Petroleum economist says the Afgan war is NOT about oil. Anyone care to weigh in on the discrepancy?

[snagglepuss]

Petroleum economist John Foster argues that NATO's involvement in Afghanistan is related to energy but natural gas not oil. This is the first time I've read the pipeline is for natural gas. I am left wondering where the idea that the war is being fought over oil comes from. FTR Foster is utterly opposed to the war.

snip

Afghanistan holds a significant geographic position in this game, the Toronto resident explained. While many may not know it, Turkmenistan (to Afghanistan’s north) holds the third-largest natural gas reserves in the world. From its Dauletabad gas field, Afghanistan can serve as an “energy bridge”, allowing for a pipeline to be built from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to the massive and energy-hungry markets of Pakistan and then India. (Hence the project’s name, “TAPI”.)

“After 1991 [and the end of the Cold War], rival world powers began to explore ways to move energy in directions under their control,” Foster said. “That was the start of the new great game. The Russians are planning new pipelines north, the Chinese are building new pipelines east, the United States is promoting pipelines west to Europe and south through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and India.”


snip


One has to listen very carefully these days,” Foster said. “Lots of public statements are technically accurate, but misleading. Talking heads say, ”˜Afghanistan is not about oil’. And that is literally true. The pipeline plan through Afghanistan is for natural gas. And I’ve heard diplomats say, ”˜Canada is not involved in the project’. And that is misleading. It is a multinational project sponsored by the Asian Development Bank, and Canada is a proud member of that bank.”

Near the end of his presentation, Foster turned somber. “Do Canadians want to be involved in NATO wars around the world?” he asked. “Do we want the militarization of energy? There is a high price to pay in dollars, lives, and morality.”



http://www.straight.com/article-281945/vancouver/petroleum-economist-ties-canadian-presence-afghanistan-pipeline



edit to correct link

[Cleita]

1. Whether it's oil or gas, it's still about energy and taking

something from another nation that doesn't belong to them. Bottom line if it isn't about anything but revenge for 9-11 like they told us, it's still wrong to be there. After all, bin Laden is dead they say.

[coalition_unwilling]

2. The alternative route for the pipeline would be through Iran to the Straits of Hormuz. Since

natural gas is a substitute for oil in many cases, this is indeed all about the oil (read 'energy'). But, as Norman Mailer argued awhile back, it's more about keeping our heel on the throat of India and China and the developing world, more than it is about our own energy needs.

[jwirr]

3. Energy companies say a lot of things - just watch their adds on tv. I do not believe any of it.

[independentpiney]

4. I recall that from prior to the start of the war

That the taliban had rejected a ng pipeline proposal.