Electrical Storm, or, How Some English-Language Media Saw Bulgaria’s Big Energy Projects in 2011

This article presents the points of view of some English-language electronic media on three big energy projects that are of key importance for Bulgaria’s economic and geopolitical development: the South Stream gas pipeline, the Belene Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), and the potential extraction of shale gas. The standpoints of the foreign media were monitored via the Europe Media Monitor NewsBrief and Google News. Those two online platforms were used as a main source of information because of their wide scope and coverage of news sites. (The article is based on a monitoring study of seventeen news and information websites, with a focus on those of radio The Voice of Russia, The Jamestown Foundation, RIA NOVOSTI, CNN, Reuters, BusinessWeek, ITAR-TASS, and SETimes.com).

In 2011, the important events in the context of the monitored subjects were the following: the repeated postponement of the Belene NPP project, the Bulgarian government’s declaration that South Stream is a project of national importance, and the strong public reaction against shale gas exploration in Northeastern Bulgaria.

South Stream

The leading trend in the English-language media on the subject of South Stream was the discussion of the questionable economic feasibility of the project, especially as compared to the Nabucco pipeline. During most of the year, South Stream was discussed in the media as a Russian project with political implications. Much emphasis was put on its high cost: more than €20 billion, or about twice as much as Nabucco. That is precisely why the South Stream project was presented as unrealistic. When, however, on 1 December 2011 the Bulgarian government declared South Stream to be an energy project of ‘national importance’ for the country, many of the monitored websites reported the news and the possibility that South Stream would be constructed became increasingly discussed.

As a whole, the English-language media presented the role of Bulgaria in the project as a transit country. Almost all news items discussed the country’s position in the context of the ruling GERB party’s revisionist policy towards the Russian energy projects. Given that nine countries are involved in the project, Bulgaria’s voice was rarely heard in the English-language media.

The Belene NPP

After almost fifteen years in mothballs, the Belene NPP got a second chance for construction in 2006, when the National Electric Company (NEK) approved the offer of the Russian company Atomstroyexport, the French Framatome and the German Siemens. The long energy saga was given a new impetus after GERB came to power in 2009. This moment marks an extremely interesting chapter in Bulgarian-Russian relations on the issue of the Belene NPP.

In 2011, the Belene NPP appeared several times in the English-language news. Many of the monitored articles were general in nature. Coverage of the relations between the Bulgarian government and the National Electric Company, on one side, and the Russian government and Atomstroyexport, on the other, tended to be neutral. No particular attitude was expressed towards any of the parties involved.

The most frequently mentioned figures were, predictably, Economy, Energy and Tourism Minister Traicho Traikov and Prime Minister Borisov on the Bulgarian side, and mostly Vladimir Putin on the Russian side. Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko was much less frequently mentioned than his Bulgarian counterpart. Shmatko’s name appeared most frequently in the period between January and April 2011, after which he stopped being an object of media attention. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that coverage of the Russian side included many more figures even though the focus was on Vladimir Putin. It is also noteworthy that almost all articles referring to Vladimir Putin referred to his role in reviving the project and his work with Bulgaria’s former prime minister Sergei Stanishev.

Almost half of the monitored articles pointed out the project’s uncertain financing as an obstacle to its development. The main impression from the articles about the Belene NPP in the English-language media is that of an absence of stability, consistence and coordinated actions. One example in this respect is to be found in the coverage of the sporadic exchange of ultimatums between Russia and Bulgaria (a €58-million claim filed by Atomstroyexport against NEK, and a €61-million counter-claim filed by NEK against Atomstroyexport) and the overall impression of inequality in the dialogue between the two sides.

Shale Gas Exploration and Extraction

The Jamestown Foundation noted the connection between Bulgaria’s withdrawal from the Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline project and the inclusion in the project of US company Chevron, which bought the Bulgarian share at a negligible price. Chevron’s interference in Bulgaria’s energy policy attracted significant media interest. Whereas in 2011 all news items about Bulgaria, Russia, and energy pointed out Bulgaria’s dependence and Russia’s expansionist policy, Chevron’s participation in energy projects in Bulgaria was interpreted, paradoxically, as a breath of fresh (or free) air away from Moscow’s strong, energy-rich grip. The environmental issues related to the possible extraction of shale gas as well as to the safety of the Belene NPP were presented in the English-language media as a domestic political problem of Bulgaria.

The issue of shale gas exploration and extraction in Bulgaria was linked with two key words: ‘protest’ and ‘Russia’. According to the English-language media, the most important motive for public activity was the environment, the desire to protect the land against chemical pollution. The protest motives were most often backed by anti-government political opinions. The central thesis presented by the English-language media in this context was that the Bulgarian government had concluded a deal with US company Chevron at any price in order to achieve a form of diversification.

However, the main focus of the English-language media was elsewhere. The key words used by Reuters, CNN and BusinessWeek on the subject of shale gas in Bulgaria were ‘m3’ and ‘Russia’. The main thesis was that Bulgaria’s total dependence on Russian natural gas deliveries was forcing the government in Sofia to take unpopular measures in an effort to ensure diversity of energy sources on the market, to diversify energy supply by any means, even, as CNN noted, by ignoring the voice of its own electorate. The English-language media emphasized the uses of shale gas as a symbol of Bulgaria’s independence; they cited estimates that shale gas deposits in Northern Bulgaria were sufficient ‘for 100 years’, without identifying the sources of this claim. Chevron’s role was presented as a counterpoint to Russia’s ‘vested’ interests that were only blocking Bulgaria’s energy policy.

Conclusion

To summarize: the main highlights in English-language media coverage of Bulgaria’s energy policy in 2011 concerned the country’s dependence on Russian energy resources, the Bulgarian government’s efforts to pursue a policy of diversification of energy sources, the strong public support for energy independence from Russia, and the public interest in the economic and environmental aspects of the issue. The analysis shows that Bulgaria’s energy interests attracted media attention mostly in the context of Russia’s plans for expansion in the European Union. As a whole, the English-language electronic media outlined a dynamic and uncertain picture of the future of Bulgaria’s energy projects.

Another important aspect of English-language media coverage of the issues under review was the effort to present a most general picture – above all by using a broad chronological framework and by presenting different points of view (including conflicting opinions of Bulgarian and Russian experts, spokespersons, and politicians). Compared to the Bulgarian media’s dominant strategies of covering the issues in question, the foreign media were arguably more analytical, impartial and concerned in their approach to ‘the bigger picture’. For their part, the Bulgarian media focused more on emotional opinions, details and individuals. At the same time, those Bulgarian media who sought to take a more serious approach in their coverage of the subject very often ‘borrowed’ content and authority from foreign sources, and above all from leading western media. The information approaches of foreign media thus came into use in the Bulgarian media sphere, too.