![Sample our Engineering & Technology journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5933/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Engineering-Tech.jpg"})
Abstract
Since the early 2000s the United States and the European Union have increasingly sought to develop hydrocarbon resources beneath the Caspian Sea in order to reduce their heavy dependency on supplies from the Middle East. The goal is to reduce the West's energy vulnerability and enhance its energy security. This essay seeks to examine the Caspian Sea states' oil and natural gas potential. Energy security is defined as sustainable and reliable supplies at reasonable prices. The argument is two‐fold. First, the Caspian Sea suffers from several drawbacks, particularly the lack of consensus on a legal status of the sea and the construction of pipelines. Second, these drawbacks aside, energy security should not be addressed as one supplier replacing another. The Caspian Sea states' production potential is limited in comparison with that of the Middle East. Thus, the Caspian Sea should be seen as a supplement, not a replacement, to the Middle East. Still, production from Central Asia would contribute to the diversity of oil and natural gas supplies and enhance global energy security.
Notes
1. R. Forsythe, The Politics of Oil in the Caucasus and Central Asia, Adelphi Paper #300 London: Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 9.
2. British Petroleum, BP Statistical Review of World Energy, London, June 2005, pp. 4 & 20.
3. Chantale LaCasse and Andre Plourde, “On the Renewal of Concern for the Security of Oil Supply,” Energy Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, April 1995, pp. 1–23, p. 1.
4. Cited in Robert Skinner and Robert Arnott, EUROGULF: An EU‐GCC Dialogue for Energy Stability and Sustainability, on line at http://Europa.eu.int/comm/energy/index_en.html, June 4, 2005.
5. Barry Barton, Catherine Redgwell, Anita Ronne, and Donald N. Zillman, Energy Security: Managing Risk in a Dynamic Legal and Regulatory Environment, London: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 5.
6. Adrian Lajous, “Production Management, Security of Demand and Market Stability,” Middle East Economic Survey, Vol. 47, No. 39, September 27, 2004, on line at www.mees.com
7. According to this theory, the Caspian should be divided based on the median line, which runs across the seabed at the same distance from both opposite shores.
8. The Moscow Times, “LUKoil, Gazprom May Spend $12 Billion to Tap Caspian Field,” July 8, 2003, on line at www.themoscowtimes.com
9. In the 19th century the rivalry between the British and Russian empires over roads and trade to Asia was called the “Great Game.”
10. Ilan Berman, “The New Battleground: Central Asia and the Caucasus,” Washington Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 1, Winter 2004–05, pp. 59–69, p. 62.
11. S. Neil Macfarlane, “The United States and Regionalism in Central Asia,” International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 3, May 2004, pp. 447–461, p. 452.
12. Boris Rumer, “The Powers in Central Asia,” Survival, Vol. 44, No. 3, Fall 2002, pp. 57–68, p. 62.
13. Edmund Herzig, “Regionalism, Iran and Central Asia,” International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. 3, May 2004, pp. 503–517, p. 507.
14. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 2004, p. 3.
15. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 2003, p. 235.