RE: pipeline nonsense

[Karen Watters Cole]

Title: Bericht

Gentlemen:   Unocal’s 1998 testimony reveals that an Afghanistan pipeline could be functional by 2010, a few years sooner than the US theoretically could have seen production from ANWR. Anyone care to comment on that? - Karen Excerpt: The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves, much of them located in the Caspian Sea basin itself. Proven natural gas reserves within Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil -- enough to service Europe's oil needs for 11 years. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day (44 million tons per year [Mt/y]). By 2010, Western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day (Mb/d) -- an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about five percent of the world's total oil production, and almost 20 percent of oil produced among non-OPEC countries. I couldn’t access the Time article, but the 3/17/02 Seattle Times article was informative. Excerpt: The Afghan conflict, the first major war in Central Asia since the oil and gas finds, has reshuffled the geopolitical deck and made a pipeline route through Afghanistan, for which U.S. oil executives were lobbying as recently as the mid-1990s, feasible once again. Other routes — each of which would benefit a different group of countries and energy companies — are also under consideration. "Whoever can shape the way that pipeline map looks will shape the future of a huge part of the world," said S. Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns Hopkins University. "The main feature of these states is their remoteness. Pipelines are the only way they can overcome their isolation. Transit fees are real money, and who gets that real money will go a long way toward determining which of these countries succeed and which don't." http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm  (in February 1998, a Unocal vice-president said in a US parliament   hearing:  "From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of   our proposed pipeline [through Afghanistan] cannot begin until a recognized   government is in place that has the confidence of ... our company.") and books and interviews by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US national security advisor. You can also read about it in mainstream papers like Time Magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980504/world.the_rush_for_caspi6.html or the Seattle Times http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134421572_afghanoil17.html and the pipeline background can also be verified by the present facts on the ground (the pipeline construction is underway now, and Afghanistan is led by former Unocal advisor Karzai). JAN: I first heard of that proposed pipeline in 1993 or 1994 (about the time the taliban first were mentioned in the international press in connection to that pipeline too), so the fact of that pipeline is of course established, nor did I ever deny that, why would I? I even mentioned the matter to our political secretary general in those days already -- who answered 'the tally-what?' --. What I called nonsense is what comes just before the word 'pipeline' in my text: "everyone had just been waiting to attack afghanistan because they wanted to build that..." and 'Osama had nothing to do with the attacks on the towers' and 'it's an Israëli conspiracy, because they are the ones who will profit most from a war against the arabs...'  Those allegations are unfounded and unverified and yes I believe nonsense.     So you see Jan, it really isn't hard to find out that it's anything but "pipeline nonsense", and you do _not_ need whatreallyhappened.com to learn about this.   JAN: you are write about that last bit   CHRIS:   I think this basic knowledge about the pipeline background is mandatory for a government advisor, especially from a party that is supposed to care about the environment.   JAN: of course it is, thanks for reminding me of my duties ;>) HTH, Chris