Case story

  • Georgia

Parties

CAO Case - Georgia / BTC Pipeline-09 / TetriTskaro

Green Alternative Complaint Regarding BTC Pipeline, Tetri Tskaro, Georgia 2004

This case story originates from BASESwiki.org, a platform based on wiki style contributions from a virtual network or individuals, companies and organizations with relevant expertise. Though some of the information may be outdated or inaccurate due to the wiki-nature of the BASESwiki platform, they still present a valuable resource. ACCESS is reviewing and updating all BASESwiki case stories. 

Story

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and gas pipeline is a 1,768 km long crude oil pipeline stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. It is the second longest oil pipeline in the world and passes through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. IFC has invested $250 million since 2003 and the total project cost is approximately $3.6 billion. The project is operated by BTC Co., which comprises a consortium of 11 partners. To date, CAO has received 33 complaints in relation to the project ranging from individuals to communities to local organizations. In May 2004, the CAO received seven complaints related to the BTC pipeline project in Georgia, filed by a Georgian NGO named Green Alternative on behalf of affected residents. Among the complaints was a claim from an individual in TetriTskaro, who alleged that his telephone line and a wall surrounding his property were damaged by BTC construction trucks. He also alleged that the movement of these trucks near his house caused damage to his water pipes.

CAO Action

CAO accepted the complaint for further assessment on June 8, 2004, and released an assessment report in September 2004. CAO found that a lack of evidence or witnesses to the individual’s claims made his allegations extremely difficult to substantiate.

Outcome

Case Status: Closed

CAO determined that the lack of evidence and witnesses made negotiated resolution of the claim impossible, and accordingly closed the complaint on February 8, 2005.

References

CAO case story page: http://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/case_detail.aspx?id=52

Contributor(s): This article was modified by Nicolaclayre (3), Pic1 (1), and Kyle (1).