Should Bulgaria be or not the energy center on the Balkans? This is the main question Bulgaria's new cabinet has to answer. Russia's PM Vladimir Putin already placed this question before his Bulgarian counterpart PM Boyko Borissov. Eight million Bulgarians wants to know the answer.
The dispute on the pros and cons of the big energy projects in which Bulgaria is engaged can be endless. Each lobby can present its arguments. However, what are the undisputed facts? Bulgaria is situated on a crossroad. Its geographical position has always been pointed out as an advantage before the neighbouring countries. If Greece is proud of its sea outlets and Romania with its natural resources, Bulgaria has to make use of its strategic location between the East and the West. And if in the past commercial convoys passed through Bulgaria now it has the chance to let the pipelines, carrying Russian gas to Europe to cross this country.
Until recently Bulgaria has been defined as the energy center on the Balkans, because it supplied electricity at bargain prices to Greece, Romania, Macedonia, Albania and Serbia till the decommissioning of the small units in "Kozloduy" NPP at the end of 2006. If Bulgaria had to be deprived from considerable profits at the expense of its engagements to the EU, now this country has the chance to profit from its geostrategic situation again.
Bulgaria has been invited to take part in two major gas pipeline project alternatives: South Stream - supported by the Kremlin, and Nabucco - supported by the EU. Bulgaria's politicians have always said that participating in one of them by no means excludes participating in the other. They say just the opposite: that Bulgaria should try to gain as much as it can from both projects. The Bourgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline, on the other hand, is rather disputable. Despite that it has been a hot topic since the 90s, there is still very little confirming the pros and cons for Bulgaria in it. Some preliminary calculations show that if Bulgaria decides to make the maximum possible investment of $US 490 million, it would return it investment out of transiting fares in 17 years. Moreover, the environmental impact is also not very clear yet. Some municipalities of the Bulgarian Black Sea coast stood fervently against the pipeline transiting their territories on grounds that it would chase away tourists.
There are also many question marks regarding Belene Nuclear Power Plant construction. First, would this project be any profitable at all? Initially, its announced cost was 3.5 billion euros. After picking RWE for the strategic investor, the amount swelled to 4 billion. According to some experts, Belene would not eat less than 10 billion euro, half of which would have to come out from the National Electric Company (NEC) unless there is a decision to build Belene through private funding. Second, the initially estimated 3.5 euros per 1 kWph has now reached 17 eurocents. Third, there are many doubts that the government has picked the best technology. The expert opinions about the BBEP 1000 A 92 reactors tend to be polar. Some say that these reactors are based on obsolete technology, despite that there are four reactors of this type being placed in other EU countries, including France and Finland. It is quite a different matter that these particular reactors can function only with Russian uranium. The alternative reactors that were proposed, on the other hand, could work with uranium from various suppliers.
The most important point is that Borissov's cabinet should work out a clear energy strategy, which is to be realized in the next 30-40 years; this means that Bulgaria needs a clear political stand that is to be firmly defended. The life of eight million Bulgarians for decades to come depends on this decision.
Borissov promised to think over the issue till November. Well, there is not much to think about: with Bulgaria's potential in the sphere the country hardly has any choice, it needs its own capacities allowing it to sell energy to its neighbors, to supply Europe with gas and collect transit fees for the service. It's expensive, but it's profitable, too.
Considering the already invested funds and efforts in these energy projects, it would be suicidal for the country to give them up. It would be best if the cabinet decides how to accumulate profits for the country. Yes, the truth is that Bulgaria will be highly dependable on Russia, but isn't this the case now? The construction of a nuke and a pipeline won't change the situation.
In case the country decides to realize the projects, it will ensure its energy supplies as well as funds from the transit, i.e low bills for the Bulgarian population and high energy export rates. This is not a bad option. Of course, it's not cheap, but will turn us into a serious player on the European map and will provide fresh funds for the country's economy for a long period of time.
And what if Bulgaria decides to freeze the projects. "It's not a problem," says Vladimir Putin. That's right. Bulgaria will have to pay penalty for breaking the Belene contract. If Bulgaria disagrees to give a corridor for the South Stream pipeline, it will be constructed in Turkey, even more that Turkey has already signed agreements with Russia and it won't be hard for Russia to choose a roundabout route. The same can be said about the Bourgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline.
What follows? First of all, Bulgaria should forget about cheap nuclear energy supply, the country should forget about cheap Russian gas supply, too. Considering Bulgaria's dependance on foreign resources, this means expensive economy and low effectiveness, as well as high bills for the population.
Nevena Mircheva
Christian Kosturkov

http://paper.standartnews.com/en/article.php?d=2009-09-03&article=28602