Burgas-Alexandroupoli [x]agreement was settled between Vladimir Putin, Sergey Stanishev and Kostas Karamanlis( March 2007).[xi]

In September 2009, Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis-being less than two years head of government-suddenly dissolved parliament and announced his resignation. According to his words “the need for painful measures to confront the economic crisis -even though signs of the Hellenic economic downslide were not visible at the time-and the opposition in parliament” drove him to announce national elections[xii] . The justification of his decision was published two years later: The reason was Pythia 1, a code name of his planned assassination.[xiii] FSB (Federal Security Service-Russia) had informed ΕΥΠ (NIS-National Intelligence Service-Greece) that they had “identified a plan of attack against former Prime Minister Mr. Karamanlis that intended to postponed or cancel the energy policy of the country”[xiv]

Two more events come to add a piece to a conspiracy; one is the secretly kept Dominique Strauss- Kahn interview on French Canal+, revealing the underground negotiations with the new elected Prime Minister[xv],before even being elected; resulting in his interesting removal from IMF. And the other is the accusations coming from EL STAT (Hellenic Statistical Authority); that the GDP deficit was altered as requested by the Prime Minister and the Financial Minister[xvi]. Apparently Greece’s behavior as a member of the EU and as a member of NATO, was not what we would have expected-nor EU and USA- amid the “current inertia in the EU-Russia Energy Dialogue”[xvii]

This information is part of a frame-up that definitely had dark and unknown sides needed to trap Greece in a “web of dept that ensures loyalty”[xviii] to the interests of others, and on an ensured default path that guarantees access to national assets and facilitates further limitation of sovereignty. But is “diso-bedience because of Southern Stream” the only reason? If not what other reason can there be? One reason can be the importance of her strategic geographical position which will inevitably link the “hydrocarbon prospects” of Eastern Mediterranean to the European Continent. Other important political reason is the formation of the Eurasian Union and the GECF (Gas Exporting Countries Forum); that can regulate prices and energy sources, therefore weaken major powers globally. A blur third aspect- generated by Greece’s economic resemblance to the one and only path taken by all oil-producing countries is the possibility of oil and natural gas resources.

In the name of globalization and free world market, Greece has become the last three years a country in immediate need of money. It is oil history repeating itself; and the substance of the case, under the reformative allegation, is that concessions can be eased and institutional framework can be altered, just as require for ensuring access. This took flesh and blood by alterations in the legal framework. Firstly in 2011-as a term of the second memorandum[xix]- “ownership unbundling”[xx] [xxi] was voted in parliament. Even though European countries where allowed to choose among three alternatives, Greece was compelled to this one. Secondly the “robust research” granted to Hellenic Petroleum Co[xxii] was also altered, “enterprise of a gas system can also be a joint venture of two or more companies, that operate in two or more European member-states”[xxiii] in compliance with Directive 2009/73/EC. Interestingly, directive 2009/73/EC of European Parliament and of Council was introduced in July 2009; approximately two months before Prime Minister Karamanlis announced national elections and well before the Second Economic Stimulus package in order to constitute a term of the second memorandum[xxiv]. Of course there is a number of changes in the legislation and much more specialized provisions, even anticipated co-operate tax reduction of 20% granted for exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons[xxv]. The open door policy was also introduced and the government “formed a national information system of Geospatial and Alphanumeric data” available to international investors according to the recently published book(2012) of former Undersecretary of Environment, Energy and Climate Change Maniatis Ioannis “to providing information for surveys done the last thirty years”.

Maniatis was appointed from Prime Minister Papandreou; the one that claimed in 12-11-2009 after a EU summit press conference that Greece does not have petroleum[xxvi]And he was not the only one, Deputy Prime Minister also referred to a journalist(who was voicing the existence of oil fields)in a rather ironic tone.[xxvii] Additionally the masquerade was multifaceted proving that the mass media were aligned with the government allegations and simultaneously proving the lack of independence in a democratic system. Few were practicing pure journalism in an attempt to illustrate what was actually going on. They referred to Hydrocarbon fields southeast of Crete (Herodotus basin), south of Crete and one south west of Crete near Libya.

According to Emeritus Professor of University of Crete Foskolos Antonis-based on information from the USGS and the IFP- the potential of the Herodotus basin is 1-3 trillion cubic feet equivalent to 19billion barrels. [xxviii] The “water mud volcanoes or «hydrocarbon volcanoes» of southern Crete, are important visible signs of gas sources feeding surrounding possible reservoir sedimentary formations”[xxix] While the third field, south west of Crete, near Gavdos island was considered from Libya as part of the concessions she was about to make in 2006.[xxx] Apart for Professor Foskolos and his team, who have studied and gathered geophysical information (aerial photos, aeromagnetic and satellite measurements) ,there is a number of theses and publications on the analysis of the geotectonic zones and carbonate sedimentations of various parts of Greece.[xxxi] The important of published geological information is seen as a tool for assessments[xxxii] in the USGS report on the World Petroleum Resource Project.

Since the discovery of the Mari-B, Tamar ,Dalit, Leviathan #1 and #3 field within the Levantine basin expectations have grown. Making Eastern Mediterranean basins the greatest discoveries in decades but also making it an area of intense conflict. Country Relations are tested. Upheaval and uncertainty is growing. Israel and Lebanon have entered a new dispute in an attempt to prove that the gas findings are within their E.E.Z.[xxxiii] .The scale is tipping towards Israel, making it a major exporter and Egypt an importer. Additionally Block-12 within the Aphrodite basin[xxxiv] has created serious conflict between Turkey and Cyprus that automatically puts Greece in the game too.

It was not until the September 2011 that former Prime Minister publicly confirmed the research inception of oil and natural gas[xxxv]in the Ionian and Southern Crete, without however giving further information. Still there is prejudice of exaggeration on the subject, making it minor for domestic print media and nonexistent for nationwide television broadcasting. Even when evidence indicate that the Eastern Mediterranean is the modernized “piece on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the domination of the world”. The impulse towards climate change is a part of worldwide orientation towards new energy policy; and natural gas is the “bridging fuel in a transition to a carbon-constrained global economy” (Brenda Pierce-USGS Energy Resources Program Coordinator). [xxxvi] And the estimated amounts of cubic feet rank the Nile Delta basin and the Levant basin as having “world-class potential for undiscovered natural-gas resources”(Brenda Pierce)[xxxvii].

The evidence and the potential of the Eastern Mediterranean have attracted many consortia and companies in all countries. In Greece the participation for geological and seismic surveys is significant. The first bid process involved Norwegian PGS and TGS,French CVVG Veritas, American IOGeophysical, DolphiGeophysical, Spec Partners Ltd. και Fugro Multicent Services AS.[xxxviii] And the second bid for research in the area of Ioannina, Patraikos Gulf and Katakolo involved eight offers from eleven 11 Greek and foreign consortia or companies, Energean Oil & Gas[xxxix], Petra Petroleum ,Schlumberger, Trajan Oil & Gas, Hellenic Petroleum, Melrose Resources Plc [xl],Arctic Hunter Energy Inc, KO Enterprises Inc, Chariot Oil & Gas Ltd. Edison International SpA and Grekoil Energy Ventures Ltd.[xli]

Now the essential backstage preparations have been completed; ready to embrace the business predators; providing nothing or a small slice of prosperity to Greece. Having a share is the optimistic side of the scenario, but the terms of the memorandums governed by English law provide the ground for a worse scenario. The inability to comply will lead to the seizure of state assets.

The fact that public ignored the secretly kept truth of the oil and natural potentials of Greek subsoil and subsea, is itself evident of a major game. Or even the persistent of government representatives and the media to create a false picture of the situation. It seems that at the oil alter all rights and all democratic ideals are encroached. This is the “resource curse” in action, not within its strict political interpretation but as a broader realist term. And “economic crisis” is a human construction for the benefit of large co-operations. It is a tool inspired to ignore governments and people throughout the world.Source

 

Burgas Bombing: One More False Flag

 

On July 18, 2012, a suicide bomber attacked a bus transporting Israeli tourists at the Burgas Airport in Burgas, Bulgaria. The bus driver and five Israelis were killed; over thirty people were injured. Within hours, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed Iran and Hezbollah, justifying his brilliant conclusion on the fact it had occurred on the anniversary of the 1994 AMIA bombing, which was blamed by Netanyahu’s predecessors on Iran and Hezbollah. The foolishness of this deductive technique is better illustrated by 9/11. One could claim that the date of the event—September 11—was chosen carefully. In the USA, 9/11 is the police emergency call number. From that day onwards, every American will connect both events, emphasizing its terror, allowing the fear to transcend time and space. This is true in America. Few countries use 9/11 as an emergency code (for example, Israel uses 100). Thus, using Netanyahu’s innovative methods, one could claim the 9/11 event was planned by an American, the only one likely to immediately recognize the additional value of the date.

The truth is different. Benjamin Netanyahu is using what in Hebrew is called “afuh al afuh,” namely “inverse on inverse.” Essentially it is a deception technique based on an assumption of what a victim expects from the criminal; after this assumption, the criminal behaves in the opposite way. If possible, the robber should run towards the victim after robbing him, in order to point the blame elsewhere. That’s not easy to achieve on a street robbery, but in the case of industrial theft it is easy to achieve. Netanyahu did just that; he blamed the only people who wouldn’t have done that. Regardless their morals, neither Iran nor Hezbollah are unwise. For them to attack a bus of Israeli tourists in Europe would have been the equivalent of attempting to physically rob the UN Secretary General during a UN meeting… no chance of coming out well. Yet, we see both groups—Iran and Hezbollah—standing strong against Israel and the USA for years under the most difficult conditions. They are wise and logical people. No chance they had bombed the bus; they could only lose from the consequences.

…we went to an excellent and cheap Bulgarian restaurant around the corner. Their mousaka was always prepared from fresh eggplants and high quality meat. Many years before, in the seventies, an Israeli rock band led by Danny Sanderson had a hit called “We All Are Bulgarians.” It was a huge success, but little attention was given to its message: There were no true Israelis, only Bulgarians or Germans or Moroccans … or their sons. Mixed couples usually adopted one culture as their main one. Maybe the song contributed to my becoming a fan of Bulgarian food. It was truer than anything Israeli. (excerpt from The Cross of Bethlehem)

Did Iran do this?

I must admit that I wasn’t planning to write this article. The recent attack on the website forced me to focus my attention on technical issues; I came out much stronger from the event (see box at bottom of the page), but also with a delay. Up to that moment the events in Bulgaria hadn’t been especially interesting. Then, I got an intriguing email from an Israeli; a refugee in a European country.

Its first words were: “The last attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria was done by Mehdi Ghezali.” Known as the Cuba-Swede, he is a Swedish citizen of Algerian and Finnish descent who was held by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay Detainment Camp on Cuba between January 2002 and July 2004. In other words, he is a suspected member of al-Qaeda. Yet, the Swedesh were fast to officially deny this option; apparently the man is in Sweden now. This seemed as an extension of Netanyahu’s tactic. After I got this odd email, I took a look at the local media. Meir Javedanfar, an Iran analyst at Israel’s Interdisciplinary Centre in Herzliya, told to the Times of Israel website. He claimed that Iran is a major suspect because of the bombing date, but he added that he does not rule out the possibility that al-Qaeda is involved. It was the same awkward logic—a superb example of “inverse-on-inverse”—and the same culprits. I was being bombarded with useless propaganda.

In other words, Israeli official sources are trying to throw dirt on Iran and Hezbollah. Both Hezbollah and Iran officially condemned the event and denied any involvement. As claimed before, this fits their interests on the issue. Thus, what remains to answer is: “who is to blame on the terror attack?”

What we must look is who is profiting politically from the event; obviously, neither Iran nor Hezbollah enter this category. The initial statement by Netanyahu was followed by truly odd declarations. Yoav Limor told to Yisrael Hayom that the attack is “another reason, along with the steady collapse of the Assad government, to justify an Israeli offensive in Lebanon to stop Syrian chemical weapons falling into Hezbollah’s hands.” Government Minister Yaakov Katz told the Jerusalem Post that he thinks the government will take its time before deciding how to retaliate: “Above all, it will first work to create an intelligence dossier to prove to the world that Iran really was behind the bombing.” The verb “create” perfectly fits the minister’s intentions. Similar astonishing declarations were said by others. Israel is seeking for a justification to open a war; any other attempt to solve its inner social problems has failed. If its declared enemies won’t provide it, be it through a false flag operation. It worked on 9/11, didn’t it? Let me be absolutely clear. If Mr. Sherlock Netanyahu thinks that he can blame Iran based on a an anniversary date, we, the people, have the right to blame him for 9/11. After all, he has double citizenship, American-Israeli. He for sure knew the imprtance of 9/11.Source