Is the Afghan war against 'terror' is nothing more than a cover to build an oil pipeline?
On February 12, 1998, John J. Maresca, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL's problem? As Maresca said: "How to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets." The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day.
Google "Maresca testimony February 12, 1998" Apparently my links and certain words are censored by yahoo.
read the add info crash..
cannot post links or this question will get censored, just google that keywords
Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation.
Unocal is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies. Our activities are focused on three major regions -- Asia, Latin America and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In Asia and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely, and I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.
Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region, its resources and U.S. policy:
One option is to go east across China. But this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers to central China -- as well as a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. Even with these formidable challenges, China National Petroleum Corporation is consi
Even with these formidable challenges, China National Petroleum Corporation is considering building a pipeline east from Kazakhstan to Chinese markets.
Unocal had a team in Beijing just last week for consultations with the Chinese. Given China's long-range outlook and its ability to concentrate resources to meet its own needs, China is almost certain to build such a line. The question is what will the costs of transporting oil through this pipeline be and what netback will the producers receive.
South to the Indian Ocean: A Shorter Distance to Growing Markets
A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.
One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.
The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory acros
which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.
In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.
Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.
The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.
This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project -- which is similar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline -- is about US$2.5 billion.
- KiniLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
Yes. A war for resources.Source(s): http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/oil-and-natural-gas http://live.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
- Kevin oLv 58 years ago
Why not do what Europe does and import oil and gas through Russia....simpler and cheaper than fighting a war that has cost many billions more than your imaginary scenario.
Mr Maresca has testified before government? So what.Read your ''proof'' again and you should see that he is looking for a possible solution to a business opportunity.He is not expressing the Wests intent.
Why is it that a large proportion of the population believe that wars are always attributable to the greed for oil.This is just plain tiresome.Why not blame more basic human instincts,fear,hatred or revenge,or maybe there is a black side to us that likes conflict.
- 8 years ago
Interesting. From where to where and who is buying it at the end?
@crash: that is why there would be a pipeline, because there is no oil in Afganistan and hence you would need a way of getting it across the country, that's what a pipeline is for...idiot
- 8 years ago
It is just an excuse for the UN to conquer it in its quest for a Global Government.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 8 years ago
Its the conspiracy of USA.
The same thing which earlier happened during IRAQ -- WMD case.
- tehabwaLv 78 years ago
Really? So you never heard of the biggest terrorist attack in world history?
How come it hasn't been built, all these years later?
- 8 years ago
There is no oil in Afghanistan. Idiot