Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Seems like President Musharraf was successful in convincing Bush about dropping American opposition to the pipeline from Iran. :k:

**Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline **

President George W Bush has indicated the US has dropped its staunch opposition to a proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan. Mr Bush said on his visit to Pakistan he understood the need for natural gas in the region and that the US argument with Iran was over nuclear weapons. The $6bn project for the 2,600km (1,625 mile) pipeline will bring Iran revenue, Pakistan transit fees and India energy. The nations hope to start construction in 2007, with key talks due this month. The US had previously stated it was “absolutely opposed” to the gas pipeline, even indicating Pakistan and India could face sanctions if the project got under way. But in Islamabad, Mr Bush said: “Our beef with Iran is not the pipeline, our beef with Iran is… they want to develop a nuclear weapon and I believe a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Iranians will be very dangerous for all of us.” He said he had discussed the pipeline with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and understood “the need to get natural gas in the region, that’s fine”. Mr Bush said his secretary of energy would visit Pakistan to discuss Islamabad’s energy needs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4774312.stm

2

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

That's good for India too. Does this pipleline go through the Baloochistan at all or is that a different one?

3

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

It will probably go through Balochistan, as the Assam route would needlessly drive up the costs of the project for all countries involved.

Next steps- Turkemenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline, and Qatar-Pakistan gas pipeline.

...until the successors to uncle Bush give their blessing to some civilian nuclear projects to meet energy needs.

4

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Yes - the proposed pipeline would go via Khuzdar in central Balochistan, and Multan in Southern Punjab and then onto India.

5

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

India appears to have agreed in principle to join the Turkemenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline as well. Whether from Iran or Turkmenistan both pipeline will pass through Pakistan before going to India.

**India to join TAP pipeline project **

Ahead of the visit of US President George Bush, India has decided to join the US-backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline to import natural gas to meet the fuel needs of its growing economy. New Delhi, earlier this month participated for the first time as an “observer” in the 9th meeting of the steering committee of the TAP project and has since decided to join the $3.5-billion project. “We have 90-days to get necessary official approvals to join the project. Once approved by the Cabinet, the project will be renamed TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline),” said petroleum minister Murli Deora. Officials said the pipeline from Turkmenistan would be more easier to implement than the Iran-Pakistan-India line as it already had the backing of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Moreover, unlike IPI, the project does not run the risk of being blacklisted for participation by US and European financers and companies. US has been encouraging Pakistan to abandon the IPI project and consider TAP for meeting its gas needs. The Bush administration accuses Tehran of harbouring nuclear weapon ambitions and has called for its isolation. The proposed natural gas pipeline would stretch from the Turkmenistan/Afghanistan border in southeastern Turkmenistan to Multan, Pakistan (790 miles, 1,271 kilometers), with a 400-mile (640-kilometer) extension to India.

Estimated cost of the project is $2.9 billion for the segment to Pakistan and an additional $600 million for the extension to India. The pipeline would offer a much-needed financial boost to war-ravaged Afghanistan in form of transit fee. “Of course there are security implications but once Afghans see huge economic benefits flow in the form of jobs and multi-million dollar transit fee, they will ensure the pipeline is safe,” an official said. Though New Delhi was not considering TAP as an alternate to IPI, it saw the implementation of the latter as much easier. Besides, the tough posturing adopted by Iran on sale of gas in form of LNG to India has forced New Delhi to look at other sources, the official said. Tehran is yet to ratify the $22-billion deal to export 5 million tonnes per annum of LNG for 25-years from 2009 to India despite the initial agreement being signed in June 2005. The proposed TAP pipeline will carry natural gas from the Dauletabad Field, in southeastern Turkmenistan at a rate of up to 2 billion cubic feet per day (20 billion cubic meters per year). US energy firm Unocal, the previous owner of Dauletabad field, had in October 1997 stated that the fields had been independently certified reserves of more then 25 trillion cubic feet (708 billion cubic meters). The Government of Turkmenistan has guaranteed deliverability of 25 trillion cubic feet (708 billion cubic meters) of natural gas exclusively for the Central Asia Gas Pipeline.
Much or all of this gas is expected to come from the Dauletabad Field.

http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14145375

Just imagine for a moment ...
6

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Sure Bush has no problem that Pakistani, Bharati, and American troops “secure” Iranian gas fields. This type of “Marshall plan” would deny Iranian Ayatullahs money for nukies and still get gas to Pakistan and Bharat.

7

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Bush has no problem with it, because it is now dead in the water. Nuclear energy is much more reliable source than a pipe line running through areas that are highly unstable. The pipe line was already looking unlikely with no one to fund or insure the deal. Even China was not willing to back the deal.
The nuclear deal is much better. GE and other power generation companies, already in India, will use an Indian work force, know-how will be transfered, the threat of disruption due to political chaos will be minimized, Indian energy will not be at the risk of being shut off due to secondary issues, and deal has much more economic impact.
The nuclear energy deal will help India cushion it's economic prosperity from it's foreign policy. Clearly now, a pipe line will be more beneficial to Pakistan than to India. This is a good bargaining chip to use for resolution of issues.

8

US still opposed to Iran pipeline, Pakistan to pursue with or without India

The White House said on Tuesday it still opposes a proposed natural gas pipeline linking energy-rich Iran with India, clarifying remarks by President George W. Bush that seemed to soften US opposition to the project.

Bush had seemed to suggest a shift in policy when he said during a visit to Pakistan on Friday that “our beef with Iran is not the pipeline, our beef with Iran is the fact that they want to develop a nuclear weapon.”

“As we stated before, the US government does not support the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline,” said White House National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones.

Jones said while the United States recognised the growing energy needs of India and Pakistan, “we have repeatedly expressed concerns about international participation in energy projects with Iran.”
This concern is over “Iran’s nuclear activities, support for terrorists, and (its) atrocious human rights record,” Jones said.

However Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz said on Tuesday a natural gas pipeline from Iran to Pakistan would go ahead whether or not India decides to join in $7 billion project, citing the vital need for energy security.

“All indications are that India also supports the (effort). If India doesn’t join us we will still go ahead, but we would like India to join,”
Aziz said, responding to a question after a speech to the International
Institute for Strategic Studies.

“Our petroleum people were there last week and indications are they are on track,” he said.

“Energy security is such a vital area which will determine the success or failure of a particular economy, country or region that we need to move ahead. So the project is on track,” Aziz said.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/08/top15.htm

9

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Sure it will help Bharat. However people tend to ignore what this deal will bring to the USA.

Prez. Bush with one master stroke has opened up Bharati nuclear program to the direct US control. He pushed American agenda on Bharat so tactfully that Bharartis are laughing and smiling. Nehru must be fuming in his grave.

10

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Are you serious?
Do you understand any of the mechanics of energy consumption?
CNG (compressed natural gas) is used to power vehicles in the subcontinent. Of the top of my head I would guess there are very few natural gas powered power plants in the sucontinent, they are likely coal powered. Nuclear power is NOT an alternative to CNG or petroleum

11

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

In the long term nuclear power will only provide India with 25% of it's energy needs. It still needs to procure the other 75% from traditional imports of oil and gas, for which it will require pipelines crossing through Pakistan.

12

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Since you have not read the deal, or any Pakistani op/ed pieces, I'll educate you on what the deal says. First, India has until 2014 to decouple it's civilian and military installations. The civilian installations will come under IAEA supervision. However, India can continue to build military facilities, without the help of the US, and they would remain "unsupervised". Ofcourse, the facilities may be seperated but know how will not be.

I don't know about Pakistan, but in India CNG is not used to power the majority of vehicles. Indian auto markets are moving towards gas-electric hybrids. This push is directly related to the gov'ts on India unwillingness to rely on Pakistani transit of energy. Within the decade, it will be cheaper globally to produce hybrids, due to the size of the market, than it will be to convert cars to CNG.

I have no idea where you got this from. However, from the US to Europe nuclear power is the way of the future. The world is getting away from sources of energy from unstable regions of the world and moving towards sources that are more stable, less poluting, and more sustainable.

A pipeline through Pakistan is unstable and will not be reliable. It will never be a primary source of energy. The pipeline deal is now more valuable to Pakistan than to India.

13

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

^LOL, I didnt say that 25% thing you are talking about :hehe:

As for your statement on using hybrids and converting vehicles to CNG, I think you lack basic understanding of engineering fundamentals involved. Let me repeat, most gas used in a country like India is not likley to be in power generation. It has many other uses. Beyond CNG that I have previously mentioned, natural gas liquids such as Ethane and Ethylene are crucial components in a huge number of industries.
As for vehicular usage, even a gas\electric hybrid requires gas for operation regardless of conversion. Your contention that nuclear power may be used in this case is nonsensical. IMO a very, very small percentage of power plants in 3rd world countries use gas as a power source (I am a Mechanical Engineer). If anything nuclear power would be a substitute to coal power plants. In itself such a move is a sideways step, coal is plentifull in most countries. While nuclear power burns much cleaner than coal, even the environmental advantage of using nuclear power over coal is questionable.

14

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

We are talking about Bharatis bending over backwards and you want me to read this all in my local papers? .

Thanks for the “education” dude. Uncle Sam’s monitors are already on the ground. Funny how Bharatis are jumping with joy while Americans are taking digital pictures of Bharati nuke’s innards.

Could you say this in plain English please?

15

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

It occurs to me that you are probably not in the US, my “local” jargon has escaped your highly intellectual Mechanical Engineer mind. In the US, gas is used to reffer to gasoline, not CNG. Simply to clarify, what I meant by gas-electric hybrid is Gasoline(Petrol)-electric hybrid.
In terms of intermediary chemicals, like ethane and ethylene, a CNG pipeline is not required to provide sufficient amounts for the Indian chemical industry.
Now, one point you are correct in is that CNG has more use than simply providing fuel to power plants. In India, it is used commonly for cooking. People buy it in cylinders. However, with stable and reliable electricty spreading through the country the need for gas cylinders is coming down.
As for environmental advantages of nuclear power, pick up a recent trade journal. I’m sure Mechanical Engineers like you must have them laying around all over.
Last point, I, along with most of the people on this forum are engineers as well. Throwing qualifications around is does not become a descent discussion.

16

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Janab,

I understand you may neither fully comprehend English nor read print from your corner of the world. I am also sure, as an editorialist in the Nation (Nawa-e-Waqt) said, that whatever Pakistanis, who would like the same setup with the US, say smells of sour grapes.
Let the monitors come. Let them see the power plants. What is most important is that we have reliable energy unhindered by instability.

17

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline


Questions for you then boss if you have technical know how.
1. How would you gain feed stocks for Petchem industry without NGL?
2. Even if NG use is for power as you suggest, do you really believe that anyone in their right mind would close down a recently built NG Power Plant and invest in a Nuclear power plant and its immense associated capital cost?
3. Without NG for burning and steam production how could you complete heavy manufacturing?
4. It is your stance that you would like energy independence, yet you still propose using gas\hybrid engines. You realize of course that per GJ petroleum imports will be far more incrementally expensive when compared to NG - especially in the next 20 yrs

You see it is always easy to make grand statements, but the devil is in the details :)

18

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

Yes indeed, the devil is in the details. The biggest detail you forget is that Pakistan and Iran are extremely unstable. Pipelines are being blown up daily in Pakistan and Iran is under threat of UN sanctions and possible hostile action. This makes for any deal, especially one with great economic impact, unlikely and unwise. You contention that India can only move forward on natural gas coming from Pakistan is incorrect. India can maintain staus quo, in terms of import, and move future electric power generation to nuclear power and hydroelectric power.
The fact still remains, Pakistan as a source for Indian power is becoming more unnecessary.

19

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

I didn't read every single line and post, but mainly the news articles attached.

It seems as though US was initially not okay with this pipeline project. However, it softened its stance. Then later it clarified that it's still not in favour of it.

I've got two questions:

  1. Why is US so opposed to this plan? How is it hurting the US?

  2. Would it harm Iran in the long run? Ie. would they eventually be bankrupt of this natural resource or do they have enough to supply their nationals for years to come without any worry?

20

Re: Bush U-turn on Iranian pipeline

they want a united global non-cooperation attitude with Iran in opposition to its nuclear ambitions to send a message.

no, they don’t have to worry. Iran has plenty of natural gas with the second-largest proven gas reserves in the world.