Talk:Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India Pipeline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Feasibility

"the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control."

o.k. how is it that "the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control" when in 1998 the Taliban gave the green light to continue with the project through Taliban controlled territory.


My personal opinion to your question would be that in 1998 the Taliban would have gotten a big slice of that pie. That is not the case now...

Citations Missing

"Building the pipeline was cited by some critics of the Bush administration as a motivation for the invasion. Some people have even said that if you take a map of U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and a map of the proposed pipeline they are very close together, suggesting that bases are positioned to protect natural gas interests"

I am removing this segment because:

1. It does not identify who "some critics" are

2. It is not sourced at all

3. It does not identify who "some people" are

I think this may be original research or skepticism. If not, it should still not be in the article, because it does not cite its sources. Once someone adds the necessary citations (if they exist), I will be happy to add it back in. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 20:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information from the
Central Asia-China gas pipeline

Following information was added by the anon user to the

Central Asia-China gas pipeline
article:

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE PROPOSAL TURKEMANISTAN-AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN-CHINA Turkmenistan Pakistan Pipeline through Central Afghanistan (Zulfiqar – Turkmen Afghan Border to Torkham – Pak Afghan Border 1040 kilometre).

The proposed route for the gas pipeline passes Central Afghan road system from the vicinity of Islam Qila to Heart eastwards to Chakhcharan, Panjao along the Hari Rud, then onwards to Maidan Shahar to Kabul and onwards East along the Kabul River to Sarobi, Jalalabad and to Torkhum at western end of the Khyber Agency in Pakistan.

This proposal joins up with the terminus of the Sui Northern Gas Pipeline of Pakistan. This route alternative is the most economical route for both Pakistan and China. The main parts on the proposed route with their approximate elevations are indicated below: -

Sr No. Route Elevation Distance Direction

1. Afghan Border (Turkmanistan) Zulfiquar 3,600

2. Koshan 3,300 100 North - South

3. Herat 4,000 100 West - East

4. Chisht 7,000 120 West – East

5. Chakhcharan 8,000 100 West – East

6. Panjao 8,000 120 West – East

7. Dawalkot 7,500 150 West – East

8. Maidan Shehr 6,600 80 West – East

9. Kabul 6000 90 West - East

10. Sarobi 4,000 60 West - East

11. Jalalabad 2,500 60 West – East

12. Torkhum 1,800 60 West – East

Total 1,040


Total distance/length of pipeline in Afghanistan is 1040 Kilometre and maximum height is 8,000 Feet.

The pipeline route is most appropriate for the aspect of gas shortfall in the upcountry belt of Upper Punjab, NWFP and Northern Areas within Pakistan and shortest distance to Indian Punjab, Haryana and Dehli. Other important considerations relevant to this route are: -

1. Interconnection to this pipeline system is possible from the Afghan Gas Reserve of Shalishek at some point between Chisht and Chakhcharan. 2. The main line passes at a distance of 40 Kilomtres from the largest and the richest known iron ore deposits of Haji Gak Koh-e-Baba from Dawal Kot on the pipeline route. 3. The proposed pipeline also passes along the Hari rud at Heart along the Sarobi Reservoir, as well as the Warsak Reservoir from aspects of Gas Powered Thermal Power Stations in Afghanistan. 4. The 1,200 KV line from Tajikistan to Pakistan via Kunduz, Salang, Mahmud Raqi would meet up with the Trans-Afghan pipeline at Sarobi. 5. It would be possible to have a series of Gas Turbine Peak time demand augmentation power stations at Warsak, Chasma, Tarbela, Akhori and Bhasha storage sites. 6. Chemical Fertiliser, Petro Chemical industries would be feasible along the pipeline route especially along the Tarbella Reservoir around Haripur. 7. A branch northwards from Jalalabad could be extended 90 kilometre to chitral, to provide a key to chemical Industry based on known sulphur deposits of Nangarhar, as well as for thermal power stations at Daronta/Naghlu Reservoir in Afghanistan and at the proposed dam at Mirkhani on the Chitral River near Drosh.


Lastly there has been almost no hostile activity in the region of the proposed route of the pipeline presently or even during the insurgency against the Soviets. The route also negates the rationale for a separate Baluch identity independent of Pakistan.

Prposal By Engineer M K Vardag

Actually it belongs here, but I am not sure how to incorporate this into existing text. There is also no reference(s). Beagel 17:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's silence about the role of this pipeline as a motive for the Afghanistan war

Saith Wikipedia:


"The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Wasn't this deal made possible by the war against the Taliban? Wasn't this the real motive for the ongoing war there? Didn't Cheney's Halliburton have hopes of getting the contract to build the pipeline? Why is this article silent about all this, when there are sources out there that could back this up?

India / Halliburton

Why is there no mention of the meaning of the acronym "TAPI" in this article? India isn't even mentioned. A casual reader might assume the name meant Trans-Asian Pipeline instead of Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline.

Addressing the previous entry: It does appear that overt political sensitivity (or some creative editing?)has factored into the lack of transparency about the role of certain large multinational corporations in this and other oil-and-gas development projects.

Can we hope to find more frank-and-honest discussions once Wikipedia has reached its fundraising goal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.201.62 (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Re-investigate the "Unreliable Source?" Template beside the reference for Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Please re-investigate the "Unreliable Source?" template beside the reference for the author

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
. Thank you. After you have had time to make that second "attempt," I will, in good faith, remove the template from this article.

In particular, please see the reference for this statement: His research on international terrorism was officially used by the 9/11 Commission in Washington DC.[1]

  1. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 2009-12-14. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help
    )

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Could anybody create a map of the pipeline? One possible source may be http://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/map1-640x480-640x480.jpg. Beagel (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maps very much needed. Could WP contact the following User who created good maps for other pipelines in the area? 173.210.125.42 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thomas_Blomberg

History not complete -- UNOCAL Northern Pipeline

The history is basically wrong, or I should say it is grossly incomplete. The proposed Northern pipe line was a UNOCAL project that began in the 1970s, not the 1990s. The people who actually owned the country's resources defended themselves against UNOCAL and other corporate-based resource stealers, they successfully kept destroying parts of the pipe line as it was going in, and ultimately their defense of their country was successful, the corporate criminals ere driven off and the UNOCAL Northern pipe line was stalled.

The issue was (and still is) greatly complex because governmental rule in the region is fractured, and religious occultism drives a great deal of behavior in the country. While some governmental leaders were taking bribe money, narcotics, and "relocation services" to posh life styles in other countries in exchange for open and complete access to pipe line regions, other governmental leaders actually defended their country from foreign corporate take overs, not only of the land and access rights along UNOCAL's proposed line, but also of regional cheaply-accessed oil, bauxite, you name it (countless other minerals that were and remain "undeveloped.")

The regional defense of Afghanistan by its citizens stalled UNOCAL and the United States in the 1970s however that didn't entirely stop UNOCAL and the Carter regime, the effort to put UNOCAL's pipe line through required greater commitment by the United States which we finally saw culminate with the Bush regime's war crimes launched against the people of Afghanistan, the successful (for now, any way) removal of citizens willing and capable of destroying parts of the Northern pipeline as it's going in.

Some fairly detailed summary timeline for UNOCAL's Northern pipeline are offered here: http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm

So the history shown here is woefully incomplete. I expect that the missing history is because too many people feel that the actual history of the UNOCAL Northern pipeline is not a neutral POV, that the truth about the lengthy history behind the war crimes, about the UNOCAL line itself, and the United States' involvement are unsavory enough that there are no "neutral" points of view that people would agree to. Damotclese (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India_Pipeline&oldid=1195309571"