The new pipeline would take oil from the Kirkuk area, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, and transport it via Mosul, and then across Jordan to Israel. The U.S. telegram included a request for a cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. During the War of Independence, the Iraqis stopped the flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline fell into disrepair over the years.
The National Infrastructure Ministry has recently conducted research indicating that construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and Haifa would cost about $400,000 per kilometer. The old Mosul-Haifa pipeline was only 8 inches in diameter.
National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky said yesterday that the port of Haifa is an attractive destination for Iraqi oil and that he plans to discuss this matter with the U.S. secretary of energy during his planned visit to Washington next month. Paritzky added that the plan depends on Jordan's consent and that Jordan would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to piped through its territory. The minister noted, however, that "due to pan-Arab concerns, it will be hard for the Jordanians to agree to the flow of Iraqi oil via Jordan and Israel."
Sources in Jerusalem confirmed yesterday that the Americans are looking into the possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel. (There is also a pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.)
Iraqi oil is now being transported via Turkey to a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. The transit fee collected by Turkey is an important source of revenue for the country. This line has been damaged by sabotage twice in recent weeks and is presently out of service.
In response to rumors about the possible Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline, Turkey has warned Israel that it would regard this development as a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations.
Sources in Jerusalem suggest that the American hints about the alternative pipeline are part of an attempt to apply pressure on Turkey.
Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, with the potential of reaching about 2.5 million barrels a day. Oil exports were halted after the Gulf War in 1991 and then were allowed again on a limited basis (1.5 million barrels per day) to finance the import of food and medicines. Iraq is currently exporting several hundred thousand barrels of oil per day.
During his visit to Washington in about two weeks, Paritzky also plans to discuss the possibility of U.S. and international assistance for joint Israeli-Palestinian projects in the areas of energy and infrastructure, natural gas, desalination and electricity
From the report:
“Israeli National Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky considers the pipeline project as economically justifiable as it would reduce the country's cost of oil imports. This is currently very high, as Israel imports oil from Russia. There would also be a strategic justification for the project, as importing oil from an oil supplier in Israel's close proximity would increase its fuel security and would address its major handicap, that is, its total dependence on imported fuel from far-away suppliers.
Paritzky has requested an assessment of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline's current state, which ceased to operate in 1948. Presumably, the pipeline will require major repair and/or upgrading, if not an overhaul, as it has not been in use for more than half a century. However, its full operation, including the required repair work, needs the consent of Iraq, the would-be oil supplier, and Syria, a country neighboring both Iraq and Israel, through which the pipeline passes.
Iraqi consent would have been out of the question as long as the regime of Saddam Hussein was in power. As acknowledged by the Israeli minister, a prerequisite for the project is, therefore, a new regime in Baghdad with friendly ties with Israel. However, such a regime” “will still require Syria's consent to operationalize the pipeline. Given the overall political environment in the Middle East and Israel's continued occupation of Syria's Golan Heights, the existing Syrian regime will never grant its consent as long as the status quo prevails. As stated by the Iranian government, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) when Iraq enjoyed cordial and close relations with Israel's mentor, the United States, Israel tried, but failed, to resume the oil flow through the pipeline. Syria, a friend of Iran and an enemy of Iraq, blocked the flow of Iraqi oil.”
“The Caspian Sea region has become a central focus point for untapped oil and natural gas resources from the southern portion of the former Soviet Union. Beginning in May 2005, oil from the southern sections of the Caspian Sea began pumping through a new pipeline (built by a BP-led consortium) to the Turkish seaport of Ceyhan. The 8-year effort of Western capital, technology, and diplomacy had aimed to decrease reliance on Middle Eastern oil. However, in recent years, new oil finds and production performance in the Caspian region have not met levels that had been expected in the 1990s. At any rate, the Caspian Sea's production levels, even at their peak, will be much smaller than OPEC countries' output. Production levels are expected to reach 4 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2015, compared to 45 million bbl/d for the OPEC countries in that year”
“The Destabilization of areas viewed as vital for the unimpeded flow of Mid-Eastern oil”
“The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production.
One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are land locked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure.
Because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absorb large new quantities of foreign oil. It's unlikely to be a significant market for new energy in the next decade. It lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.
Two major infrastructure projects are seeking to meet the need for additional export capacity. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, plans to build a pipeline west from the northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Oil would then go by tanker through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean and world markets.
The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of two possible routes, one line would angle north and cross the north Caucasus to Novorossiysk. The other route would cross Georgia to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea. This second route could be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.
But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future. Nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.
The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. <>From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.” <>
“Destabilization in: Iran- 1953: Operation AJAX …..
Guatemala –1953: Operation PBSUCCESS …
Uzbekistan- 2005 (unsuccessful)” (Technical material redacted. Ed.)
Annexe: “Preliminary Report on Muslim Riots in France….”
“At the suggestion of the American Vice President, Cheney, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, with the technical assistance of both the Israeli MOSSAD and AMAN, have fomented domestic civil strife inside the French Republic.” “MOSSAD penetration of dissident Muslim groups in France, permitted the technical coordination…” ” of the attacks in: Paris, Rouen, Lille, Nice, Dijon, Strasbourg, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Rennes, Pau, Orleans, and Toulouse. Later, the closely coordinated rioting spread further to Lyon, Roubaix, Avignon, Saint-Dizier, Drancy, Evreux, Nantes, Dunkirk, Montpellier, Valenciennes, Cannes, and Tourcoing.” “Funds for this were supplied entirely by the CIA and technical assistance by the MOSSAD was further enhanced by the use of a cell-phone system believed to be secure from French interdiction….” “The Israeli official attitude towards France is coloured by the perception of barely-disguised anti-Semitism on the part of French officialdom as manifested by” specific incidents listed. “Thusly, the hostility of the French population against resident Arabs is guaranteed,”… “to permit military action in the former French colony of Syria, without let or hindrance….”
“* The Turkish port of Ceyhan is on the Mediterranean Sea north of the Syrian border.
* Since the Turkish Parliament refused US invasion troops overland access to Iraq via Turkey at the last minute in February 2003, Turkey has been re-evaluated by Washington as an unreliable ally.
* Now that Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, bordering on Turkey, and Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan across the Caspian Sea, are no longer part of the Soviet Union, Turkey is less strategically important anyway, as a US ally.
* The pipelines from Central Asia to the Black Sea are strategically vulnerable to Russia blockading the Bosphorus.
* When Syria and Iran are either destabilized or invaded and come under US domination, Kurdish Northern Iran and Kurdish Syria could join with Kurdish Iraq in a Greater Kurdistan. This may (or has?) been held out to the Kurds as a carrot to encourage their buy-in to the larger plan.
* This larger plan would be: To build a new, or refursibh an existing, oil and probably also a gas pipeline from the Kurdish Northern Iranian shores of the Caspian Sea, through Kurdish Iran, into Kurdish Iraq, to link up with the Mosul-Haifa pipeline through Kurdish Syria into Northern Israel. A pipeline running via Syria that has not been used in some three decades.
* Via these mega-pipelines, all the oil and gas of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Greater Kurdistan (Northern Iran and Northern Iraq) could flow, safely guarded by the Kurds, from Central Asia into Israel and the Mediterranean.
* To open a secure line of communication and supply for U.S. mideasst forces now in Iraq from the secure Mediterranean area, avoiding the dangers of sending military vessels into the Persian Gulf where they could be vulnerable to rocket attacks from Iran.
* When (not if) Turkey throws the US out of its airbase at Incirlik, the US could relocate to a new base in former Northern Iraq, soon to become Kurdistan, which is far more strategically located to dominate the region, and this new airbase could also help the Kurds guard the pipelines down to Haifa.
· Building this new US military facility would provide billions of dollars of no-bid contracts to KBR and Halliburton. Cheney's stock options would be worth even more than they are now.
* In order to neutralize any French assistance to their former colony of Syria and to anger the French population against the Arabs, joint CIA/Mossad operations have created and maintained massive and very destructive civil unrest in France by dissident Arab youths. These action also serve as a warning to other countries such as England and Germany, that have large Moslem populations that similar “civil unrest” can just as easily plague their countries.”
[PICTURE: The proposed route of the pipeline.]
See our Inside the White House archive:
Last updated 14/11/2005