Talk:Nabucco pipeline

Urgent change of map

Check out this map, Azerbaijani territories like Karabakh and Nahkcivan are part of Armenia, is this even legal? We need to change this urgently!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.83.1.6 (talk) 16 January 2007

i agree, annexed azerbaijani territories which are recognized internationally as still being part of Azerbaijan are shown on the map as part of Armenia. this should be changed immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.40.34 (talk) 30 October 2008

RfC: Should this project to be called proposed or planned

Should the project which has established project company, has the European Coordinator appointed by the European Commission, has prepared feasibility study and signed intergovernmental agreement (ratified by some countries concerned), but which final investment decision is not made yet and depends on the results of the open season for contracting pipeline capacities (and it is still possible that the investment decision will be negative), to be called a proposed pipeline or a planned pipeline? Please see also the discussion above.Beagel (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• The Reuters article of 5 Feb 2010 clearly states "Nabucco consortium aims to finalize investment decision of the project by the end of 2010 following an open season process", so it seems to me that use of the adjective "planned" is controversial at best. In this case Tuscumbia etc. should provide a contemporary WP:RS for citing this use of the description "planned" otherwise it's just an OR position. -- TerryE (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my edit [1] and explanation above. The project was being planned until the recent when it started losing wider support and financing was still not confirmed. I guess what I am trying to say is that with all meetings, MOUs, established project company, etc the project is planned yet can be abandoned. Proposed in my understanding means something in proposal stage. I do agree that planning of EPC has not started and may not start which for many people makes it proposed project vs planned. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • From what I just checked in news articles, it is proposed, they don't even know exactly what tracing the pipline will take, also it seems that only Azerbaijan agreed providing the oil at this time and does not have the capacity to feed the pipline, given it's low reserve. I wonder how Tuscumbia came to the conclusion that it is planned. -RobertMel (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not come to conclusions that it was planned. The article said it was planned and I supported the wording planned vs proposed when the other editors debated on it. The reason I supported the word planned is stated above. To me, proposed means it's at a stage when the proposal is put through for the parties invited or involved to review a particular project, conduct a feasibility study, etc. (eg. White Stream). For instance, there are projects which were abandoned due to lack of financing or unsatisfactory results of the feasibility study (eg. Baltic Gas Interconnector). The term planned, in turn, implies a project which had gone through stages of meetings, MOUs, has an established project company (eg. South Stream), etc. but it might as well end up like Baltic Gas Interconnector due to lack of financing or any other reasons. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There are several articles and news coverage which write it is proposed. So using one word against the other is a judgement call. even with propositions approximative dates for the construction are given, there are negotiations and even signatures. I would be planned when there are signatures from the parties which makes of the project viable. Was there such a signature ever? -RobertMel (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There are just as many articles indicating it is planned. Therefore, this is not about judgements. You really don't have to have a signature for start of EPC to say it is planned. There are a number of signatures on MOU's and financial papers indicating it is planned. So, if there isn't a signature approving an EPC, that doesn't make it unplanned. That's the whole notion of planning. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a gas pipeline, not oil pipeline. It is true that the final investment decision is postponed until the end 2010. At the same time, it seams to be misunderstanding that planned project means project which will be implemented with 100% of certainty. Even the best planned projects not always reach to their final stage of implementation. Concerning the Nabucco project, there are several aspects which typically characterize planned projects. Namely:

• the feasibility study of the Nabucco project is done. That means that you are already started to plan the project.
• the project company is established. Usually you don't establish a project company just for case without starting to plan the project
• The intergovernmental agreement is signed and already ratified by four countries of five. Again, it is more typical for planned projects than just for proposed projects.
• The European Commission confirmed yesterday that it will provide €200 millions to the project in the framework of its Economy Recovery Plan. The precondition for applying for financing from the recovery plan was certain maturity of the project, so just a proposal was certainly not enough to get this financing.

Beagel (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The project was first floated in 2002 ; 8 years later it still has no identified clients, no budget signed, and not even suppliers, as noone knows whether the gas in the pipe will come from Azerbaijan or Iraq or even Egypt. Proposed sounds good enough.--Environnement2100 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Turkmenistan?

I know that Europeans are human rights pussies, but still is this really an issue? Do people care about the human rights in Saudi Arabia? I don't think so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.70.66 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

User:Environnement2100 continues to insist that due to gas deal between Iran and Iraq according to which Iraq will import gas from Iraq "the projects expectations in Iraq being toned down, Iraq is actually going to import gas, from its neighbour Iran, as of 2013." However, this is a original research as the provided reference says nothing about the impact to Nabucco or any other potential gas export from Iraq to Europe. Import in some part of the country does not exclude export from other parts (Iraqi Kurdistan). Therefore, I remove this addition as original research. Please to not re-add it without providing reference explicitly saying that due to gas import deal from Iran, potential export from Iraq to Nabucco (or more broadly to Europe) is jeopardized. Beagel (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource

Prospects Appear to Dim for EU-Backed Gas Pipeline November 19, 2011 by Marc Champion and Joe Parkinson, excerpt ...

Prospects for the European Union's favored Nabucco natural-gas pipeline project appear to be dwindling, weeks before a consortium of Caspian Sea producers is due to choose one of four planned pipelines to carry its gas to Europe. This week, Azerbaijan said it plans to build its own pipeline through Turkey that would run parallel to Nabucco's planned route. At the same time, the U.S. softened its years-long support for Nabucco, saying it now backs any of the four alternatives so long as they will deliver gas to the most "vulnerable" EU states.

99.56.120.136 (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH. That article is very short, it repeats information already provided in this article and the company does not have notability beside of the Nabucco project. Beagel (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Project cancelled

The German language page for Nabucco calls it cancelled in 2013 and I had also read that in Der Spiegel. Since I am no expert and don't know much more about the whole thing, I'm putting this here.

I was a bit baffled by the sentence "The Nabucco project is backed by the European Union and the United States...'. The EU often provides funds for necessary projects but in the United States it is all private corporations, so saying the "United States" support it, looks a bit wrong. It should have probably said which American companies were behind it to which extend, and if government money was in it to which extent. The way it reads, it looks like a backing by a country which can only have political reasons. We know they like to put their finger in anything that weakens Russia, which could well play a role here, but leaving things to guessing is not helpful. Anyway, Nabucco is history, one can only learn. 144.136.192.10 (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)