[iwar] Post-Afghan-war oil deals

From: televr (yangyun@metacrawler.com)
Date: 2001-12-15 10:31:58
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] Bin Laden's voice detected (fwd)"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:MSIE.may.download.and.run.progams.automatically]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <9vg4uu+h4o2@eGroups.com>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
From: "televr" <yangyun@metacrawler.com>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 18:31:58 -0000
Subject: [iwar] Post-Afghan-war oil deals
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

As the War Shifts Alliances, Oil Deals Follow

By NEELA BANERJEE with SABRINA TAVERNISE

here is no oil in Afghanistan, but there are oil politics, and
Washington is subtly tending to them, using the promise of energy
investments in Central Asia to nurture a budding set of political
alliances in the region with Russia, Kazakhstan and, to some extent,
Uzbekistan. 

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States has lauded the region as
a stable oil supplier, in a tacit comparison with the Persian Gulf
states that have been viewed lately as less cooperative. The State
Department is exploring the potential for post-Taliban energy projects
in the region, which has more than 6 percent of the world's proven oil
reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves.

The United States government cannot compel investment, but it can
clear away diplomatic and bureaucratic obstacles. Western oil
companies say warming relations with regional powers could yield small
openings. Better ties between Russia and the United States, for
example, have accelerated a thaw that began more than a year ago over
pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea to the West.

"The sharp edges are off that discussion, and things are seen as less
of a threat," said Martijn Minderhoud, a senior regional vice
president for Royal Dutch/Shell. 

But any payoff remains distant. The entrenched problems that hobbled
oil investment in Russia and Central Asia before September still
exist. Oil companies and regional experts wonder whether significant
new oil and gas reservoirs will be opened to foreign investment,
whether onerous laws and tax codes will be reworked and whether
persistent corruption can be reduced.

"This is a period of reassessments among oil companies, and a time of
cautious optimism," said Scott Horton, a partner at the law firm of
Patterson, Belknap Webb & Tyler in Manhattan. "But all have been badly
burned in the former Soviet Union before." 

Skeptics, especially in the Islamic world, contend that oil interests
lie at the heart of the West's war in Afghanistan. "The Pipeline of
Greed," read the headline on a recent article in the Pakistani
newspaper Dawn about the American-led attacks on the Taliban and Al
Qaeda. "The war on terrorism may well be a war for resources," it said.

The Bush administration says that its war goals have been clear ?and
do not involve oil. "There is no such hidden agenda," said an
administration official. "Operation Enduring Freedom is meant to get
rid of terrorism in Afghanistan, Central Asia and the surrounding areas."

Still, the administration lately has discreetly overlooked the
pitfalls of doing business in the former Soviet Union. During a visit
a week ago to Kazakhstan, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he
was "particularly impressed" with the money that American oil
companies were investing there. He estimated that $200 billion could
flow into Kazakhstan during the next 5 to 10 years.

Two weeks earlier, on a visit to Russia, Energy Secretary Spencer
Abraham championed the cause of increased foreign investment in
Russia's oil industry. On the same trip, David J. O'Reilly, the
chairman of ChevronTexaco (news/quote), said his company was reviewing
possible projects in the Russian Far East. 

Pipelines are the clearest realm of progress. For years the United
States and Russia clashed over routes to transport oil and gas from
the Caspian Sea region to lucrative Western markets ?and the political
and economic power that control of those networks conferred.

Russia wanted pipelines built on its territory, and some were. The
United States backed a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to the Turkish
Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, bypassing Russia entirely. The pipeline
consortium is led by BP and represented by Baker & Botts, the law firm
of James A. Baker III, a Bush family confidant and former secretary of
state.

Over the last year, Russia's opposition to that route has subsided,
and in October, the oil ministry invited BP to make a presentation
about it to domestic oil companies. Industry analysts said that
meeting would have been unthinkable if ties between the United States
and Russia had not improved. Russia's largest oil company, Lukoil,
confirmed that it was seriously looking into investing in the project.

The arc of countries in Central Asia where Western oil companies work
grazes Afghanistan. But the value of Afghanistan itself, if any, might
be as a pipeline route. 

Four years ago, the Unocal Corp. (news/quote) ?with the State
Department's backing ?negotiated with the Taliban to build a pipeline
through Afghanistan linking Turkmenistan, which is rich in natural gas
but landlocked, to Pakistan. Although Pakistan has called for reviving
the pipeline, industry experts say oil companies are so far not
interested. 

But the plan could be dusted off.

"Once we bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, we will have to cough up
some projects there, and this pipeline is one of them," said Matthew
J. Sagers of Cambridge Energy (news/quote) Research Associates, a
research and consulting group. "Can oil companies be persuaded by the
United States? It has happened before. Look at Baku-Ceyhan."

That project exemplifies how Washington fosters oil investment. The
White House began advocating the Baku-Ceyhan route about five years
ago, but oil companies in the Caspian argued that it made little
economic sense. At that time, there was little oil from the Caspian
Sea. But there was plenty of natural gas, and companies needed a
pipeline for it.

They agreed to develop the Baku- Ceyhan oil pipeline if they could get
the American government's help to build a parallel gas pipeline, a
person close to the Baku-Ceyhan consortium said. The presence of an
Iranian company, OIEC, as a 10 percent shareholder in the gas pipeline
consortium might have prompted the United States to block the project.
But it did not, and both pipelines are now proceeding.

This fall, the antiterrorism campaign raised oil companies' hopes that
relations between Iran and the United States might improve. The
industry's favored export route for Caspian oil is through Iran. But
while the Bush administration confirms that Iran is sharing
intelligence about Afghanistan with the United States, the president
is maintaining Washington's longstanding policy against doing business
with Tehran.

Western oil companies, showing a bit more faith than before in Central
Asia and Russia, are gingerly looking for investment opportunities,
industry consultants said. But the barriers are significant. 

Through the 1990's, the United States fostered good relations with
Kazakhstan to circumvent Moscow. But the relationship cooled when the
Justice Department last year began investigating accusations of
high-level corruption in oil projects there. 

That investigation continues, but Kazakhstan ?which holds about 88
percent of Central Asia's oil wealth ?has offered the United States
use of its airspace and military bases for the war. Its president,
Nursultan Nazarbayev, is due in Washington next Friday to meet with
President Bush and then will travel to Texas to mingle with oil
executives.

Russia would seem the most attractive candidate for investment, given
its warming relations with the United States ?missile defense aside
?and its relatively extensive economic changes.

But Russia is hard to figure. Its recent decision to acquiesce to
OPEC's demand to cut exports has been interpreted in differing ways.
Moscow might have come under American pressure to go along with the
Middle East to protect oil prices, and so ensure political stability
among the United States' Arab allies. Or the cut, which went against
the official position of the United States, might have defied Washington.

Either way, Western oil companies understand, Russia's underlying
motivation is the same: the Russians pursue their interests, which
occasionally coincide with America's. 

Those Russian interests still preclude serious involvement by Western
oil companies in developing most Russian fields, except for complex
offshore projects. Russia has tarried in developing tax laws and a
production-sharing agreement for foreign oil concerns. Russian
politicians fear surrendering oil to foreigners. After years of
courting their wealthier and more-experienced Western counterparts,
Russian oil companies, made richer by high oil prices, mostly want to
go it alone. 

"In the last year, the attitude of Russian oil companies to Western
ones has changed," said Yevgeny Khartukov, general director of the
International Center for Petroleum Business Studies, a nonprofit
research and consulting group in Moscow. "Now they don't need them." 



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Need new boots for winter? Looking for a perfect gift for your shoe loving friends?
Zappos.com is the perfect fit for all your shoe needs!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ltdUpD/QrSDAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] Bin Laden's voice detected (fwd)"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:MSIE.may.download.and.run.progams.automatically]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 21:00:00 PST