The former minister of fuel and energy of Russia, the former special presidential envoy on the settlement of the Caspian Sea's status, Viktor Kalyuzhny, told VK about his vision of the Caspian's projects.
- The main problems that concern interests in Azerbaijan and Russia are connected with the Transcaspian gas pipeline. This is a very acute issue at the moment. European officials are visiting the region in connection with it. You said that non-regional players are unacceptable in the Caspian region. Could you comment on that?
- As for the Transcaspian gas pipeline, we are against it. First of all, legal problems should be solved. As for legal decisions, they were mutual. We are against it because of seismic activity, moreover, earth depths are concerned. If we take the Russian territory, ground is giving way near coal mines. So we affect nature and natural processes that we cannot control. That is why I’m against this venture. I explain my point of view by the absence of a common legal decision and seismic activity.
- But pipelines are being constructed for transferring oil and gas anyway.
- Yes, I agree. But it's one thing to construct pipelines of small caliber with a low pulse, i.e. safe pipelines. The situation with gas pipelines is more complicated. High pulses are involved. Gazprom is working at the level of 75 atm. Yes, technical progress is developing. A lot of protection measures can be constructed for these things. However, I’m a careful person, and my principle is even a stick shoots once a year. The Caspian Sea can suffer from one shot. And here the question appears whether the risk is reasonable. I spoke about the Kazakh sector of the Caspian Sea and said that oil spills could be eliminated, but H2S couldn’t be eliminated. It will kill everything, because the process cannot be controlled.
- For a long time you have been a representative of Russia in talks on the Caspian. What is the main obstacle on the path of the talks’ progress?
- On the one hand, it is good that Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan signed a treaty and began to work, it is a right decision, as we can argue forever, but life goes on. On the other hand, every coin has two sides. Russia lost its interests as the initiative side, at least at the time when I had been working. The level of dealing parties decreased. I dealt with it at the level of the deputy minister for foreign affairs of Russia. Today it is made at the level of the ambassador-at-large. I think this level is about protocol preparation of necessary materials by top officials. The protocol part is limited today, you can't jump over your own head. I managed to talk to presidents of other countries, considering my level. It was difficult to communicate with Iran, but at least the deputy foreign minister of Iran was available. As for others, I communicated with all presidents. The ambassador-at-large cannot do it, despite respect to his position.
- Therefore, the main difficulty is communication.
- The first step toward settling the problem is to raise it to the level of prime ministers.
- The problem of militarization of the Caspian Sea wasn’t touched on at the conference.
- I think militarization might be expected, considering the things we have heard today on strategic prospects of the southern part, i.e. exploration of a large gas deposit. It is situated in an arguable area. Today considering the strategic prospects on exploration a large gas deposit, everything is possible. Iran is in a difficult situation, and it is difficult to predict what will happen. I think it is a signal for reviving more intensive and serious work on finding a compromise in the status definition of the Caspian Sea. At least it could be discussed.
- Please, a couple of words on the Azerbaijani-Russian relation in the context of the Caspian status and the role of Azerbaijan in the Caspian region.
- Azerbaijan has always had the leading role in the Caspian. It was a pattern for everyone in the Soviet Union. Azerbaijan is a pioneer of shelf technologies and sea development of deposits. Heydar Aliyev contributed a lot to reaching the common decision by three states. I remember him as a man who understand the core of the problem in less than no time, even if it was disputable or opposite to interests of his environment. He made reasonable decisions based on the principle a bad peace is better than a good war. I’m grateful to him, as his contribution is great to the trilateral treaty, despite the fact that the Azerbaijani opposition considered it negatively. I always say “thank you very much” to Azerbaijan.
Interview by Yeugeny Krishtalev. Exclusively to VK
