Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will anti-terror war revive ill-fated Afghan pipeline?
Reuters ^ | 11/13/01 | Carol Giacomo and C. Bryson Hull

Posted on 11/13/2001 7:54:31 AM PST by Ada Coddington

Tuesday November 13, 10:18 am Eastern Time
Will anti-terror war revive ill-fated Afghan pipeline?
By Carol Giacomo and C. Bryson Hull

WASHINGTON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Afghanistan has been at war so long that the prospect of major investment in the rugged and conflicted land seems like a foolhardy fantasy.

American oil giant Unocal Corp. (NYSE:UCL - news) wasted a lot of time and money there in the 1990s and its spokesman flinches at the idea of his company becoming reinvolved with an abandoned pipeline project.

``Not us. We've said that over and over again,'' Barry Lane emphatically told Reuters recently.

Nevertheless, the U.S. anti-terrorism war launched after the Sept. 11 attacks has made talk of serious energy development in Afghanistan somewhat more plausible at a time when fears about the security of Middle East oil run high.

``I'm not saying it will happen quickly but people are dusting this (idea) off again,'' said Asia expert James Clad of Cambridge Energy Research Associates in an interview.

He suggested other companies besides Unocal may be willing to consider a project that uses Afghanistan to transport fossil fuels from the energy-rich Caspian Sea to South Asian markets.

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is one increasingly influential leader who entertains that possibility. He privately told some Americans in New York this week that peace in Afghanistan could open new potential for a pipeline there.

Right now, the United States is dropping bombs on the country in the hunt for the al Queda network of Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden, alleged mastermind of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and Afghan Taliban leaders who harbor them.

But Washington has said that unlike in 1989, when it abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviets were ousted by U.S.-backed Islamic rebels, it will rebuild the country and work with the United Nations to install a broad-based peaceful government.

That portends -- at least in theory -- billions of dollars in development and humanitarian assistance plus a sustained concerted effort by the international community to try to ensure a reasonably stable political environment.

Those are attractive features for private companies who salivate over the energy potential of the Caspian, which lies some 1,000 miles (2,600 kilometers) west of Kabul.

CASPIAN IS LONG-TIME LURE

Oil companies have long been interested in pipelines from the Caspian to Mediterranean and Arabian sea ports where cargoes could take oil to European and U.S. markets.

The cheapest pipeline route to Arabian Sea ports would be through Iran. But the United States has pushed for a pipeline through its ally Turkey to prevent Russia and Iran from controlling the region's energy resources.

British energy giant BP (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: BP.L) has been leading studies into a pipeline from Baku, the Azeri capital, to the Turkish Mediterranean port, Ceyhan.

Experts say the Caspian's oil and gas reserves may be the third largest in the world and an important hedge against possible disruptions in the Gulf, the world's energy stronghold.

Most of the region's reserves are held by Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, with some estimates pegging the region's total reserves at 18-34 billion barrels.

Critics see another motive for President George W. Bush's decision to wage war in dirt poor Afghanistan than just wiping out anti-U.S. extremists: a desire to boost oil interests as he and Vice President Dick Cheney were once in the business.

But it would be too facile to argue Bush is following his father's presidential footsteps into war for that reason.

Whereas the bountiful oil fields of Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia were at risk when the first President Bush waged the Gulf War on Iraq in 1991, Afghanistan, by global standards, has hardly any oil.

The Soviets during their occupation estimated the country's proven and probable reserves at 95 million barrels.

By comparison, Bush's home state of Texas, which is slightly larger than Afghanistan, has 5.3 billion barrels of proven reserves.

Afghanistan's natural gas reserves are more substantial at an estimated 5 trillion cubic feet.

The country's true value is as a thoroughfare for pipelines to bring Caspian oil to better-paying international markets.

UNOCAL'S HISTORY

Unocal, a California-based energy giant, in the 1990s sought rights to build a massive pipeline system across Afghanistan linking the vast oil and natural gas reserves in Turkmenistan to a plant and ports in Pakistan.

The company pursued an alliance with the same Taliban forces Washington is now bombing, U.S. officials said in a recent Washington Post story, before the project foundered.

``We withdrew in 1998 for a number of reasons, not the least of which was we just don't have the capital to move forward,'' Lane said in a telephone interview with Reuters.

At the time the project collapsed, the company had a memorandum of understanding with Pakistan, which was to be the market, and Turkmenistan, which was to be the supplier, but Pakistan has sufficient supply right now, he said.

Meanwhile, Unocal has ``developed a full portfolio of other projects that really are going to demand capital for a number of years. That whole region (Central Asia) is no longer a central focus to us,'' Lane said, ``I'm not saying the project wouldn't happen, but it isn't going to happen with us.''

A senior Bush administration official said he agreed with this analysis, even though Turkmenistan's president continues to push the pipeline.

The United States has never opposed a trans-Afghanistan pipeline but ``there have always been so many difficulties with a project like that,'' he told Reuters.

Even if the war ends and a broad-based government is established in Afghanistan, significant challenges will remain in financing the project and marketing the gas, he said.

That is because Pakistan's economy is in terrible shape and its natural gas market is price-controlled.

Also, the most attractive market for Central Asian natural gas would be India but continued tensions with Pakistan do not offer investors the confidence needed to build a multi-billion dollar pipeline, said the official.

Clad agreed financing is a real dilemma. But he suggested that once fighting ends, new dynamics are likely and the pipeline may acquire a ``new lease on life.''


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last
But of course installing a pro-US central government in Afghanistan would give the pipeline "a new lease on life". No surprise there.
1 posted on 11/13/2001 7:54:32 AM PST by Ada Coddington (ACoddington@Compuserve.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Funny that this writer never mentioned that the Saudis are in partnership with Unocal on this one or stress that its natural gas, not oil, that is the impetus for the pipeline.
2 posted on 11/13/2001 8:00:32 AM PST by Patria One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Turkmenistan: cagey or comatose?
3 posted on 11/13/2001 8:00:55 AM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
I'm sure that Enron won't be involved.
4 posted on 11/13/2001 8:25:28 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Correct. If the pipeline wasn't the main reason for attacking the Taliban, it was pretty high on the list.
5 posted on 11/13/2001 8:35:51 AM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
You are so correct....
6 posted on 11/13/2001 9:36:57 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
"If the pipeline wasn't the main reason for attacking the Taliban, it was pretty high on the list."

Actually, it was no higher than 5,500 on that list. It appears just after all the names of the innocent civilians killed in the WTC.

7 posted on 11/13/2001 2:12:02 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Actually, it was no higher than 5,500 on that list. It appears just after all the names of the innocent civilians killed in the WTC

If this war were not a fraud, we would have reciprocated against the nations that supplied the hijackers, i.e., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the the United Arab Emirates. Or we could have bombed training camps in Pakistan and investigated the Indian report that a Pakistani general funded the hijackers to the tune of $100,000.

Sorry, Dugway, attacking the Taliban had nothing to do with the WTC and the Pentagon. It was simply something that we had already planned to do and now had an excuse for.

8 posted on 11/13/2001 2:27:17 PM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Ada, don't be so sure ANY of the Gulf States had anything to do with 9-11.

Terrorism and conspiracy go hand in hand.

9 posted on 11/13/2001 2:29:50 PM PST by Patria One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
"Correct. If the pipeline wasn't the main reason for attacking the Taliban, it was pretty high on the list."

Yep, probably #2 behind re-establishing the folw of heroin/opiates so that the Queen of England won't go broke :-)

10 posted on 11/13/2001 2:32:43 PM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Patria One
Ada, don't be so sure ANY of the Gulf States had anything to do with 9-11.

They are higher on the list of suspects than Afghanistan is. Nevertheless, I agree that it is possible that this plot consisted of the 19 dead and maybe only a few others.

11 posted on 11/13/2001 3:24:59 PM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Not to worry. The Northern Alliance is every bit as nice as the Taliban and are much more broad minded about the opium trade.
12 posted on 11/13/2001 3:27:14 PM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
Actually, Bin Laden took credit for 9-11 on the videotape that came to light yesterday. So, what's the conspiracy? Unocal or Enron hired Bin Laden to destroy the WTC so we would destroy his protectors and allies the Taliban so a gas pipeline could be built across Afghanistan? Ooops. Gotta go. My tin foil hat just blew off.
13 posted on 11/13/2001 3:32:33 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
"If this war were not a fraud, we would have reciprocated against the nations that supplied the hijackers, i.e., Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the the United Arab Emirates. Or we could have bombed training camps in Pakistan and investigated the Indian report that a Pakistani general funded the hijackers to the tune of $100,000."

When you say "supplied" you imply these countries sent these terrorists on their mission. Your argument is as valid as saying we should bomb Mexico for "supplying" illegal immigrants. I'm interested in your information that Sammi Bin Laden is hiding in Saudi, Egypt, or the UAE. And, as you well know, we will deal with terrorism one state at a time, ie, Pakistan, etc.

"Sorry, Dugway, attacking the Taliban had nothing to do with the WTC and the Pentagon. It was simply something that we had already planned to do and now had an excuse for."

That's an utter falsehood and you know it.

14 posted on 11/13/2001 3:57:40 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CruisinAround
FYI
15 posted on 11/13/2001 4:03:47 PM PST by Rowdee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Check it out for yourself in the Indian press which reported that an international plan to remove the fundamentalist Islamic Taliban from power was a subject of international diplomatic discussions for months and was reportedly raised by India during the Group of Eight summit in July in Genoa, Italy.

The Indian press reported in June that, "India and Iran will facilitate, U.S. and Russian plans for limited military action, against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don,t bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime.

The invasion plans described in the Indian press in June may come to pass in October: "Tajikistan and Uzbekistan will lead the ground attack with a strong military back up of the U.S. and Russia. Vital Taliban installations and military assets will be targeted.

The economic reasons for the multi-national assault against the Taliban were explained: "Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan are threatened by the Taliban that is aiming to control their vast oil, gas, and other resources by bringing Islamic fundamentalists into power.

The war was already planned in July. 911 was serendipity.

16 posted on 11/13/2001 5:37:56 PM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Actually, Bin Laden took credit for 9-11 on the videotape that came to light yesterday.

No, he didn't.

17 posted on 11/13/2001 5:42:44 PM PST by Ada Coddington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
"Check it out for yourself in the Indian press..."

Still relying upon the "Hindu Times" as your source? 'nough said.

18 posted on 11/16/2001 1:19:58 PM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Patria One
Keep in mind that the disinformation agents agenda is to make you believe that all these wars are about pipelines. In Afghanistan it's also to make you believe that Northern Alliance is as bad as the Taliban, while actually propagating the Taliban.
If it was about pipelines there were no reasons to bomb. Ron Paul :
Our foolish funding of Afghan terrorists hardly ended in the 1980s, however. Millions of your tax dollars continue to pour into Afghanistan even today. Our government publicly supported the Taliban right up until September 11. Already in 2001 the U.S. has provided $125 million in so-called humanitarian aid to the country, making us the world's single largest donor to Afghanistan.
Incredibly, in May the U.S. announced that we would reward the Taliban with an additional $43 million in aid for its actions in banning the cultivation of poppy used to produce heroin and opium. Taliban rulers had agreed to assist us in our senseless drug war by declaring opium growing "against the will of God." They weren't serious, of course.
More data on the Taliban sponsors and the pipeline hoaxes
19 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:07 PM PST by Milosevic2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ada Coddington
In other words, if a US citizen who left the US and went to Afghanistan and became a terrorist, we should then bomb the USA.

You must have pulled this logic out of your A$$.

20 posted on 11/16/2001 1:20:09 PM PST by rstevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson