I can’t help considering it just the latest of Uncle Nazzy’s hare-brained schemes to keep all major powers interested in himself, but what is he thinking with the Caspian-Black Canal? Not only is it horrendously expensive, most likely environmentally ruinous, and probably redundant, the dream of non-Russian delivery methods (for petroleum products, natch) rings especially hollow coming right after the decision to axe the TransCaspian pipeline in favor or relying on the Russian pipe network.
A canal would make sense if there was the potential for high volume long term sea trade between Kazakhstan and the Black Sea. There’s not. Much as they enjoy the attention lavished upon their oil and gas stocks now, all the Caspian states must contend with realizing they don’t have enough gas to outlast Russia and they don’t have enough oil to outlast Kuwait. Even energy-rich Kazakhstan is seriously exploring renewable power, a move that, if serious, would further undercut the need for a flashy canal.
Related to this (perhaps) is yet another look at Uncle Nazzy’s proposed Central Asian Union. You can’t blame the man for thinking small. But in a way, this CAU, along with the canal, the Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, and that ridiculous 500-ft. tall climate-controlled yurt, you might blame him for thinking too big. I see far too many shades of Napolean in Nazarbayev’s relentless monument mongering, and wonder what the ultimate cost will be. After all, tourists only put up with so much, and if you can’t back your enormously useless monuments with a few good atrocities (or, in the case of Ashgabat, decades of personality cult), no one is going to want to see such an obvious tourist trap—not least because Dubai has already pretty much covered the gaudy new-money tourist snares.
So, what’s the point then? Is he only seeking attention?
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1771 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust
{ 3 comments }
For all the talk about Trans-Caspian pipelines, I’ve always wondered why they can’t just ship the oil across from Kazakh / Turkmen ports to Baku. I know the Caspian Sea is reachable by ocean-going ships via Russian canals, so why can’t they just ferry the oil across in big tankers?
They may have to build deepwater or offshort oil ports and various other infrastructure, and I know that it would require a lot more energy & money to send a gallon of oil across by ship than by pipeline. But it would be quicker and cheaper to set up, and would provide each of the producing countries with much more diplomatic flexibility.
Anyone know if this solution has been seriously entertained?
Dear Joshua, I missed this new development-thanks for sharing. As for the Trans-Caspian line, I believe I know the answer to that one.
1. Environmental spill hazards with offload and onload in a basically closed watershed.
2. Weather considerations.
3. Tankers are big and unwieldy and it would require extensive terminal construction.
4. Tankers are big and unwieldy and it would cut other kinds of water traffic.
5. Tankers are big and unwieldy and to get into the Caspian, they would have to travel some relatively narrow rivers–and–the same goes for repairs and refits on tanker equipment.
As tough as the TCP would be, tankers would just be a daily operational hazard in a way that a (well-constructed) pipeline would not.
Bonnie
Thanks for the comments. I agree it would not be as elegant of a solution as a pipeline, however I would argue that it certainly would be better than nothing. I’m not saying that it is the answer, I’m just saying that I’m surprised that I haven’t really heard any discussion of it.
1. I don’t think the environment is really the top of any Central Asian government’s list of priorities.
2. There are some awful storms:
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2349959.stm but a sudden movement of the railcars holding the oil probably doomed this ship (i’ve been on its sister ship the Dagestan))…
Anyway, tankers operate in heavy seas all over the world.
3. It would surely require less capital investment than a pipeline
4. I don’t think it would turn the Caspian into a Los Angeles highway:
Tengiz will produce about 450,000 bpd of crude. Say 1/3 of this goes to Baku. That’s about 21,000 tons of oil per day.
Looking on Wikipedia, a smallish oil tanker can hold about 60,000 to 80,000 tons. So it takes 2-3 days to fill one up. Then it takes 2 days to cross the sea…. so, maybe 7-8 ships to get a constant flow of oil?
5. Yes, this one might be a killer. I don’t know what type of ship you can get into the Caspian. And would the Russians try to block any ship from entering? Furthermore, I don’t know what the draft requirements would have to be. If it’s really shallow close to shore then I suppose they’d have to build an offshore oil port.