Ok people cross posting a page from
india and geo strategy thread...This is what happening in new great game of pipe lines.Indo-usa nuke deal and usa pressure on india to drop from IPI pipeline project is all part of the new great game.the reason being the TAPI pipeline and IPI gives it serious competition.usa pressure to talk to pakistan on kashmir is also part of the game to bring reapproachment before TAPI can be constructed.unless india is willing to participate both TAPI and IPI are loss making venture coz the biggest market is india for any gas and india wont participate without gurantee and to get that gurantee from pakistan india has been made to talkto pakistan...s
oon we gonna see solution on kashmir...mark my words here.
A PIPELINE THROUGH A TROUBLED LAND: AFGHANISTAN,CANADA, AND THE NEW GREAT ENERGY GAME
Map 1. Proposed Central Asian Gas Pipelines
Map 2. Proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) Gas Pipeline.
The Rival Pipeline: Iran-Pakistan-India Pipeline
Iran is negotiating with Pakistan and India for a pipeline (called IPI after the names of the three countries) to supply Iranian gas along a relatively secure route. With an estimated capital cost of $7.5 billion, IPI is similar in cost to the TAPI project, and is seen as a potential rival to TAPI. The IPI pipeline would move Iranian natural gas to neighbouring Pakistan and on to India. The route would avoid strife-torn Afghanistan altogether.
The IPI pipeline would be 2,670 kilometres long, with about 1,115 kilometres in Iran, 705 kilometres in Pakistan,and 850 kilometres in India, and would take four years to build. It would be constructed by the three nations separately, rather than by a single, co-operative venture along the lines that the TAPI partners propose.34 The purpose of this separate approach is reportedly to avoid raising the United States' ire and potential sanctions for co-operating with Iran.35
Russia's Gazprom has expressed willingness to help build the IPI line.36 Pakistan is considering inviting bids by oil and gas companies to build the section in its territory, and BP
has publicly expressed interest.37 In 2007, a senior State Department official, Steven Mann, stated that the United States is unequivocally against the deal. "The U.S. government supports multiple pipelines from the Caspian region but remains absolutely opposed to pipelines involving Iran." Washington fears the IPI pipeline deal would be a blow to its efforts to isolate Iran. The Bush administration has been trying to pressure both Pakistan and India to back off from the pipeline.38 This has resulted in the TAPI pipeline being viewed as a U.S.-backed initiative to aid in its isolation of Iran. Local leaders are sensitive to this accusation, given widespread popular aversion to the Bush administration. In response to a reporter's question this April, Pakistan's petroleum minister categorically denied that talks on TAPI were held in Islamabad under U.S. pressure to block the Iran-Pakistan-India deal.39
Until recently, India's participation in IPI was uncertain. In a significant breakthrough, oil ministers of India and Pakistan met on April 25, 2008, in Islamabad (just after the TAPI
meeting) to resolve a pricing squabble and clear the way for signing agreements.40 The President of Iran visited Islamabad and New Delhi the following week for talks on the pipeline. This breakthrough happened despite strong U.S. pressure on India and Pakistan to abandon the project and go for the line through Afghanistan.41
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher admits the U.S. has a "fundamental strategic interest" in Afghanistan "as a conduit and hub for energy, ideas, people, trade, goods
from Central Asia and other places down to the Arabian Sea." He predicts the U.S. will be there for a long time.42 The U.S. strategic interest extends to its relationship with Pakistan and India. Both countries are regional powers, wooed by Russia and China. India has become a major power in Asia (not just South Asia). As Evan Feigenbaum, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, points out, the U.S. looks at "the role of India, China and Japan"¦ and their relations with each other in this larger Asian space."43 Geopolitically, the ties Pakistan and India have with other countries – and their pipeline links – are important to the U.S.
The Canadian Connection in Turkmenistan and the Region
Canada's energy sector is active in the region. In 2005,there were 35 Canadian energy companies in Kazakhstan and 4 in Turkmenistan.44 On February 12, 2008, former prime minister Jean Chrétien travelled to Turkmenistan to meet with President Berdimuhamedov, along with executives of Buried Hill Energy, an Omani-Canadian company with offices in Calgary. According to the Turkmen state news service, Mr. Chrétien said "the international community showed intense interest in Turkmenistan and its leader, whose policy of the progressive
reforms had won the country the recognition and high prestige worldwide."45 At that meeting, Roger Haines, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Buried Hill Energy, gave an update on his company's activities in Turkmenistan, including seismic work in the offshore Serdar gas field. Buried Hill Energy signed a production-sharing agreement with Turkmenistan
in late 2007 to explore and develop this field in the Turkmen sector of the Caspian Sea.46 Thermo Design, a Canadian engineering and manufacturing company, also has contracts in Turkmenistan. It built and maintains an LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) recovery plant for the state firm Turkmengas in eastern Turkmenistan.47 Canadian firms could be awarded construction contracts if the TAPI pipeline moves forward. Afghanistan is already Canada's largest recipient of foreign aid and Canadian troops have taken a disproportionately high level of casualties, so Canadian firms would be well positioned politically to win contracts from the Afghan government. But the deteriorating security situation makes it unlikely that any Canadian firm would want to have employees working in the region. Unless the risk of attacks is greatly diminished and the security position improves enough to allow construction and operation to proceed, it's unlikely that Canadian firms will benefit from the TAPI pipeline.
NATO Proposals
Energy has become an issue of strategic discussions at NATO, and the issue was reviewed at the 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest. The Summit Declaration affirmed that NATO will support the protection of critical energy infrastructure, and stipulated that a progress report on energy security be prepared for the 2009 Summit.48 Two years earlier, the 2006 Summit Declaration avowed support for a coordinated effort to promote energy infrastructure security.49 At that Summit, held in Riga, Latvia, the U.S. made several proposals to commit NATO to energy security activities,50 but the Summit reached no decision. The Europeans were wary of tasks they might come to regret. However, these proposals could come up again,
and they merit close scrutiny. One proposal at the 2006 Summit called for NATO to guard pipelines and sea lanes. Would that apply to the Afghan pipeline? If so, NATO troops could be in Afghanistan for a very long time. Pipelines last until they're decommissioned – that may be 50 years or more. Would guarding sea lanes apply to the Persian Gulf? Would the Canadian Navy be part of a sea lane protection service? A second U.S. proposal called for energy security to be a NATO Article V commitment (an attack on one is an attack on all). That would make threats to energy security tantamount to an attack on a member country, and that, in turn, would require a response from all members.51 Does Canada wish to have this responsibility outside the North Atlantic area? At the 2007 E.U.-Canada Summit, Prime Minister Harper referred to energy security as requiring "unprecedented international cooperation"¦ protecting and maintaining the world's energy supply system."52 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (DFAIT) recognizes "the re-emergence of energy as a major foreign policy consideration," and has resurrected its Energy Secretariat "to analyse key energy security and related issues."53 That's despite severe budget cuts and twenty or so years with no energy secretariat. NATO proposals could have enormous consequences for Canada, especially if NATO's role is extended to include energy security worldwide.
Rivalry in Central Asia: The New Great Game
"Energy Security" is the current buzzword in Western capitals. No country talks about playing the New Great Game – what leaders talk about is achieving energy security. These two words have crept into the mission statements of governments and international agencies, including Canada, the United States and NATO. The New Great Game in Central Asia is a geopolitical game among the world's Great Powers for control of energy resources. The geopolitical game is openly analyzed in U.S. think tanks, such as Brookings Institution,54 Johns Hopkins
University's School of Advanced International Studies,55 and Heritage Foundation.56 It is well reported in the Asian press. It is hardly visible in Canada. The term Great Game dates back to the 19th century, when it was popularized by Rudyard Kipling in his novels of British India.57 At that time, the rivalry was between the British and Russian empires. The epicentre of conflict was Afghanistan, where the British fought and lost three wars. Throughout history, tribal loyalty in Afghanistan has remained paramount, making life difficult for invaders.
North of Afghanistan are the five countries of Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Until 1991, they were part of the Soviet Union. They became independent when the Soviet Union broke up. These five "Stans" of Central Asia are sandwiched between the Caspian Sea to the west, Russia to the north, China to the east, and Iran and Afghanistan to the south. When the countries of Central Asia were within the Soviet Union, their oil and gas flowed only to the north through Soviet-controlled pipelines. After 1991, competing world powers began to explore ways to tap these enormous reserves and move them in other directions. Kazakhstan is by far the largest Central Asian country – about the same size as western Canada. It has the largest oil reserves in Central Asia. They are said to be three times those of the North Sea. One discovery alone – Kashagan in the Caspian Sea – may be the world's most important oil find in 40 years, since Alaska. According to the International Energy Agency, Turkmenistan has the world's fourth largest reserves of natural gas.
Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan border the Caspian Sea, as do three other countries – Iran, Azerbaijan and Russia. The Caspian Sea is the world's largest inland body of water; it is about 20 times the size of Lake Ontario. All littoral countries are looking for their share of the oil and gas riches under the Caspian Sea. That makes it a prime target for rivalry among competing world powers. Countries playing the New Great Game want energy to flow in directions under their control: north to Russia, west to Europe (bypassing Russia), east to China, south through Afghanistan.
The players are U.S.A., China and Russia; regional powers such as Pakistan, India, Turkey and Iran; and NATO countries, and by extension Canada through its NATO membership. The Central Asian countries are far from the world's oceans and tankers, so they must rely on pipelines to get their oil and gas to market. Pipelines are fixed and inflexible. Without a pipeline, the oil and gas remain locked in the ground. The pipeline route is critical; the oil or gas can only go where the pipeline goes. Pipeline routes are important in the same way that railway lines were important in the 19th century. They connect trading partners and influence the regional balance of power. When a pipeline crosses more than one country, each country becomes a stakeholder. The countries are bonded physically, economically and diplomatically.Russia is expanding its imports of Turkmenistan's gas treasure.
Turkmenistan currently exports virtually all its gas via Kazakhstan to Russia. However, the pipeline infrastructure is aging, and the route was originally designed to supply other Soviet republics rather than European countries. In December 2007, ministers from the three countries signed an agreement to construct a new gas pipeline that will parallel the older one and augment the export system's capacity. President Putin of Russia and President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan oversaw the signing and conferred by phone with President Berdimuhamedov of Turkmenistan. The pipeline is expected to come on line in 2010 and have an initial capacity of 20 BCM annually. The gas is destined for countries of the European Union.58 When this project was first announced in May 2007, during a visit by President Putin to Turkmenistan, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman voiced concern about European dependence on Russian energy. He said the proposed pipeline was "not good for Europe."59 On May 27, 2008, President Berdimuhamedov visited the Dauletabad gas field to inaugurate a new gas compressor station that will increase the capacity of the pipeline connecting Turkmenistan with Kazakhstan and Russia.60 The ceremony took place one day before Richard Boucher's visit to Ashgabat mentioned above.
