MUST NOTE IT WILL PASS THRU
TURKMENISTAN – AFGHANISTAN – PAKISTAN TO INDIA AND 200000 MT OF LNG IF TERRORIST MAKE A USE OF IT WILL CAUSE THE DAMAGE EQUIVALENT TO THE DAMAGE DONE by 100 HIRO-SHIMA-NAGASHAKI BOMB
TAPI is planned by Argentinian company Bridas Corporation and The U.S. company Unocal, in conjunction with the Saudi oil company Delta, promoted alternative project without Bridas' involvement since 1990. On 21 October 1995, these two companies signed a separate agreement with Turkmenistan's president Saparmurat Niyazov. Later on State gas monopoly Turkmengas was selected in August to lead the TAPI pipeline consortium, named after the countries which it is designed to cross.
"Turkmengas ... plans to start building the TAPI pipeline in early December," the official said on condition of anonymity. "The Turkmen stretch of the pipeline (to the Afghan border) will be built by a (Turkmen) oil and gas pipeline construction firm."
After 26 years of negotiation on TAPI, the break through is approached by Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. He will visit Turkmenistan on Friday for the inauguration of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline project, Pakistan’s Daily Times newspaper reported Wednesday. Parliamentary Secretary for Petroleum and Natural Resources Shahzadi Umarzadi. Construction of much delayed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline is finally expected to commence on Dec. 13, Turkmenistan Ambassador to Pakistan Atadjan Movlamov said Tuesday. Addressing a function in Islamabad, Movlamov said ground breaking ceremony of the 1,735-km long.
But how, it is matter of great interest for me as thru the media I have the information - TAPI project has remained on the drawing board since the four nations have not been able to get an international firm to head a consortium, which will lay and operate the pipeline. French giant Total SA had initially envisaged interest in leading a consortium of national oil companies of the four nations in the TAPI project. However, it backed off after Turkmenistan refused to accept its condition of a stake in the gas field that will feed the pipeline.
Since the four state-owned firms, including GAIL of India, neither have the financial muscle nor the experience of cross-country line, an international company that will build and also operate the line in hostile territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan, is needed. Sources said Turkmenistan has so far maintained that its law does not provide for giving foreign firms an equity stake in upstream gas field, without which western energy giants will not be interested to take the risk.
According to reports coming out after the November 18-20 steering committee meeting of the five major stakeholders — four nations and the Asian Development Bank — in Ashgabat, the first gas to flow from the project could not be expected before mid-2019. When the framework agreements were being signed during the PPP’s tenure, the project was expected to be on line in 2016.
The consortium leader has to take substantial risks and responsibility for financing and implementing the project. Some Chinese firms have reportedly indicated to Islamabad to be part of the Tapi project, but they were not encouraged. Problems for the project also arose due to Turkmenistan’s refusal to allow multinationals to have a share in the field that will ultimately pump natural gas into the pipeline. Existing laws in Turkmenistan do not allow foreign shareholding in the upstream petroleum sector. So, major companies, including those from the main supporter to the mega scheme — the United States — also seem to be out of the game, at least for now. Even ExxonMobil and Chevron, which were originally pushing for the project, do not see any attraction in it without shareholding in the field. That is also the case with Petronas of Malaysia. The four nations have jointly established the SPV, the TAPI Pipeline Company Limited (TPCL), and registered it in the British Isle of Man to build, own and operate the pipeline from Turkmenistan to India via Afghanistan and Pakistan. International financial institutions and construction firms are also vary of the security situation not only in war-torn Afghanistan but also the terrorism-hit Pakistan.
Turkmenistan’s Turkmengas, Afghanistan’s Afghan Gas Enterprise, Pakistan’s Interstate Gas Systems Private Ltd and India’s Gail Ltd will have equal shareholding in the company, which would also be responsible for arranging financing, designing, construction and operation and maintenance of the pipeline. Point in question here about Pakistan is the repeated emergence of circular debt and the consequent sovereign default notices issued by independent power producers. In case India moved out, the problem would become even more serious.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi with Turkmenistan President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov as both countries inked seven pacts to ramp up engagement in key areas, including defence including interests in Terming TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) project as a significant initiative in relationship between the two countries, Mr. Modi said he conveyed to Berdymukhammedov that multiple options including the possibility of land-sea route through Iran for the pipeline should be explored. Seeing the threat of terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
HAVING SAID ABOVE – WHY BOARD ON TAPI IF IT HAS SECURITY RISK IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN. WHEREAS TURKMENISTAN CONNECT PIPELINE TO CHAHBAHAR PORT OF IRAN AND AFGHANISTAN CONNECTS THE PIPELINE IN THE MIDDLE IS AN ESAY OPTION TO SECURE THE 10 BILLION DOLLARS PUBLIC FUNDS. AND AVOID THREAT TO THE INVESTMENT.
WHERAS OMAN & IRAN agreed to develop sea route pipeline. And, we are presuming Oman India Pipeline will get a node very soon. Where Government of India has not to invest and with time manner we can finish the project. It is again delayed because of the lack of will power in the Government. Government is in interest to play diplomacy like playing cricket not interested to see the interest of the nation. I am not very literate but this much I know that nothing is important than Country’s economic interest than playing diplomacy in the name of Gas Pipeline.
COST EFFECTIVE : The pipeline project TAPI needs an investment of 10-12.5 Billion USD whereas Government of India need not to invest a SINGLE PENNY FOR IRAN –OMAN – INDIA PIPELINE and will be dedicated controller of the Oman to India Gas Pipeline. WHY TO PUT TAXPAYERS MONEY AT RISK.
TRANSIT FEE : There are two problematic issues included with TAPI one is transit fees, and second one is the above-mentioned restrictive Turkmenistan law precluding the private ownership of land and discouraging potential investors to become part of the project, WHEREAS Oman and Iran signed agreement to make undersea pipeline and Oman to India we have made proposal to Oman Government and India Government with 100% funding the link Iran to India via Oman. Where Company will abide a nominal charge to transit gas to India.
SECURITY CONCERNS : AS I KNOW, 200000 MT OF LNG EQUALS TO 100 HIROSHIMA NAGA SHAKI BOMB; LNG PIPELINES ARE VERY RISKY ITSELF. The Gas Highway (Oman India Pipeline) will have less security concerns than TAPI. The most pressing set of issues is physical security of the proposed project. These issues arise manly in the transit states – Afghanistan and Pakistan. The tendency observed in media is more or less deliberately avoiding covering news about Afghanistan after the declared assassination of Al-Qaeda’s leader Bin Laden and the start of the gradual withdrawal of NATO and US troops from the country. This might give the impression that the security situation in the country has substantially improved. The reality seems to be somewhat worse than generally depicted. President Obama received in Washington his new Afghan counterpart last March, Ashfar Ghani and amidst abundant praises and compliments, openly acknowledged that “Afghanistan is still a dangerous place”, and local troops are still unable to maintain law and order in the country without foreign military assistance. On the same occasion, several former senior officials in an open letter described the environment in the Central Asian republic as a “stalemate” and remarked that the political and economic situation is fragile. UN Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki Moon quoted in the work of Natasha Underhill warned that at present conditions the risk for the situation in the country to become irreversible still exists, especially as a result of weak government legitimacy and controversial elections. After a year it is probably still too early to assess President Ghani’s ruling performance. Stratfor’s analysis of September 2014 also envisioned a mounting risk after the complete withdrawal of US troops, promised by President Obama within the terms of its office. Stressing the fact that “political forces are still far from reaching a durable power-sharing arrangement”, it explains that, in brief, a divided pro-Western front is likely and particularly vulnerable to the Afghan Taliban.
The latter extremist group, moreover, announced that this year’s “spring operations” would begin on April 24, targeting what they called “the stooge regime” of Kabul, together with the “foreign occupiers”, that is, US troops. It does not come as a surprise therefore, that rumours about an imminent start of trilateral peace talks between the US, Afghanistan and Afghan Taliban in Doha, incidentally promptly denied by official sources, proved wrong and such a meeting, to this day, has not taken place and it is not likely to take place in the foreseeable future.
Overall, more than a quick and mediated resolution, the premises seem to suggest that tensions and clashes will persist in the medium to long term. In 2012, Pakistani press claimed that “the Afghan Taliban have assured that they would not sabotage the project,” and used this as a main argument to assert that the problem of transit was probably going to be solved soon. The main issue is whether it is wise to look at the Taliban as a rational actor. To this end, the reader should bear in mind the extremist religious values at the base of the movement, for which the latter has been perpetrating continuous acts of violence in the country and several major terrorist attacks abroad. It can be easily deduced that religious values for the group are more important than political and economic profitability. A situation where the government, which had previously agreed upon the non-sabotage, changes its political orientation as a result of elections or different external stimuli to a tough pro-Western and anti-Taliban stance, is not a remote possibility. Will the Taliban respect the agreement simply because pacta sunt servanda? Even regarding the Taliban as a rational actor, as the US strategy shifts toward to more pressing priorities (Ukraine, ISIS), they retain their motives to conduct war against Kabul and try to profit from the imminent departure of well-trained foreign troops.
There is an idea of deploying troops to defend the construction operations and the functioning of the pipeline that would run through very dangerous regions (such as Kandahar and Herat). Military presence will increase costs and cause more insecurity, being likely to motivate terrorist attacks. Infrastructure is seen as a source of legitimacy for the central government and thus is a natural target for the terrorist attacks already.
Last but not least, there is lack of evidence that the area selected for the project has been cleared of land mines. There are also security problems on the territory of Pakistan. The pipeline is planned through secessionist province of Baluchistan, which presents a heavy security threat. Quite obviously, the Baloch independentism organisations have stressed that any project involving transit in the area has to be agreed upon with a “legitimate” representative, in this case, the London-based leader Hyrbyair Marri. The risk of sabotage, therefore could be very high. Moreover, the Baloch independence group would gain significant leverage over Islamabad’s government from TAPI. Meanwhile, India would suffer heavily any provoked disruption.
Overall, the risks afflicting the physical functioning of the project are very high, if not to say unprecedented in international experience and, additionally, no significant improvement is foreseeable.
GEOPOLITICAL CONTEXT : THE GAS HIGHWAY (OMAN INDIA PIPELINE) VERSES TAPI : THE SAFETY OF THE GAS THRU THE GAS HIGHWAY IS HIGH NATURALLY DUE TO THE PIPE LAYED AT VERY DEEP PARAMETERS OF SEABED WHERE LAND MINES CAN NOT WORK WITH REMOTES. BUT TAPI HAS MASSIVE Security concerns – ultimately safety of transit through Afghanistan and Pakistan – would discourage most of foreign companies from entering the project. So why are the parties willing and determined to take the risk of long-term unreliable supply? The answer can be found in the fact that a long-term project, especially when it deals with the shared use of a key resource like gas, as in case of TAPI, means that a long-term geopolitical game is at stake. Central Asia has a strategic location and all actors – especially Turkmenistan, Pakistan and India – have strong geopolitical interest in connection with the implementation of the pipeline. In particular, the two traditional geopolitical enemies in the area, Pakistan and India, see the pipeline as a way of building a relation of interdependence with Afghanistan while sharing the risk of such an attempt. Both India and Pakistan are looking at opportunities to enhance their status in the region. Both countries regard Afghanistan as a strategic ‘asset’, mainly because of its geographical position.
The US has been strongly backing the project since the very break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. At the same time, there are hopes that the pipeline will help to promote better relations with the countries involved in it. The ultimate aim is consolidating a pro-US “curtain” in the area, while simultaneously breaking China’s monopsony in Turkmenistan’s upstream and the preferential relationship between the two. The TAPI pipeline in virtue of its long-term nature can serve as a basis to build interdependent relationships with other actors. According to Nye and Keohane’s interdependence theory presented in their book “Power and Interdependence” a long lasting interdependence relationship can easily become asymmetric under the pressure of internal or external factors. Asymmetries in this case should be regarded as a source of power vis-à-vis the more dependent part.
Asymmetries that may emerge in a context of traditionally very tense international relations can be used as weapons. Natural gas, particularly if used in power generation, is very suitable for damaging purposes and/or retaliation. Therefore, the risk of a conflict escalation out of a dispute should be taken into account, especially in the light of the nuclear status of India and Pakistan.
At the macro level, the pipeline also could contribute in deteriorating China-US relations, due to a probable reinforcing “encirclement complex” of the former. This is even more likely to occur in the wake of the clear interest for Central Asian resources demonstrated by China. China, in brief, will try to counter the open support by the US and their aim to favour Turkmenistan’s differentiation away from its now de facto unique customer.
Overall, the project is entangled with a thick network of multi-level geopolitical interests. India and Pakistan tend to overestimate the potential benefit of gas trading for their regional aims over the risk of becoming vulnerable to an unreliable partner. There is also a potential of China-US contradictions of influence in the region.
CONCLUSION : THERE ARE MANY DRAWBACKS OF THE TAPI AND GOVERNMENT IS ADAMANT TO TAKE RISK ON TAPI BUT NOT INTERESTED IN OMAN INDIA PIPELINE CONNECTING IRAN OMAN PIELINE JUST FOR THE SACK OF MAKING PRESENCE IN CENTRAL ASIA MAKING TAPI AS TOOL TO PLAY GEOPOLITICS. BUT I SUPPOSE GOVERNMENT WILL RETHING TWICE ABOUT TAPI BEFORE GOING FOR IT, AS NO GOVERNMENT HAS WON YET ON TALIBAN AND PAKISTAN BASED TERRORIST GROUP. CAN ANY GOVERNMENT EVEN PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT SAY THAT THIS PIPELINE WILL BE SECURED AND WILL NEVER HAVE ANY SET BACK FROM TERRORIST. THE ANSWER IS “NO”. HENCE TAPI IS A HORROR PROJECT PUTTING TAX PAYERS MONEY IN RISK DESPITE KNOWING THE THREAT.
No comments:
Post a Comment