Bourgas-Alexandropolis Pipeline Agreement "Finalized in 2006"

Top news: 4 September 2006, Monday.

After over 12 years of discussions, Bulgaria, Greece and Russia have finally decided that they would sign an agreement for the Bourgas-Alexandrupolis pipeline by the end of 2006.

Bulgaria's head of state Georgi Parvanov was pleased to say that the three countries have overcome the deadlock in the project.

Parvanov met Monday in Athens with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and Greece's Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis.

Apart from the vow to finalize the project, the three countries agreed to mull the creation of new networks for gas transportation and some joint projects for transporting natural gas.

"I am glad that we managed to overcome a decade-long stall in just 45 minutes of discussions," Parvanov said.

Bulgaria and Greece realized the strategic importance of the project as it could help them influence the European energy politics, Putin believes. He added that Russia hadn't placed any conditions or ultimatums before the other two countries.

Here is a more detailed article about the project (in Bulgarian)
It is said the project will cost from 800 to 900 million EUR and will be able to transport 50 million tons of petroleum with possibilities for 35 million tons more. The pipeline will be 280-300 km long (166km in Bulgaria). The petroleum will be transport from Novorossiisk in Russia to Burgas in Bulgaria and through the pipeline to Alexandropolis in Greece and towards Western Europe.

http://news.netinfo.bg/?tid=40&oid=931855

saw it today on CNN. good job. hopefully our pipeline will be finalized.

this is good news for them i guess, but i hope our pipeline ISNT finalized. We dont need to fill Vlora with these pipelines cuase with one spill a lot can be destroyed, and we dont need another durres

So, has Bulgaria decided to abandon the AMBO pipeline through Macedonia and Albania??

this is good news for them i guess, but i hope our pipeline ISNT finalized. We dont need to fill Vlora with these pipelines cuase with one spill a lot can be destroyed, and we dont need another durres

So Russia was successful in lobbying for Greece and Bulgaria and keeping America out.

I dont think Albania needs these pipelines. How much were we suppose to make anyway per year. Something like 50 million euros the most?

We have enough oil to feed ourself. Do you really thing we need this for our benefit?





Britain's MedOil to explore for oil in Albania's I
Article.wn.com - Mon Sep 4, 03:53 pm GMT 5 September 05:30 FULL STORY





We should invest our money and time in finding more resources in our land. Such as the Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea. Also Northern Albania should have oil.

Albania Continues to Attract International Operators
By Rach, Nina M

DRILLING MARKET FOCUS

A new redevelopment project in the Patos-Marinza oil field is keeping attention on the Balkans.

Drilling

Albania, in southeastern Europe, has petroleum resources both on and offshore, and shares geologic trends with the neighboring Balkan states of Croatia; Serbia and Montenegro; Macedonia; and Greece. The country has licensed drilling to American, Austrian, Canadian, Croatian, Greek, and Swedish companies only in the last 15 years.

Albania's Adriatic and Ionian sea offshore resources have been only lightly explored. But the country harbors one of the largest onshore oil fields in Europe, Patos-Marinza, discovered in 1928.

The former state oil and gas company of Albania, the General Directorate of oil & Gas, DPNG, Patos, drilled thousands of wells onshore. In 1992, DPNG morphed into state-owned Alb-petrol ShA. Headquartered in Patos, Fier district, Albpetrol controls 46 energy and petroleum-related enterprises. '

After 40 years of isolation, repression, and underdevelopment due to the catastrophic economic policies of communist party leader Enver Hoxha, Albania was the last European country to emerge from communist rule. It began the transition from a centralized to an open-market economy in 1991. A democratically elected government took office in April 1992 and began economic reform programs in the predominantly Islamic nation.

Table 1

ALBANIAN PETROLEUM LEGISLATION, CONTRACTS

An important law meant to attract and protect foreign investment was enacted on Nov. I, 1994-Law No. 7764, "On Foreign Investments." This guards against nationalization or expropriation of assets and allows funds to be freely transferred in and out of the country (Table 1).

Anarchy in early 1997 alarmed international investors. New elections in June 1997 settled the mood, and a popular referendum on Nov. 28, 1998, established Albania's current constitution.

Albania's population in June 2002 was about 3.1 million, slightly fewer than Houston. Albania spans 28,748 sq km, slightly larger than Maryland, and smaller than Belgium.

Albpetrol administers about 12 oil fields, in the Saranda, Vlora, Mallakaster, Fier, Lushnja, and Kucova districts. According to a World Bank report, 4,666 oil wells have been drilled, of which 3,123 wells are operating and 981 wells are shut in or abandoned.2

Foreign investment

Albania's oil production peaked in 1975 and then declined until 1982, when a more rapid decline set in, due to lack of funding for field development and technical expertise.2

ALBANIA'S LEASE BLOCKS

Still, until 1989, Albania was a net exporter of petroleum products. But by 2001, the country was importing 73% of what it consumed. Albania made efforts in the 1990s to attract foreign capital and technology, offering access first to offshore acreage and then two onshore licensing rounds. In 1990, DPNG offered contracts on offshore blocks to various international companies: Deminex Albania Petroleum Gmbh, Chevron International (Albania) Ltd., Occidental Petroleum Corp., Hamikon oil (Albania) Corp., and AGIP SPA (OGJ, Apr. 20, 1992, p. 120).

In 1993, legislation finally opened up onshore concessions.

The first international onshore licensing round in 1992 offered access to seven onshore fields: Patos-Marinza and Kucova (Miocene sands) ; Visoke, Ballsh, Gorisht-Kocul, and Cakran Mollaj (fractured Cretaceous-Paleocene limestone) and Delvina (fractured limestone). Several fields required enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects. A field data package was available for $60,000 from Petroconsultants SA in Geneva, and the bids were due Nov. 30, 1992 (OGJ, July 20, 1992, p. 40).

The second licensing round opened on Nov. 28, 1995, at a seminar in London attended by 3 O oil companies. The Albanians offered two onshore blocks (A, D) not taken in the first licensing round, eight new onshore blocks covering a total of 22,400 sq km, and one block in the Adriatic Sea that had been relinquished byAgip (OGJ, Oct. 30, 1995, p. 22).

Albania received bids for the second round in mid-1996.3

Natural gas production in Albania declined to 76 ktoe in 2001 from 206 ktoe in 1990, a 63% drop (ktoe = thousand tonnes oil equivalent). Of the 500 gas wells drilled around the country, only 255 have produced gas.2There are several defined gas fields (north to south): Durres, Ballai, Diviaki, Povelca, Frakulla, Cakrun, Panaia, Delvina, and Finiq-Crane.

In 2004, Albania had 339 km of gas pipeline and 207 km of oil pipeline. Through the end of 2005, the country had two operating refineries (Fier and Ballsh), capable of producing 26,300 b/d of petroleum products.

Offshore, historical

Foreign oil companies became involved off Albania in 1991, spending about $80 million to shoot seismic and drill three wells in the first 4 years.4

Occidental came to Albania in 1991 and has unsuccessfully drilled in the Adriatic twice, once on its own and once in partnership with OMV (Albanien), a subsidiary of Austria's OMV AG.5

A consortium of Occidental, Agip-Albania BV, and BHP Billiton Ltd. drilled four more wells offshore in 1995-96.

French independent producer Coparex International SA, Albania Shell (Exploration & Production) BV, and INA Industrija nafte dd, a subsidiary of Croatia's INA Naftaplin group began drilling in 1996.4

In January 2002, Stockholm's Lundin Petroleum AB agreed to purchase Coparex International from BNP Paribas and affiliates for $ 172.5 million in cash, presumably for production assets in Tunisia, France, Netherlands, Indonesia, and Venezuela.

The acquisition of BNP Paribas" 95.3% stake in Coparex was completed on Sept. 19, 2002, and an additional 3.7% stake was acquired by Sept. 30.6

Offshore, recent

In August 2005, Albania's Council of Ministers ratified a new production-sharing contract for the offshore Durresi block, between the government, Lundin Petroleum, and OMV.

The Durresi block covers 4,200 sq km off Albania between Cape Rodoni to the north and the Karaburuni Peninsula to the south. Most of the block is in shallow water, O to 1OO m deep, reaching a maximum water depth of 250 m in the southwest.7

A decent 2D seismic grid, acquired over the block in 1991-93, was to be reprocessed by Lundin and OMV.

Four wells were drilled offshore in 1993-94; Agip's A4-1X had oil and Occidental's Alban-1 turned up some gas. OMV's Rodoni-1 gas discovery is just outside the northeast corner of the Durresi block.

According to Lundin Petroleum's third-quarter 2005 report, issued Nov. 16, the company plans to complete a 400 sq km 3D seismic survey on the Durresi block before the end of the year. The data will be processed and interpreted in 2006, and drilling will commence in 2007.

The work program includes a 4-year first exploration period (FEP), a 1-year second exploration period (SEP), and a 2-year third exploration period (TEP).

During the FEP, Lundin and OMV must:

* Reprocess a minimum of 1,000 km of 2D seismic.

* Acquire at least 400 sq km of 3D seismic.

* Drill one or two exploration wells (if only one hole is drilled, the partners must relinquish 35% of the lease acreage).

During the SEP, the partners must acquire a minimum of 300 sq km of 3D seismic, and then relinquish 20% of the block area at the end of the SEP.

During the TEP, they must drill at least one exploration well.

Onshore, 1928-2000

The Patos-Marinza heavy oil field was discovered in 1928 in south- central Albania and is one of Europe's largest onshore oil fields. The field is 20 km inland from the Adriatic coast and covers about 44,000 acres. It has been producing since the late 1930s, with peak production reaching 13,000 b/d by the early 1960s. Albpetrol drilled about 2,500 wells over the life of the field.

On Aug. 17, 1994, Albpetrol signed an agreement with Britain's Premier Consolidated oilfields PLC to form a new joint venture company, Anglo Albanian Petroleum Ltd. (AAP), to exploit enhanced oil recovery techniques in the older fields. Each party had a 50% share, to operate two onshore license areas-a 44,170-acre block that included Patos-Marinza, Albania's largest oil field, and a 97,680- acre block that included the Dumre field discovery (OGJ, Sept. 12, 1994, p. 42).

In 1995, Houston's Fountain Oil Inc. negotiated with Albpetrol to establish a joint venture to redevelop Gorisht-Kocul oil field in western Albania, near the Adriatic port of Vlora. Fountain oil was designated as operator and charged with finding financing for field redevelopment and providing EOR equipment.

The field was producing about 1,200 b/d from 160 wells in 1995. Remaining reserves were pegged at more than 22 million bbl. Start- up was slated for early 1996 (OGJ, Oct. 30, 1995, p. 22).

In 1997, Premier oil farmed out part of it's 50% interest in the Dumre exploration license to Germany's Preussag Energie GMBH (17.5%).8

In 2000, Premier oil announced it was withdrawing from Albania, leaving the future EOR plans for the Patos-Marinza field in jeopardy.

In June 1998, Occidental Petroleum of Albania (onshore-2) and partners were awarded onshore Blocks A, 2, and 3, but force majeure was declared in December 1998, due to deteriorating security conditions in neighboring Yugoslavia. In mid-April 2000, they resumed activity in Blocks 2 and 3 but retained force majeure on Block A\.

OMV was awarded Blocks 1, 4, and 5 and had also declared force majeure, but resumed its activities in July 2000. OMV farmed out 49% in all three blocks to Hellenic Petroleum SA. In mid-2000, it began a seismic survey on Block 5.

Australia's Drillsearch Energy Ltd. operated the Cakran-Mollaj and BallshHekal onshore oil fields. On Aug. 31, 1998, the company announced a contract to sell all production from both fields to Albpetrol. It also said that its maximum production cost in Albania was $3.75/bbl.

Drillsearch had raised heavy oil output to 1,200 b/d, until it shut down operations under force majeure. Drillsearch also had an oil sales contract dispute with Albpetrol, which still owed $759,318 to Drillsearch in early 2000.

In late 2000, Occidental (50%) joined with Lundin Albania (20%) and US-owned Forest Oil Corp. (30%) to drill a $16 million, 4,700 m- deep well. The Block 2 location was in Mbrezhdan, in the Berat region, about 112 km southeast of the capital, Tirana. The Shpriagu 1 well was spudded in late November 2000 and took about 6 months to drill.5

It was Occidental's first onshore well in Albania, and Lundin oil's first well in the country. CEO Ian H. Lundin said in a press release, "We are happy to be in Albania for a number of reasons... favorable fiscal terms, excellent access to European markets and...important oil reserves."

Reorganization, treaties

In 1998, due to losses in Albpetrol's upstream operations, the company's supervising council approved plans to reorganize into three divisions under Albpetrol Corp. (APC) : Albpetrol Sh.A. (exploration and production); ARMO Sh.A. (Albania refining and marketing of oil); and SERVECOM Sh.A. (service of oil companies).9

Meanwhile, the country continued to integrate into the financial life of the region.

On Sept. 19, 1999, Albania officially joined the Interstate oil and Gas Transport to Europe (INOGATE) program.10 On Feb. 14, 2000, it was the first of 21 countries to ratify the umbrella agreement, which synchronized the interests of the member countries in providing a legal, secure, and profitable environment for foreign investment in interstate petroleum transportation system infrastructure. The first large-scale project was the Albanian- Macedonian-Bulgarian oil (AMBO) pipeline.

On May 2, 2003, in the Albanian capital city Tirana, Albania joined with Croatia, Macedonia, and the US in signing the Adriatic Charter, pledging their commitment to NATO values and furthering their petitions to join NATO.11

Croatia's interests

Croatia's INA Group is a holding company that controls Croatia's oil and gas exploration, production, transportation, trading, refining, and retailing. INA is based in the capital, Zagreb, owns 38% of JAFTA JANAF, with its oil pipelines; and has Crosco as a subsidiary. The INA Group was wholly state-owned until privatization legislation was passed in 2002 and bids tendered and contracts signed in July 2003. Hungary's MoI acquired 25% of INA for $505 million. Croatia retained 25% plus one share.

In 1996, Albpetrol signed an agreement with INA-Naftaplin of Zagreb, Croatia for oil and gas exploration and development on the Panaja-Vlore block in Albania. INA-Naftaplin is focused on exploration and production in Croatia and has minority interests in several producing fields in Block 1 and Block 3 off Angola.

In Albania's Panaja-Vlore block, INANaftaplin agreed to invest $4.7 million from 1996-2000 (OGJ, Nov. 11, 1996).

Albpetrol and INA-Naftaplin drilled a wildcat on the Panaja block in early 2003.

Crosco's Rig 603 rigs up to work in south-central .Albania s Block 2, drilling the Shpriagu 1 exploration well in 2000-01 (Fig. 1; photo from Crosco Integrated Drilling & Well Services Co. Ltd.).

Crosco rigs

Crosco Integrated Drilling & Well Services Co. Ltd., a drilling and well services contractor based in Zagreb, Croatia, has provided onshore drilling and oilfield services in the Albanian market since 1994. The company has worked for four international operators in Albania: Premier Oil; Occidental of Albania Ltd., a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corp.; INA-Naftaplin; and OMVAlbanien, a division of Austria's OMY

In 1994-95, Croatia's Crosco Integrated Drilling &Well Services Co. Ltd. drilled its record onshore Dumre well in Albania, to 6,119 m (20,075 ft), with Rig E-605.

In 2000-01, Crosco used its 2,000-hp Emsco rig 603 to drill the Shpriagu 1 exploration well in onshore Block 2 for Occidental and Lundin (Fig. 1 ). The well was planned to 4,750 m depth, but ultimately drilled to 5,333 m.

Mike Oldenburg, Occidental's drilling manager, said, "The well reached the limits of casing design" and was technically difficult to execute. They also encountered H^sub 2^S during testing.12

On Aug. 2, 2002, Crosco announced that it would provide a National 403 1,600-hp drilling rig to INA-Naftaplin to drill the Dajlani-1 well in the onshore Panaja block, in the southwest part of the country, about 20 km from Vlora.

On May 16, 2003, Crosco announced a contract with OMV Albanien to provide a National 403 1,600-hp drilling rig for OMV's Palokastra-1 well in onshore Block 4.

On Sept. 22, 2004, Crosco announced that it had a contract with OMV Albanien to provide a National 801 3,000-hp drilling rig and H^sub 2^S services for OMV's onshore Kanina-1 well.

Earlier this month, Crosco told OGJ that it no longer has rigs working in Albania.

Patos-Marinza redevelopment

Albpetrol and Premier Oil formed Anglo Albanian Petroleum Ltd. (AAP) in 1994, which operated the Patos Marinza field until Premier withdrew in 2000. Outside partners included Preussag Energie GMBH (subsidiary of Germany's metal giant Preussag Aktiengesellschaft) and Ind Finance Corp. (IFC).

Calgary-based Simmons Drilling (Overseas) Ltd. drilled 13 new wells from two pads for AAP during firstquarter 2003. Simmons VP Lawrence Pasiechnyk told OGJ diey used a triple drilling rig in the Marinza field, but the rig left Albania when AAP finally relinquished interest in the field by early 2004.

From August 2001 to May 2004, Richard Wadsworth served as senior development and facilities engineer, technical director, and project manager for AAP.

Enter Bankers Petroleum Ltd. (BPL), a Calgary-based company that has gone through several reincarnations since 1983. Wadsworth left AAP and became president and director of BPL in June 2004.

One of BPL's two main subsidiaries, Saxon International Energy Ltd., maintains an office in Fier, Albania.

After AAP relinquished the rights to the Patos Marinza heavy oil field, BPL subsidiary Saxon International negotiated a petroleum agreement direcdy with Albpetrol, which holds die license agreement with the National Petroleum Authority of Albania (NPA) to operate the field. Saxon has until January 2006 to propose a plan of development (PoD) to Albpetrol and the NPA. Saxon also had a $2 million minimum work commitment to workover 12 wells and a water- disposal well, which it met by the end of December 2004.

Saxon has contracted for workover rigs from Simmons Drilling. Simmons has three single and two double workover rigs in Albania at this time.

By using its cold heavy oil production with sand recompletion program (CHOPS, a technique used widely in Canada's oil sands), with progressive cavity pumps, Saxon increased production to about 1,500 b/d by die end of 2004 and reached 2,300 b/d by early December 2005, Wadsworth told OGJ (OGJ Online, Dec. 8,2005).

If the NPA accepts Saxon's PoD, Saxon will earn a 2 5-year production license. The company would then take over other sectors of the field and recomplete 600-900 wells using progressive cavity artificial lift systems. Saxon would also construct roads, treatment facilities, and a pipeline.

Saxon predicts workover or plug-and-abandon (P&A) expenses at 662 net proven wells or 947 net provenplus-probable wells. The company estimates $25,000/well P&A expenses, and $ 1 million for field facility abandonment and reclamation (net after salvage).

Saxon International has a crude oil marketing agreement valid through Dec. 31, 2010, with the Albanian Refining and Marketing Organization, Armo Sh.A, under which Armo will purchase up to 5,000 b/d from the field, capped at $22.60/bbl.This price is indexed to average Brent price, subject to a maximum Brent price of $35/bbl. Under this scenario, future revenue from Patos Marinza proved reserves is forecast at $47 million; while future revenue from proved and probable reserves is $358.5 million.

Recent well activities

In 2004, Saxon invested about $104,000 in acquisition and about $6.15 million on development. About 18% of the 2004 budget went to Simmons Drilling for rig contracts and related services.

Victor Hanz Redekop, Bankers Petroleum CFO and Director, has also been a vice-president at Simmons Group Inc. since 1974.

According to public financial statements, Bankers Petroleum paid Simmons Drilling $1,113,595 in 2004 and $1,831,842 in the first 6 months of 2005.

At the time of BPL's entrance, in second-quarter 2004, the Patos Marinza wells were producing about 600 b/d. By third-quarter 2004, the wells were flowing about 755 b/d heavy oil. With additional workovers, this increased to 1,157 b/d average in fourth-quarter 2004, with an average of 956 b/d for the year.

BPL planned to spend about $ 14 million recompleting 50 wells in 2005.13

Future work

The latest licensing rounds and existing drilling commitments will require a continued influx of sour gas and EOR technology, as well as modern workover rigs, land drilling rigs, and a shallow water jack up to fulfill contractual drilling requirements.

Although nearby Crosco has a fleet of 51 land rigs, they are predominantly deployed outside the country, with only 1 land rig in Albania. Neither KCA Deutag nor Precision Drilling has any rigs in Albania. Yet, Bankers Petroleum and Albpetrol will need a fleet of reliable drilling and workover rigs to overhaul hundreds of wells in the Patos-Marinza field alone.

Off\shore, Crosco offers only one jack up, the Labin, a Levingston Class 111-C independent leg cantilever, capable of drilling to 20,000 ft. Lundin and OMV will need to secure a jack up or drilling barge to fulfill their obligations in the shallow water Durresi block.

References

1. "Eastern Europe-Reluctant to Sell," Petroleum Economist ,Vol. 62, No. 9 (September 1995), p. 22.

2. "First Part of the National Strategy of Energy," World Bank report; http:// siteresources.worldbank.org/INTALBANIA/Resources/ Part_I-National_Strategy_of_Energy_(Eng) .pdf

3. "Albania Aims to Accelerate Oil and Gas Exploration," Financial Times, Nov. 29, 1995, p. 57.

4. "Foreign Oil Moves in," Albanian Times, Oct. 15, 1995, www.hri.org/ news/agencies/albatim/1995/95-10-15.albatim.html#11

5. www.alb-net.com/pipermail/albsa-info/2000-December/ 001017.html

6. "Lundin Petroleum report for the 9 months ended Sept. 30, 2002," issued Nov. 15, 2002.

7. www.lundin-petroleum.com/ eng/operation_albania.php

8. Premier Oil news release for PRFYE1997 on Mar. 10, 1998.

9. Press release Oct. 22, 1998; "Reconstruction process: Albpetrol to be divided into three sections," www. telpress.it/ata/ 1998%5Coct_98%5Chdarch23.htm

10. www.inogate.org

11. "Adriatic Charter," US Dept. of State fact sheet, Aug. 16,2005, www. state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/51348.htm

12. Letter of recommendation, Nov. 14, 2001 ,www.crosco.com/news/ albaniaOXY.htm

Nina M. Radi

Drilling Editor

Copyright PennWell Publishing Company Dec 19, 2005



Source: Oil & Gas Journal

yes, I guess they went ahead and signed the shorter cheaper deal, which also gives the least problems, because it goes through Bulgaria to Greece, so they won't have to worry about what Macedonia or Albania wants.
But I feel confident they will also build the second one as well, going to Albania, but since it's longer, and goes through more countries, it's probably difficult for our stupid politicians to get what each wants. That corridor is important in bypassing the Bosporus and the greeks.
Although obviously this pipeline bypasses the turks, and that's more important, since they have a huge stake in Russian and Caucasian oil transports through the Black sea

I totally agree with you Dan, those pipelines in my opinion will just destory our beaches and that amount of money is really nothing, i dont want those pipelines. These countries on the other hand have been talking about it over 12 years, finally they got it settled and they're doing it.

it's been talked about since 91 in Albania. i would not mind it as long as they put it on durres instead of vlore. Durres beach is already fucked up so we cant fuck it up anymore.

Why is it so bad for Albania if AMBO is realized? On top of tens of millions of euros of income a year it will give the countries it passes through some importanece in international relations and some leverage over a lot of international issues. And ofcourse there's the huge initial investment and continuos investment in future as well as some jobs. Surely all the other countries who built pipelines and oil terminals arent stupid to do it... :2cents:

1. the profit from it is only $50 million each year.
2. the environmental impact an accident would have.
3. taking the profit into account, it surely is not worth risking it.
4. it goes into one of the most tourist friendly places in albania (Vlore) nad has the potential to impact the whole southern coast.

i wouldn't mind building it if it was built up at durres, where the beach is already fucked up. albanians have to choose now if we want tourism or industry. we can have both but we risk loosing tourism in case of just one accident. albanias coast is not that large

This pipeline is different from the AMBO pipeline. They are competing.

This pipeline is different from the AMBO pipeline. They are competing.

no, both were planned to be built.

Ye i know it is different, the Americans want it to run through Albania but initially greece offered to be part of the AMBO pipeline (instead of going through albania they wanted it to go through greece) but that would cost more to build for the countries investing...

greece can carry such a project because the pipeline isnt going to one of the major tourist destinations and greece also has 13600 something km of coastline, while albania has around 365km and needs to preserve as much as they can...for 50 million dollars a year, it's really not worth it AT ALL for us

Why is it so bad for Albania if AMBO is realized? On top of tens of millions of euros of income a year it will give the countries it passes through some importanece in international relations and some leverage over a lot of international issues. And ofcourse there's the huge initial investment and continuos investment in future as well as some jobs. Surely all the other countries who built pipelines and oil terminals arent stupid to do it... :2cents:

It's bad for its location.
Vlora has the best beaches in the country, the AMBO pipeline linking it with Burgas would be disastrous to the environment, it will fuck up tourism big time.
I would oppose such a pipeline to be build in Durres also.
My recomandation would be Seman in Fier County.:yes:

1. the profit from it is only $50 million each year.
2. the environmental impact an accident would have.
3. taking the profit into account, it surely is not worth risking it.
4. it goes into one of the most tourist friendly places in albania (Vlore) nad has the potential to impact the whole southern coast.

i wouldn't mind building it if it was built up at durres, where the beach is already fucked up.

I dont think 50$ a year is that little. Plus with the global energy crisis the price of crude is certain to go up and that means even higher profits from the pipeline.
And let's not forget about all the other advantages that the pipeline will bring.

About accidents - I occasionally hear about a spill from a tanker but that is very rare. I never heard of a big accident at an oil terminal...
Anyway if the Albanian government doesnt want it in Vlora, why they dont shift it to Durres? Whats the albanian's government position anyway? And which albanian port is handling oil imports these days?

It's bad for its location.
Vlora has the best beaches in the country, the AMBO pipeline linking it with Burgas would be disastrous to the environment, it will fuck up tourism big time.
I would oppose such a pipeline to be build in Durres also.
My recomandation would be Seman in Fier County.:yes:

where is that????

no, both were planned to be built.

Yes they are competing pipelines.

Some people were acting like it was 1 or the other.

I dont think 50$ a year is that little. Plus with the global energy crisis the price of crude is certain to go up and that means even higher profits from the pipeline.
And let's not forget about all the other advantages that the pipeline will bring.

About accidents - I occasionally hear about a spill from a tanker but that is very rare. I never heard of a big accident at an oil terminal...
Anyway if the Albanian government doesnt want it in Vlora, why they dont shift it to Durres? Whats the albanian's government position anyway? And which albanian port is handling oil imports these days?

AMBO doesnt want to budge. they say either vlore or the project is cancelled. i know it's easy for you to say whats the big deal but for us it is a big deal. you guys have no coast so what are you risking. bulgaria has this pipeline in an industrial city while as for us it ends in a touristic city. it's like saying building an oil termnial and mega port in Split or Venice.

Yes they are competing pipelines.

Some people were acting like it was 1 or the other.

no i dont think thats true. AMBO has not said anything about cancelling if the other pipeline is built. both will be built.

Some info on the Ambo project

Burgas-Vlore (AMBO) Oil Pipeline

Location: Burgas (BG) – Macedonia (MK) – Vlore (AL)

Cost: The project is estimated to cost $1.2 billion[1]

Length: 913km

Capacity:37.5 mt/y (750,000 b/d) with possible expansion to 50 mt/y (1.0 mb/d)[2]

Overview: The Burgas-Vlore pipeline, often known as AMBO (after the US-registered Albania-Macedonia-Bulgaria Oil corporation) has been under development for more than ten years. In 2002 a US-funded feasibility study was completed and in December 2004 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the relevant governments. The project's strength is that it serves an existing deepwater port, Vlore in Albania, but Vlore is also Albania's main coastal resort and the project has faced fierce opposition there. If the project moves forward, construction is expected to take three years[3]

Financing: In December 2004 it was announced that USD 900 million of financing for the pipeline had already been secured from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation - the US development agency - the Eximbank and Credit Suisse First Boston, among others[4]

Companies involved: The AMBO Pipeline Corporation, based in New York, has been established with exclusive rights to develop the project.

AMBO doesnt want to budge. they say either vlore or the project is cancelled. i know it's easy for you to say whats the big deal but for us it is a big deal. you guys have no coast so what are you risking. bulgaria has this pipeline in an industrial city while as for us it ends in a touristic city. it's like saying building an oil termnial and mega port in Split or Venice.

Well it is passing just north of Ohrid in Macedonia. But given the chances of an accident I have nothing against it. You just have to measure the risks and the benefits. It is like saying no to nuclear power-plants because there is a chance of a meltdown. Ofcourse there is some small chance, but still there are thousands of nuclear power-plants around the world. You cant have progress without taking risks...

Why does AMBO corp. exclusivelly want Vlora and whats the albanian's government position? And which albanian port is handling oil imports these days?

Albanian Environmental Activists Say Pipeline Will Stop Tourists

TIRANA - Albanian environmentalists protested on Tuesday against plans for a trans-Balkan oil pipeline to the Adriatic coast, saying pollution from the oil terminal would kill tourism the country wants to develop.

Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia have already backed the $1.2 billion plan for a 912-km (567-mile) pipeline from Bulgaria's Black Sea port of Bourgas to the port of Vlore in Albania, allowing Russian and Caspian crude to avoid the congested routes of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits.

In Tirana, between 40 and 50 activists brought umbrellas and chaises longues to town centre to act out a day at the beach.

While experts from the US-registered Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation (AMBO) discussed technical details in the Mining and Energy ministry nearby, protesters waved placards saying "AMBO Don't Touch Vlore".

"Without AMBO, Vlore will be the city of millions of tourists, with AMBO, Vlore is sentenced to death," said Petrit Levendi, a businessman from Vlore, Albania's most popular domestic holiday spot last year.

The ministry said in a statement that Albania stood to gain up to 60 million dollars a year from the pipeline transporting 750,000 barrels of oil per day.

Due to its strategic position, Vlore is also the site of a proposed gas pipeline, which will go through Albania on its way from the Balkans to Italy. Protesters said they would not object to the AMBO pipeline if it was a similar transit project.

"We accept AMBO without a terminal in Vlore or wherever in Albania, it should come in and get out with a pipe as amicably as it entered," said Sazan Guri of the Civic Alliance to Protect Vlore Bay.

AMBO's terminal in Vlore would be built on the premises of an abandoned and polluted industrial area, far from the bathing spots. The area is also earmarked for building a power plant and a storage facility for the oil deposits of an Italian firm.

Story Date: 20/4/2005

Durres handles oil imports i belive. vlora is naturally a deepwater port which aloowes heavy tankers to dock near the port and take the cargo instead of sending smaller cargo ships back and forth as is done in some ports in europe.

Yes they are competing pipelines.

Some people were acting like it was 1 or the other.

Yes they are competing, but NO - it is not like the one or the other. From what I know AMBO was a more probable project. It was the Burgas-Alexandropolis who had a much bigger question mark. Anyway AMBO Is in a pretty advanced stage and I never heard something about cancelling it.

I totally agree with you Dan, those pipelines in my opinion will just destory our beaches and that amount of money is really nothing, i dont want those pipelines. These countries on the other hand have been talking about it over 12 years, finally they got it settled and they're doing it.

Croatia has knocked back some significant potential investments in petrochemicals in the Kvarner Bay area of the northern Adriatic, the assessment is that Croatia stands to make far more in the medium to long-term from a healthy environment and tourism than the short term gains of such projects. I agree.

I think Albania should be very careful when assessing such potential projects.

Croatia has knocked back some significant potential investments in petrochemicals in the Kvarner Bay area of the northern Adriatic, the assessment is that Croatia stands to make far more in the medium to long-term from a healthy environment and tourism than the short term gains of such projects. I agree.

I think Albania should be very careful when assessing such potential projects.

I agree. Im against this pipeline being built in Vlora. Albania's environment and tourism potential is far more important then an oil pipeline which will not do much for Albania.

it can be built if anywhere far north of vlore.

"AMBO's terminal in Vlore would be built on the premises of an abandoned and polluted industrial area, far from the bathing spots. The area is also earmarked for building a power plant and a storage facility for the oil deposits of an Italian firm."

Is this true? If it is then it doesnt make sense to be just against the pipeline.

"AMBO's terminal in Vlore would be built on the premises of an abandoned and polluted industrial area, far from the bathing spots. The area is also earmarked for building a power plant and a storage facility for the oil deposits of an Italian firm."

Is this true? If it is then it doesnt make sense to be just against the pipeline.

Unlike the power plant, the pipeline runs all the way down to the beautiful ionian waters.
Big difference;)

its still very close to vlore.

So guys, whats your prediction... what will happen considering the situation?

Macedonia surely profits from the project, i am totally against it though.
If Seman was the location then fine, otherwise, no thanks.

Macedonia surely profits from the project, i am totally against it though.
If Seman was the location then fine, otherwise, no thanks.

Macedonia would get only 20 million a year. And like I said AMBO passes just north of Ohrid. Anyway there is a very positive attitude towards it here.

Where is this Seman and is it suitable for a terminal? And if it is why wouldnt AMBO corp. reconsider a different location than Vlora. Are there any reliable information about the negotiations between the government and AMBO (especially about the route of the pipeline and the location of the terminal)

And can you guys share your predictions... what will happen considering the situation? You know your polititians best :)

barely any of us live in albania, most are ex-pats. it wouldnt be wise taking our opinion.

Not sure if Seman is suitable for such a project but i know one thing, it's the shittiest beach in Albania:D

Back to Vlora, can you imagine the monstrous pipeline infiltrating these waters? :runaway:

http://static.flickr.com/94/224888157_5829cd7646.jpg

Macedonia surely profits from the project, i am totally against it though.
If Seman was the location then fine, otherwise, no thanks.

Seman would be a good idea. It is already polluted.

Although the sea is connected to each other, it wouldnt really make a big difference if oil is spilled. Although it would be better if Durres is used. Durres is already a commercial,trade port.


We got many inland projects that are important aswell. Take Saxon for example.

They are investing a lot of money for Albania's heavy oil. Patos Marinoza is not the only place, there are many undiscovered places where oil could be drilled.

Let's focus on those.

Macedonia would get only 20 million a year. And like I said AMBO passes just north of Ohrid. Anyway there is a very positive attitude towards it here.

Where is this Seman and is it suitable for a terminal? And if it is why wouldnt AMBO corp. reconsider a different location than Vlora. Are there any reliable information about the negotiations between the government and AMBO (especially about the route of the pipeline and the location of the terminal)

And can you guys share your predictions... what will happen considering the situation? You know your polititians best :)


I think the reason why AMBO wants VLORA is because its future plans probably involve italy....and Vlora is the point in the albanian coast that projects towards italy, shortening the length between albania and italy.
http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/7697/albaniamapvh8.jpg

yes exactly, they are competing projects, but also different projects with different goals and investors.
This one I think is more for Greece, while the AMBO is for Italy

тази тема пропадна заедно со нафтоводот

Bulgaria Gives Long-Awaited Green Light to Burgas-Alexandroupolis Pipeline

http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2011-11/photo_verybig_133637.jpg

Bulgaria's Environment Ministry has issued a positive ruling on the paperwork submitted to it by "Trans-Balkan Pipeline" for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline project.

The decision of the Bulgarian eco ministry does not mean a final approval and a go-ahead of the construction of the project but it allows the evaluation process to go ahead at public hearings; however, had it been negative, it would have killed the BA oil pipeline.

"The ruling of the competent institution is that the EIA paperwork has analyzed the risks for the environment that the Supreme Expert Environmental Council should take into account in the event of a realization or non-realization of the project on Bulgarian territory. Based on this rule, we can go ahead with the procedure for approval by organizing public hearings with the respective municipalities on Bulgarian territory, which is the responsibility of contractor," the Environment Ministry has said in a press statement published late Thursday night.

The eco ministry has sent a letter to the contractor – the Bulgarian-Greek-Russian company Trans-Balkan Pipeline with instructions for the further phases of the procedure. Thus, TBP is supposed to provide public access to the entire paperwork on the project, and to organize meetings for public hearings in towns and villages along the proposed route of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline.

The Environment Ministry further explains that public hearings can be held simultaneously in Bulgaria and Greece if the environmental authorities of both countries confirm that the entire paperwork is available to the public.

"The results from the public access to paperwork and public hearing will be of extreme importance about completing the procedure, the discussion by the Supreme Expert Environmental Council (a body of government and NGO experts – editor's note), and the making of a final decision on the Environmental Impact Assessment by the Minister of Environment and Waters," the Bulgarian Ministry has explained.

According to the Bulgarian legislation, the Minister of Environment is supposed to issue a final decision on the fate of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline with 45 days of the completion of the last public hearing meeting.

Earlier this week, on Monday, Bulgaria's Environment Ministry postponed by one addition week its final decision on the fate of the troubled Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline project.

On Monday, October 31, the Ministry was supposed to make public its pronouncement on whether the environmental impact assessment met the eco requirements of the Bulgarian legislation.

However, it made it clear that its experts need one more week to complete their evaluation of the document submitted to them by Trans-Balkan Pipeline, the Bulgarian-Greek-Russian company in charge of the pipe, reported Novinite.bg.

Trans-Balkan Pipeline BV, a Bulgarian-Greek-Russian government consortium, submitted the revised and supplemented ESIA (environmental and social impact assessement) report to the Ministry of Environment and Water of Bulgaria on September 30, 2011, within the term set by the Ministry

The EIA of the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline project company had been rejected and returned for correction three times by the Bulgarian Environment Ministry over the recent months, casting ever greater doubts on the fate of the controversial oil pipeline initiative.

The newly submitted report by TBP is said to be of enormous volume, which, according the government sources, is taken to mean that the EIA has been thoroughly reworked.

If the Environment Ministry in Sofia approves the report, its word still will not be final since the report will then be referred for a public discussion, and will then be taken to the Supreme Expert Environmental Council, a body of government and NGO experts.

However, the project would be dead, if the Bulgarian Environment Ministry rules that the report is inadequate.

Last month, Russian oil pipeline monopoly Transneft said it will freeze the construction of the troubled Burgas-Alexandroupolis project, which has been largely obstructed by Bulgaria's government in the past 2 years.

Transneft will not abandon the Burgas–Alexandroupolis oil pipeline project - despite its partner Bulgaria's failure to provide financing - but will freeze the construction this fall, Transneft Vice President Mikhail Barkov declared.

The construction of the Trans-Balkan oil pipeline, designed to link the Black Sea port of Burgas to Alexandroupolis on the Aegean Sea, has long been hampered by the position of Bulgaria, which has threatened to abandon the project over environmental risks. Most of the pipeline was planned to run through Bulgarian territory.

Transneft has repeatedly complained that Bulgaria was failing to finance its part of the project. Media has said the project was likely to be suspended while Transneft only said it would minimize its spending on the pipeline.

The Russian "freeze" of the oil pipeline project came after in late August 2011 the Bulgarian government granted Trans-Balkan Pipeline an extension on the environmental assessment of Burgas-Alexandroupolis.

Bulgaria's Environment Ministry had given TBP until September 30, 2011, to submit anew its environment assessment impact study on the troubled oil pipeline project.

TBP had requested the extension in mid July, a government spokesperson said Monday.

The new delay on the final decision of the BA pipeline's fate came after in June 2011 Bulgarian Environment Minister Nona Karadzhova had declared that she gave Trans-Balkan Pipeline a final chance – a two-month extension – in order to fix the environmental impact flaws in its project.

Shortly after that the Bulgarian government approved a contribution to the Bulgarian state company for the construction of the vastly troubled pipeline, which was at the bare minimum for keeping alive operation of the company, which holds on behalf of Bulgaria a share of 24.5% in the Trans-Balkan Pipeline company, a joint venture of Bulgaria, Greece, and Russia.

In June 2011, the Bulgarian government delayed further the controversial project for the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline, returning its environmental assessment report for the second time to the Trans-Balkan Pipeline company, prompting Transneft President Nikolai Tokarev to describe the actions of the Bulgarian government as an insult.

Transneft does not rule out finding a route bypassing Bulgaria to deliver Russian oil through Greece to the Mediterranean, Tokarev said.

The 300-km pipeline, planned to link the Black Sea port of Burgas to Alexandroupolis on the Aegean Sea, is designed to transport 35 million tons of oil a year, with a possible expansion to 50 million tons, to ease the tanker traffic burden in the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles straits.

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=133637

България се отказва от участие в проекта за нефтопровод "Бургас - Александруполис" (http://www.dnevnik.bg/pazari/2011/12/07/1345780_bulgariia_se_otkazva_ot_uchastie_v_proekta_za/)

Правителството реши да прекрати участието на България в проекта за нефтопровод "Бургас-Александруполис", защото то е финансово неизгодно.

Решението беше обявено след края на редовното заседание на Министерския съвет от министъра на икономиката, енергетиката и туризма Трайчо Трайков и министъра на финансите Симеон Дянков.

"Съгласно анализите петролопроводът не може да бъде реализиран по параметрите от договора, подписан през 2007 г.", каза финансовият министър.

България предлага тристранното междуправителствено споразумение с Русия и Гърция да бъде прекратено по взаимно съгласие. Ако не се постигне такава договорка, българската страна се оттегля самостоятелно след изтичане на 12-месечен срок.

България ще изпълни финансовите си ангажименти към партньорите си, каза Дянков. Министерският съвет е приел днес постановление, с което ще увеличи капитала на българския акционер в проектната компания с 12.8 млн. лв., колкото е размерът на българския дълг.

Дянков увери, че няма опасност България да понесе финансови санкции заради оттеглянето си, тъй като страната е работила над една година в проектната компания. "Правната основа е на наша страна и с изчистване на задължението си ние няма да дължим пари", поясни той.

Отказът от осъществяването на проекта става месец след като Министерството на околната среда одобри екодоклада на инвеститора - "Транс Болкан пайплайн". Русия притежава 51% от в дружеството, а България и Гърция си поделят по 24.5%. Проектната компания беше основана през 2007 г. като разчетите сочеха, че след изграждането на тръбата през нея ще преминават по 35 млн. тона петрол годишно като очакваната печалба за България се изчисляваше на 35 млн. долара годишно. Идеята беше с новото съоръжение да се намали трафикът на танкери през Босфора и Дарданелите, но в същото време нараснаха опасенията на българските черноморски общини за влошаване на екологичната среда в курортите, Поморие отхвърли проекта на референдум.

За полагането на тръбата между българското черноморско пристанище и гръцкия порт се говори още от средата деветдесетте години на миналия век.

Димитър Николов: Отдъхнахме си, днес отново е празник за Бургас
07 декември 2011 / 13:38 | Институции | Община Бургас

Бургас Кметът на Бургас Димитър Николов приветства решението на правителството да прекрати ,части ев петропровода "Бургас-Александруполис"." Двоен празник за бургазлии е днешното решение на правителството за оттеглянето на България от проекта Бургас – Александруполис часове след Никулден! Отдъхвам си и ликувам заедно с всички бургазлии, които ясно и категорично бяха против изграждането на тръбопровода. Благодаря на премиера Бойко Борисов и на правителството, че поставиха интересите на страната и Бургаски регион над всичко. Осъзнавам, че решението им не беше никак леко, заради огромните икономически интереси към проекта. Няколко години живяхме в напрежение, заради неизвестността и рисковете, които бяха залегнали в проекта. Разминахме се с една огромна опасност за екологията, съчетана с недоказана икономическа полза от него. Аз самият бях силно притеснен, защото от проектната компания бяха привлекли елитни специалисти, които да синхронизират цялата документация с нашето законодателство, заради което щяхме да влезем в една нескончаема спирала от юридически хватки.Щастлив съм, че окончателно се сложи край на този проект и сега ще можем да се захванем с истинските перспективи на Бургас. Честит празник, бургазлии! ", пише в позицията на Димитър Николов.

^^ Добре дошъл във форума mmaksim :hi: , може ли да те помоля, за да няма проблеми с авторското право, да посочваш източника на новините? Благодаря ти предварително. :)

Те с половин уста нещо тоя отказ го направиха и със сигурност в бъдеще някои други плъхове като руснака кобурга и феса ще се опитат да осъществят тази гадост но бургазлии няма никога да им позволят това, нека опитат само тогава получават гражданска война в най брутален вид Бургас няма да се даде !!!

е то даже тва се оказва е по-малкото зло, защото близо до резово ще се строи АЕЦ от турска страна, избрана е и компания от Япония, те щото много имат успехи както се видя в тая област на индустрията, визирайки фукошима. доста тъпо при положение, че с зъби и нокти тука се чудехме 100 години как ще станат или не нещата с петролопровода. новината е в burgasnews от главните за деня, но не ми се търси линк, така че хвърлете едно око и дано има поне забавяне в тоя план, не виждам как може да се повлияе и да има отказ

е то даже тва се оказва е по-малкото зло, защото близо до резово ще се строи АЕЦ от турска страна, избрана е и компания от Япония, те щото много имат успехи както се видя в тая област на индустрията, визирайки фукошима. доста тъпо при положение, че с зъби и нокти тука се чудехме 100 години как ще станат или не нещата с петролопровода. новината е в burgasnews от главните за деня, но не ми се търси линк, така че хвърлете едно око и дано има поне забавяне в тоя план, не виждам как може да се повлияе и да има отказ

От статията, която цитираш:
Турското правителство планира в сътрудничество с Япония да изгради АЕЦ, която ще се намира в непосредствена близост до турско-българската граница, съобщи македонския "Капитал". Предвижда се новата АЕЦ да бъде построена в близост до 40-хилядния град Синоп, на брега на Черно море.
:lol:

Синоп наистина е на брега на Черно Море, но се намира на 636 км по права линия от Бургас.

е то в българия има само бургас разбира се, която и друга част кучета я яли, а пък от атомните електроцентрали при авария, не 600 км се засягат ами цялото северно полукълбо, но щом е забавно

А какви точно цунами очаквате в Черно море не разбрах? Анадола е земетръсен район, да. Тук съм съгласен, но и в Козлодуй/Белене не е съвсем безопасно в това отношение.

Аз лично не успях да разбера какво общо има една АЕЦ с нефтопровода? Избираме между нефтопровод и АЕЦ в Турция ли? С какво трябва да ни притеснява една съвременна АЕЦ построена в Турция след като си имаме далеч по-опасна в България? Плаши те нещо, че са замесени японци ли? Това само трябва да те радва. Кой би се справил по-добре?
Японци и пред блока да ми построят АЕЦ ще съм спокоен.

няма връзка с петролопровода. отделно споделям. не ме притеснява цунами, нито земетресение, казвам че определен риск винаги съществува. в турция ще строят 3 аец-а, единия от руснаци, така че всякакви ги има.

няма ли да ти е спекла гледката с аец пред блока :D

Колеги няма какво да се притесняваме за АЕЦ в близост до България, турците едва ли ще построят атомна централа на двестатина километра от Истамбул.

^^ Добре дошъл във форума mmaksim :hi: , може ли да те помоля, за да няма проблеми с авторското право, да посочваш източника на новините? Благодаря ти предварително. :) община Бургас

община Бургас

Мерси. :) Когато е в самата статия, трудно се забелязва, затова най-удобно е да се копира линка и да се сложи отдолу- отнема много малко време.