Georgia: BTC Pipeline-08/Sagrasheni

Date Filed
21 May 2004
Status
Closed
Phase
Dispute Resolution (DR)
Country
Georgia

Case Tracker

Eligibility
Eligibility
Assessment
Assessment
Dispute Resolution
Mediation
Closed
Compliance
CURRENT Status
Mediation (DISPUTE RESOLUTION)
Closed

Complaint Overview

Complainant

Green Alternative

Cross-Cutting Issues
Resource Efficiency Community Health and Safety Land Resettlement Air Land

Project Information

Region
Europe & Central Asia
Institution
IFC
Name & Number
Baku Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline 11251
Company
Baku Tiblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
Sector
Mining, Oil, Gas and Chemicals
Department
Other
Category
A
Commitment

$125 million (A loan) $125 million (B loan)

Synopsis

Complaint

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 residents of Sagrasheni, who alleged that the movement of heavy trucks during pipeline construction caused damage to their residential buildings. The complainants also alleged that these trucks were not authorized to travel through their villages and that the trucks drove at excessive speeds in violation of local limits.

CAO Action

CAO accepted the complaint for further assessment on June 8, 2004, and released an assessment report in September 2004. As a result of a number of other villages along the pipeline route filing similar complaints related to construction vibration, CAO included the Sagrasheni case in a collective assessment of vibration-related complaints. In response to the collection of vibration-related complaints, CAO recommended an independent study to assess whether vibration from blasting and construction traffic may have caused damage to the claimants’ buildings. In August 2005, BTC Co. commissioned an independent study. The study concluded that although there were shortcomings in the adequacy of the traffic vibration monitoring when compared with international standards, construction traffic was unlikely to have caused the cracking to residents’ buildings.

Status

After reviewing the study’s results and comparing them to other similar studies around the world, CAO concurred with the findings of the independent study, and determined no further progress could be made to resolve the claim. CAO closed the complaint on June 16, 2006.

Case Documents

  • Dispute Resolution

    Assessment Report(s)
    Assessment Report
    May 21, 2004
    English
    Assessment Report
    Assessment Report
    May 21, 2004
    Georgian
    Assessment Report