Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Black Jade
Your position on Iran and "multiple pipeline routes is totally contradictory. At the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives on February 12 1998 the following people testified:
Robert Gee Assistant sec for Policy U.S. Department of Energy
Fred Starr from Johns Hopkins
John Maresca from Unocal
Since all of you pipeline conspiracy theorists consider this hearing to be the smoking gun I will rely on it as evidence.

First of all, both Gee and Maresca agreed that the pipeline to China was too expensive and too long to be a reasonable option. Gee also stated that a pipeline to the Black Sea through Russia was bad for environmental and strategic reasons. Gee, Starr, and Maresca all agreed that a Baku to Ceyhan pipeline was a great idea along with a trans Caspian extension to that pipeline. They also agreed that U.S. foreign policy should be more sympathetic to Azerbaijan.

Most importantly however, Gee stating the Clinton Administration position said;
"Our policy on Iran is unchanged. The U.S. Government opposes pipelines through Iran. Development of Iran's oil and gas industry and pipelines from the Caspian Basin south through Iran will seriously undercut the development of east-west infrastructure and give Iran improper leverage over the economies of the Caucuses and Central Asian States. Moreover from an energy security standpoint, it makes no sense to move yet more energy resources through the Persian Gulf, a potential major hot spot or chokepoint. From an economic standpoint, Iran competes with Turkmenistan for the lucrative Turkish gas market. Turkmenistan could provide the gas to build the pipeline, only to see itself desplaced ultimately by Iran's own gas exports."

The phrase multiple pipelines means "anywhere but Iran". Gee did not believe all options were equally workable. He said " A Baku-Ceyhan route appears to be the most viable option" , but he was willing to tolerate any route so long as it did not go through Iran. Maresca's position was that he thought Baku-Ceyhan might not be enough and that he also wanted a pipeline across Afghanistan. He accepted the Administration position that ILSA would not be lifted. When he was asked whether he could build a pipeline across a country having a civil war he said " We urge the Administration and Congress to give strong support to the U.N. peace process in Afghanistan." This does not to me indicate a plot to overthrow the Taliban.

In the abscence of political obstacles such as the Iran Libya sanctions act, the Iranian pipeline would be the shortest and most efficient route. The whole point of the Afghan route is to avoid Iran. In economic terms they are mutually exclusive.

129 posted on 12/23/2001 2:28:36 AM PST by ganesha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson