Short for "GeologicalScienceBlog", subjects will include Geology, Climatology, Environmental Science, NASCAR, Beer, Property Rights, Politics from a Christian Conservative/Libertarian viewpoint, and random thoughts. My background is two degrees in Geology (BS, MS), 8 years of geology/environmental employment and almost 8 years of teaching Geology and Environmental Science on a Junior College level. <68>

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

The Afghanistan Pipeline Project

While visiting Mean Ol' Meany, I briefly stepped into a heated discussion to engage a couple of visiting Moonbats. As part of the exchange, the tired, old conspiracy of Haliburton and the Afghanistan pipeline came up.

So I decided to do some web-surfing, looking for a sensible discussion of the issue. It took a few stops, but I found what looks like a sensible article (from a self-professed liberal magazine American Prospect, no less). In this and other scanned articles, though, I don't recall seeing the word "Haliburton". Instead I saw mention of Unocal, Enron (both political parties were involved in some fashion with the Enron debacle), and some other names. This complex article, linked above, dispels some of the throw-away lines about Cheney and Haliburton and our desire for Afghanistan's resources.

As follows is a summary of the article "No War for Oil!: Is the United States really after Afghanistan's resources? Not a chance." by Ken Silverstein. If I find a suitable map (to help the reader reference the surrounding nations), I will add it to this discussion.

Most of the past discussions about a natural gas (not crude oil) pipeline were held because it seemed (to some) that Afghanistan would be a suitable transit corridor for Caspian Basin natural gas (largely from Turkmenistan) to Pakistan and then to other Central Asian markets. The natural gas was not destined for the United States. Most of the remainder of current Caspian Basin oil and gas production is destined for Russia and Europe.

Unocal was the major player and from 1996, the Clinton Administration was in favor of their planned gas pipeline from the Dauletabad Field in southeastern Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan. Afghanistan would have benefited by construction jobs and the collection of transit fees, plus the pipeline would have helped open up markets for Afghanistan's much smaller gas production (or it might have helped build a pipeline to deliver gas from the northern part of the country to the larger cities in the central and southern parts of the country).

Much of the remainder of the petroleum industry saw the Unocal plan as folly, due to the long-term instability of Afghanistan, due to the residual effects of the Soviet invasion and ongoing tribal infighting. Pipelines are vulnerable to terrorism (witness the problems in Iraq). Despite these opinions, the Clinton Administration and Unocal continued to tout the pipeline, but it never moved past the planning stages.

As the Unocal project fell from favor, the Clinton Administration shifted its support to another pipeline project, called the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, extending from Turkmenistan across Azerbaijan and Georgia and into Turkey. The conspiracy buffs focused on this one because Enron was involved in the planning stages, but a consortium led by Amoco, Bechtel, and GE Capital was selected for the planned pipeline. The planned Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline route did not cross into Afghanistan at any point.

After the 1998 al Qaida bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa, the Clinton Administration focused its Afghanistan attention on Osama bin Laden, rather than gas pipelines. Meanwhile, the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline project died because Azerbaijan discovered its own large gas fields, thus they became interested in selling their own gas rather than serving as a transit for Turkmen gas.

Other pipeline projects from the Caspian Basin fields focused on Iran, as the cheapest and most direct route, but these have been disfavored by both the Clinton and Bush Administrations, as they both tried to isolate the Iranian regime.

After the Unocal gas pipeline project failed, Unocal considered a small oil pipeline from Kazakhstan across Afghanistan to Pakistan, but this short-lived plan never received any serious support from the Clinton Administration.

Changing market conditions (new supplies, changing demand patterns) have now rendered Afghanistan even less practical for a pipeline than before. Even with an elected government, somewhat friendly to the United States, there is still some tribal conflict in rural regions and a pipeline would still present an inviting target for terrorists.

In short, Haliburton apparently had no role in the planning of a gas pipeline across Afghanistan during the Clinton Administration. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. If such a gas pipeline ever comes to fruition, it would serve Central Asian markets, possibly alleviating the "Asian Brown Cloud" (subject of a early blog, on March 6).
Posted by: on-the-rocks / 2:51 PM
Comments:
Really informative Joe, and thanks for bringing the gun to my knife fight.
# posted by Blogger Two Dogs : 10:29 AM
 
Thanks. Most Lib/Leftists consider anything petroleum- related to be inherently evil. I am not naive about the world, I know that sometimes businesses will do what is in their best interest, but I appreciate the hard work and technology it takes to bring crude oil from the well to the final product at the gas station.
# posted by Blogger joe-6-pack : 11:00 AM
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
|

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?