All that oil and nowhere to
go Analysis by Peyman Pejman
ALMATY, Kazakhstan - A combination of
East-West geopolitical rivalries and haggling
among former Soviet republics is delaying the
construction of a series of oil and gas pipelines
that could help alleviate the world's
energy-supply concerns.
Energy experts say
meeting the world's increasing energy needs in the
coming decades lies in building a dozen existing
and planned pipelines capable of helping the
movement of oil and gas
from
Central Asian countries to Europe and the United
States.
That, in turn, has raised to
prominence the role of the resource-rich Central
Asian states - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan.
But the
debate over the routes the pipelines would take
has gotten bogged down in the political ambitions
of the US and Russia on the one hand and Turkey on
the other, according to experts and politicians
who attended the mid-April annual Eurasia Media
Forum here in Kazakhstan's largest city and former
capital.
"From the perspective of meeting
energy needs, the answer is export routes from
Central Asia to the West," said John Roberts, a
leading energy expert with the Platts Energy Group
in London. "The problem is to get that energy to
European countries, there are two gateways -
Russia and Turkey. One of them has to be opened."
The US and Europe - which receive much of
their energy supplies from Russia - have expressed
concern that under Vladimir Putin's presidency,
Moscow is trying to dominate the world energy
markets.
"The Russian route is pretty much
closed right now because Moscow takes Central
Asian countries' resources for internal use and
sells its own for a much higher price to the
West," Roberts told an energy panel.
Russia needs to control exports from the
former Soviet republics because otherwise it would
be forced to reform its own energy industry and
rely on Western investments before it can meet
internal demands, Roberts and others on the panel
concurred.
Currently, Turkmenistan's gas
exports are under contract to Russia until 2009,
and Kazakhstan has agreed to sell all its exports
to Russia for the next five years. Gazprom,
Russia's state-owned energy company, has booked
much of Uzbekistan's transit pipelines for the
next three years.
But Central Asian
countries have been trying to carve out their own
energy supply route independent of Moscow.
Kazakh officials have not shied away from
saying they are considering other options to the
West, bypassing Russia. So have officials of the
other Central Asia countries.
One pipeline
project envisages passage through Kazakhstan,
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan to the Caspian Sea.
Another is the 3,300-kilometer Nabucco gas
pipeline that, much to the chagrin of Russia,
would run from the border of Turkey and Georgia,
with Iran joining later, to Bulgaria, Romania and
then Austria.
"That presents Turkey with
two options. Does it want to be part of the
European energy-security mechanism or continue to
import two-thirds of its needs from Russia?" asked
Roberts.
Given Turkey's strong desire to
join the European Union, many energy experts bet
on Turkey taking risks against Russia, or at least
keeping its options open for as long as it can.
One factor to consider in the world's
energy calculations is the rising power and energy
needs of Asian giants China and India. "Both
countries have tremendous energy needs, given
their populations and their expanding economies,"
said Azmat Hayat Khan, director of the Area Study
Center at the University of Peshawar, Pakistan.
While China is negotiating with
Kazakhstan, India has been - at least in part -
banking on the "Peace Pipeline". The perceived
2,700km gas pipeline would run from Iran through
Afghanistan and Pakistan to India.
Khan
said the "Peace Pipeline" is unlikely to
materialize because it would run counter to the
United States' strategic ambitions in the Middle
East and Central Asia.
"The Americans do
not want to do anything that would make the
Iranians stronger," he said. "While Gazprom is
increasing its activity, and the Chinese are
securing their economic interests and the
Europeans are ensuring they get their own
supplies, the Americans feel they are losing the
game and they do not have any good cards.
"You look at Iraq and Afghanistan - the
Americans would not benefit from stability in the
region. You look at the way they are building
military bases [in Iraq and Afghanistan] and you
know they are staying 40-45 years," Khan said.
While many dislike the US presence in the
Middle East and Central Asia for reasons of
security, the major critics are prepared to
compromise, at least for now. Afghanistan and Iraq
have seen a large number of pipeline explosions
besides cases of narco-terrorism in the recent
past. And from Russia to Kazakhstan, ethnic
clashes are frequent.
Even Russia,
Washington's closest competitor in the region, has
said attempts by terrorist groups to get the US
out of the region will not benefit any of the main
players.
"It is wrong to think that you
can isolate the US. Without the US you cannot
fight terrorism. Without the US you practically
cannot do anything," Yevgeny Primakov, former
Russian foreign minister, said at one of the
Eurasia Forum panel discussions.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
