Correspondence between ECGD and BP, BTC or contractors
Request to ECGD for information regarding BTC oil pipeline

The Corner House submitted a request to ECGD on 8 August 2005 under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 asking (among other things) for:

• Correspondence with BP and/or BTC Co relating to the testing, selection and use of SPC 2888 as the field joint coating on the Georgia and Azerbaijan sections of the BTC oil pipeline;
• Correspondence with AMEC or other contractors on the BTC oil pipeline relating to the use of SPC 2888 as the field joint coating on the Georgia and Azerbaijan sections of the BTC oil pipeline; and
• A list of all meetings held on the testing, selection and use of SPC 2888 as the field joint coating on the Georgia and Azerbaijan sections of the BTC oil pipeline.

ECGD's response of 13 December 2005 states that:

"ECGD does not have any record of any direct correspondence between ECGD and BP, BTC or AMEC regarding the use of SPC2888. Additionally, there were no meetings held on the subject of SPEC 2888 and therefore no minutes on the subject".

But ECGD did release some of its correspondence on the coating with WorleyParsons, the engineering consultants appointed by the group of financial lenders to assess the BTC pipeline before it committed funding (referred to as Annex B in its response).

Although WorleyParsons state that pipeline failures are almost always the result of third party damage, corrosion experts have pointed out that corrosion accounts for approximately half of such failures. If the gas pipe ruptures, it would ignite and destroy the oil pipeline. While the WorleyParsons assumes that such a failure and rupture in the case of BTC would be "extremely unlikely", experts suggest a rupture could lead to one of the greatest catastrophes the oil industry has ever seen.