Who needs Afghanistan (for oil pipelines…
Who needs Afghanistan (for oil pipelines)?
The leaders of China and three Central Asian nations gathered Sunday in Turkmenistan ahead of a ceremony inaugurating natural gas deliveries from the energy-rich region to China.
….The pipeline culminates Chinese efforts to secure energy supplies for its fast-growing economy. The route also will enable gas producers in the region to diversify their exports away from Russia, which has exercised a virtual stranglehold over Central Asian energy supplies since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“This is a significant project of cooperation between two nations that will benefit all countries in the region,” Chinese leader Hu Jintao told reporters in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat.
“All countries in the region” except Afghanistan.
johnpi, 
thabet, 
Conrad Barwa, and 1 other are discussing.
thabet 1:56 am on December 14, 2009 Permalink
While the invasion of Iraq did indeed rest on (the politics of) oil, the ‘Afghanistan-pipeline’ conspiracy theory makes little sense. Yes, a pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan has long been talked about, but (apart from being a technical and logistical nightmare to design and construct) China, not the US, would be the real beneficiary.
(Also this was a natural gas, not crude oil, pipeline.)
johnpi 10:43 am on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Yes, that’s why I tagged this post ‘gas’ and with other gas-related tags. ‘Oil’ and ‘oil pipelines’ seems to be common usage though. I try to use phrases that are most likely to be used in Internet searches on the topic.
Buzz 3:17 am on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Unocal entertained the Taliban and flew them to Texas and Washington DC in 1997 to discuss a trans-Afghanistan pipeline. This is pretty well-known.
One of several stories.
Conrad Barwa 10:26 am on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Yes, I agree with thabet here; in anycase the UNOCAL and Bridas proposals fell through because the Taliban couldn’t guarantee the adequate level of security for the pipeline and insurance costs for the project were insanely high.
I do disagree though with the idea that Afghanistsan can’t benefit from such a proposal. In fact, I think it might be Afghanistan’s best development hope in the short/medium term given that there is little current viable industry and agriculture is at a low potential which will take years to rebuild. Neither sector has much export potential on a significant scale; acting as a transit country for trade betweenthe CARs and South Asia, as well as being a gas/oil pipeline transit country will allow the govt to collect revenue for reinvestment in social development and utilise Afghanistan’s one natural asset – its geographical position as an entry point between different regions.
johnpi 10:49 am on December 14, 2009 Permalink
A pipeline through Afghanistan into Pakistan would be a revenue-generating project for Pakistan too, which is the primary instigator and backer of the Afghan Taliban movement.
It seems the Pakistani military and intelligence services think Afghanistan is more valuable to them as a back lot for storing their “strategic depth” fantasies…
Conrad Barwa 12:58 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Yes, under current conditions that is correct. I think any realistic pipeline project will need a govt in Pakistan that isn’t adopting the current policy. Also since gas is by far the most viable option and its storage costs/difficulties means that it needs to be used at the endpoint of transportation, only India is the nearest market of sufficient size and this requires some sort of Indo-Pak settlement generally and on Kashmir specifically to be feasible. Clearly, we are some way off this.
thabet 2:53 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
I agree with you that the project would benefit Afghanistan and indeed Pakistan.
Not that you’re disagreeing with me, but just to be clear I was only pointing out:
a. There is nothing conspiratorial about ideas of transporting natural gas through Afghanistan. This idea has been talked about since the 90s, and TAP or TAPI already has backers. This will cost a fortune to design and construct (I speak here as an ‘expert’ I guess).
b. The US does not benefit directly because the natural gas will come to some sort of end user or LNG facility, where it will be sold on the market. The natural gas will not magically end up keeping cold Americans warm during the winter. If anything India or China will end up benefiting.
As far as conspiracies go this is quite lame.
Conrad Barwa 4:04 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
Yes all fair points I suppose wrt (a) people would argue that there is less of a conspiracy as such, just a lot of opaqueness, back-room dealing and cavorting with unsavoury regimes to reach such a deal. Of course that always happens but it tends to act a lightening rod for CSOs who campaign against that sort of thing.
For (b) there might be some indirect benefits if it is a US company that exploits the gas and runs the pipeline. Broader arguements such as those made by people like Callinicos, is that the US seeks to expand and have military bases in the CARs so that it can have its finger on the gas spigot, the was it does with the oil spigot in the ME. These kind of arguements also depend on assuming that US political economy favours cheap energy prices. One can see the line of debate here, but it is questionable if you don’t share the same assumptions.
Lastly, would a pipeline to China need to go through Afghanistan? I don’t know the geography or the technical aspects, so will defer to those in the know but I would have thought the CARs could route a pipeline to China directly – is this correct?
thabet 10:34 pm on December 14, 2009 Permalink
No, they can pipe from Central Asia to China (as is happening right now). I am just looking at the geography. If gas came to some sort of storage terminal in Pakistan through Afghanistan, where can it be shipped to at the lowest cost? The UAE could decide to buy some (like they do with Qatar) to fuel its growth ambitions, but most likely it will go east — India, China, Japan, Korea, etc.
johnpi 9:47 am on December 15, 2009 Permalink
Juan Cole on the China pipeline: