Photo: AFP
Posted on 09/18/2002 9:12:32 AM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
|
Photo: AFP |
SANGACHAL, Azerbaijan (AFP) - The inaugural section of an oil pipeline that will pump crude from the Caspian Sea to Turkey's Mediterranean coast was laid in Azerbaijan, marking the start of construction on the US-backed project.
The 2.95-billion-dollar (3.05-billion-euro) pipeline heralds a US-backed challenge to Russia's stranglehold on export routes from the oil-rich Caspian.
In a ceremony near Azerbaijan's capital, Baku, heads of state from Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey -- Heidar Aliyev, Eduard Shevardnadze and Ahmet Necdet Sezer -- watched as a length of steel pipe was lowered into the ground.
"The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline will take shape from this moment on," Aliyev said at the ceremony at the Sangachal terminal which will be the starting point for the pipeline once it is completed in 2005.
US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham also took part in the ceremony and signalled President George W. Bush's strong support for the project.
"Without this pipeline the resources of the Caspian Sea would have remained undeveloped and unavailable to world markets," he said.
"The BTC pipeline is a central component in an east-west energy corridor which will bring far-reaching benefits to the countries of this region and to the rest of the world."
The Caspian Sea holds the world's third-largest reserves of oil and gas but two of the three existing oil export pipelines go through Russian territory -- a situation Washington believes is harmful for global energy security.
The BTC pipeline will pump up to one million barrels of crude a day along the 1,750 kilometres (more than 1,000 miles) from Azerbaijan, through neighbouring Georgia to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
That is roughly the same distance as from New York to Miami or from London to southern Spain.
The project was first proposed eight years ago but it has been delayed by political wrangling and arguments about its commercial viability. Until recently there were doubts that it would ever be built.
Many oil industry insiders criticised the project for being driven by political considerations instead of economic realities.
The pipeline was chosen ahead of two alternative routes for exporting Caspian oil, via Iran or Russia. Both would have been shorter and cheaper but were not politically acceptable to Washington.
Moscow has wanted nothing to do with the BTC project and officials there have repeatedly said it does not make economic sense.
Georgian officials claimed this week that Russia's dislike for the pipeline was the real reason behind threats by Moscow to launch bombing raids into northern Georgia in pursuit of Islamic rebels there.
For Azerbaijan, an impoverished former Soviet republic, the BTC pipeline means desperately needed revenues from the sale of its oil. Georgia's state budget will also benefit from transit fees.
The pipeline is being financed and built by an international consortium led by oil major BP and also comprising Azeri state oil company SOCAR, Statoil, Unocal, TPAO, Eni Agip, Total Fina Elf, Itochu and Amerada Hess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Crude Oil Production |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Petroleum Imports |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be my hope that our Government would finally have the common sense to encourage greater utilization of our own safe and secure energy resources rather than pursue a path that is reliant on the use of military intervention. Congress has failed miserably in its responsiblity to develop such a national energy policy. In the 30 years since the Arab Oil Embargo, our dependence on imported oil has skyrocketed from 25% to over 65%. This is unacceptable, as is the fingerpointing between the two factions of the ruling Republicrat Party.
The technology exists to dramaticly reduce our dependence on imported oil. Construction of modern, efficient mass-transportation systems in our nation's most densely populated regions and urban areas would significantly reduce consumption while promoting commerce and economic growth. Electric energy to power such systems could easily be supplied from environmentally clean nuclear technology, further reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.
Only if you herd commuters into those systems at gunpoint.
Many of these systems built are inefficient to the max and great public works boondoggles.
The Green eyewash sometimes blinds us to using only real practical conservation.
Agreed. Now you have to get your brother and sister Greens to agree with you. Good luck.
Many cities rely excessively on pollution belching buses that only hog space on the already congested roadways. Bogged down in traffic, they are far less fuel efficient and more labor/maintenance intensive than bus proponents claim. Granted, they are the cheapest way to go upfront, and they do add flexibility to the transportation infrastruction. But higher volume traffic corridors will always be served more effectively by more permanent rail systems travelling on their own, unimpeded right-of-way.
A study by Heritage Inst. in '98 says:
While commanding 20 percent of federal surface transportation dollars, public transit today provides only 3.19 percent of the daily trips to work, down 20 percent since 1990. By 1995, more people walked or bicycled to work (2.33 percent and 0.43 percent) than went to work by bus or metro (1.76 percent and 0.9 percent). The chief reason transit's share of the federal budget exceeds its share of the market is its high cost. According to the Congressional Budget Office, commuter vans cost 12.5 cents per mile, and buses 35 cents, while light rail systems cost a staggering $3.40 per commuter mile—nearly ten times more than buses and 27 times more than vans.Transit's minuscule share of the commuting market is not for want of trying or the result of underfunding. Since 1960, state, federal, and local governments have invested an estimated $350 billion (in 1998 dollars) in transit. Over that same period, however, American commuters have been rejecting this turn-of-the-century transportation technology at the same pace as past generations.
The majority of people using public transportation take two trips per day (one to work in the morning and one home in late afternoon or evening). A small proportion--perhaps 5%--make only one public transportation trip (e.g., they ride public transportation to the airport and then fly out of town, or they ride public transportation in the morning to work, but ride home with a friend in an automobile at night). A somewhat larger proportion (primarily the public transportation-dependent) take 4, 6, 8, or even 10 trips per day.
Purpose of Public Transportation Trips by Population Group
|
POPULATION OF URBANIZED AREA/ |
WORK |
SCHOOL |
SHOPPING |
MEDICAL |
SOCIAL |
OTHER |
| Under 50,000 | 20% |
9% |
8% |
34% |
27% |
2% |
| 50,000-199,999 | 39% |
22% |
12% |
6% |
9% |
12% |
| 200,000-500,000 | 46% |
19% |
13% |
5% |
8% |
9% |
| 500,000-999,999 | 51% |
15% |
11% |
5% |
6% |
12% |
| 1 million and more | 55% |
15% |
9% |
5% |
9% |
7% |
| NATIONAL AVERAGE | 54% |
15% |
9% |
5% |
9% |
8% |
There are some land locked major cities where it is a very sensible use of public money. But the urge of the next 50 cities in size to latch onto the Federal teat of Mass Transit money is often a boondoggle for airport authorities and trade unions that local politicians want to pay off with government projects (pork) that they can bring to their local economies.
Often, short-sightedly.
< /sarcasm>
Adding an extra lane merely funnels more traffic onto the connecting roads and streets that haven't (and likely can't) been expanded. It also increases the burden on limited parking availablity. The urban centers of most major cities are "landlocked", that's why they're "cities" -- the land has been fully developed and availability is at a premium. Mass transit is the most sensible means of moving people around in these densely populated areas. Yes, including commuting from/to the 'burbs and out to the airport.
Remeber: Large city governemtns, almost universally under socialist-democrat control, will be the ones making the decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.