The Economist's Digest29

Europe
He who pays for the pipelines calls the tune
Originally from The Economist July.18th, 2009

Summary:
In the past, the gas pipelines have been through Russia to Europe. It is dangerous since there’s overlap of political interest and economic profits. However, there may be other alternations in the future--- new pipelines going through Turkey, the Nabucco line.
The gas source of Nabucco line is not definite; Iraq promised to supply half; Turkmenistan may offer, since there’s pressure form EU and America.
Other pipelines (not through Russia) are developing too. However, Russia also signed a contract with Nigeria and planned new pipelines. Yet the company which planned to build these lines, the biggest gas company in Russia, is corruptive and in bad financial position. Furthermore, its new pipelines may violate EU anti-monopoly rules.
Actually, there are two energy companies, one of Germany, another of France, that were fined due to their violation of this rule. The EU commission emphasizes on energy-market liberalization, and it’s a better way to energy security than the pipelines.

My opinion:
The position of oil pipelines is important, since these pipelines will be strategic points in wars. Moreover, these pipelines s also represent economic and political interests. These pipelines are important---also dangerous in many ways.
However, when it comes to anti-monopoly of energy, these pipelines may not have useful ways since one oil company can have many lines.
Thus, reading this article, what I’m interested in is not only energy liberalization but also the energy-related influence of these pipelines. Will oil prices be influenced by this? How about the political relations influenced by this?
Energy-market liberalization is hard to succeed. When it comes true, there may be other better energy resources.