Via Seeking Alpha, an interesting post which is centered on a review of a book entitled The New Great Game.  However, I am noting it here as it provides a nice summary of issues related to the Caspian (with handy maps, no less).  As the article notes

“…The investigative journalist delves deeply into the geopolitical implications of world powers struggling to control Caspian Sea energy reserves – some of the largest remaining oil and gas fields in the world. It is fitting the game of chess was invented by the Persians. It is worth purchasing The New Great Game just to gaze at the maps on the inside and backside covers…each central Asian country being ruled by a government or dictator who one minute moves diagonally like a bishop, only years later to morph into a rook and move horizontally and vertically like a knight, and every once in awhile going hay-wire and imitating the unorthodox movement of a knight. Who will win the great game? What will OPEC’s response be to non-OPEC oil production in the Caspian Sea region? How will China and Russia respond to American military might in the region? Only time will tell.

The map below shows the countries surrounding the Caspian Sea which are Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and Azerbaijan.

Most people are fairly familiar with the oil history of Baku, Azerbaijan dating back to Russian oil discovery and production in the early 1870s. Kleveman relates an interesting story of Swede Robert Nobel who was the older brother of factory owners Ludwig and Alfred Nobel who had become very wealthy producing arms and dynamite. Robert had been sent to Baku with 25,000 rubles to purchase Russian walnut to make rifle butts. Instead, he caught Baku oil fever and bought a small refinery. After only a few years, the Nobel Brothers Petroleum Producing Company vaulted over Rockefeller’s Standard Oil as the largest oil producer in the world. Later, the Nobel’s invented the first oil tanker in a story well told in Daniel Yergin’s The Prize, for which, ironically, Yergin won the Nobel Prize for non-fiction literature in 1992. And yes, the prize is named after the same Nobel family as those men seeking walnut wood for rifle butts in Azerbaijan.

Fast forward to today: Baku Azeri oil is being shipped to the Mediterranean Sea and world markets via the so-called BTC (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) pipeline. The picture below shows the pipeline’s route from Baku, Azerbaijan through Tbilisi Georgia, and finally to the Mediterranean Turkish port of Ceyhan.

This pipeline was hailed as the “Contract of the Century” by Azeri officials very much interested in getting their oil to market independent of Iranian and Russian involvement. Of course, the US was more than mildly interested in this solution as well. The pipeline is owned by a consortium of energy companies, among them:

• British Petroleum (BP): 30.1%
• State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR): 25%
• Chevron (CVX): 8.9%
• StatOil (STO): 8.71%
• ConocoPhillips (COP): 2.5%

BP is the BTC pipeline operator.

The big question in today’s energy riddle is how to route the large energy assets of the Caspian Sea to the world market and thereby offer America an alternative to OPEC supplies. Take the giant Tengiz oil field, discovered of the coast of Kazakhstan, as an example. Estimated at up to 24 billion barrels of oil Tengiz is the sixth largest oil field in the world. It is one of the largest oil discoveries in recent history. The Tengizchevroil (TCO) joint venture has developed the field since the early 1990’s. The partners are:

• Chevron: 50%
• ExxonMobil (XOM): 25%
• KazMunayGas (Kazakhstan): 20%
• LukArco (Russia): 5%

Chevron has predicted that Tengiz could potentially produce up to 700,000 barrels of oil per day by 2010. The field also contains large reserves of natural gas. On the downside, the oil is very high in sulfur content, once reason western technology was so desperately required. Currently the oil from the Tengiz field is piped from Kazakhstan through Russia to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk via the CPC (Caspian Pipeline Consortium). The BTC pipeline is a competing option, preferred by the US to bypass Russia, but is expensive: the oil must first be tanked across the Caspian Sea from Tengiz to Baku, and then offloaded into the BTC pipeline infrastructure. French energy giant Total is interested in developing a common sense alternative pipeline through Iran which everyone knows is obviously the most economically viable solution, withstanding the geopolitical climate in Iran. Of course the US does not favor this route at all.

The US’s long favored route for Caspian Sea energy was first suggested and studied by Unocal (now part of Chevron). This countries involved in this route are highlighted in color in the picture below.

This so-called Central Asian pipeline was to begin with a natural gas pipeline from huge Turkmenistan gas fields through western Afghanistan to the Pakistani deep water port of Gwadar on the Gulf of Oman (Indian Ocean). The natural gas pipeline was to be followed by an oil pipeline along the same route, serving not only the energy starved countries of Pakistan and India, but the world energy markets as well. The US believes this route, bypassing Russia and Iran, as well as the congested Straits of Hormuz, is in the strategic interest of the US as a secure non-OPEC source of oil.

But the key word in the last sentence was “secure”. Unilateral policy decisions by the US in Iraq and elsewhere have instigated a tide of central Asian anti-American resentment. The Taliban, once supported and funded by the US, are now in control of the pipeline’s route. The pipeline project has been delayed until “control” and “security” has been established. Anti-American opposition in Pakistan is also a problem, regardless of that countries dire need for the energy and potential income the pipeline could deliver.

The US’s oil centric foreign policy agenda is apparently to irritate the two major powers in the Caspian Sea region: Russia and Iran. With the USSR’s disintegration in 1991, all the former Soviet states in the region were being eyed for their energy reserves. At the same time, Russia still considers these former states as within their “sphere of influence”.

Instead of joining with the Russians in mutually beneficial energy projects, technology transfers, and contracts, the US instead decided to take the opposite approach: it first propped up a government in Georgia irritating the Russians. Then the US supported NATO membership for former USSR countries Ukraine and Georgia. The US also proposed missile defense systems on Russia’s western borders, further infuriating the Russians. Russia finally had enough and acted in Georgia as George Bush was attending the Olympics in China. Russian actions put exclamation points on the obvious – it can take out the BTC pipeline any time it wants, and is resentful of American military meddling in its backyard.

The prior secret agreements between Putin and Bush to fight the mutual “terrorists” foes appear to be in the distant past. Recent activities involving Russian natural gas transports through Ukraine underscore the vulnerability of Europe’s energy supplies. Europe currently imports some 40% of its natural gas from Russia, and this amount is bound to increase in the future. This further complicates the puzzle by placing US actions at odds with supposed allies in Europe.

With respect to Iran, the US has military forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and elsewhere in the region – completely surrounding Iran. The US has further tried to isolate Iran (to the dismay of the Europeans who vitally need Iranian energy) by imposing economic sanctions on the country. Iran was one of three countries with distinguished membership in George Bush’s “Axis of Evil”. These US actions have left the Iranians no choice but to develop nuclear weapons in order to protect themselves against the same kind of American aggression they have witnessed elsewhere in the region.

Meantime, flawed US/Israeli policy, combined with Israel’s recent activities in the Gaza strip and the powerful Jewish lobbying efforts in the US for military action in Iran, seem to increase the odds for more conflict in the region.

Have US foreign policy moves in Central Asia been successful? Yes and no.

One bright spot is Iraq. Iraq was always the priority in “the war on terror”, not because the terrorists were there (they are now…) but because Iraq holds the world’s second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia. Many of Iraq’s oil fields also have the important advantages of being sweet crude (high quality), are shallow, and are under pressure, making Iraqi production costs very low – in the neighborhood of $10/barrel. For those who actually believe the US government’s marketing job of WMDs, “freedom”, etc. as a pretext for invading Iraq, please note the recent announced that Iraq’s oil resources are now “open for business” and up for bidding. Western oil companies such as BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A) stand to benefit handsomely in Iraq while at the same time boosting the country’s oil production by some 2-3 million barrels over the new few year. So, Iraq can be considered a US success story assuming security is maintained and the oil can reach the market. A big if, but time will tell.

The BTC can also be considered a success. It has operated fairly reliably, and has shown to be a fairly secure source of Caspian Sea oil. This was a huge project, and many people in the oil business doubted its success and completion. But it’s up and running today and survived Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia. That said, the BTC’s continued success is extremely dependent on maintaining security in the area.

Now it’s time to head to Afghanistan and take care of business over there. Boy-oh-boy is that going to be one tough nut to crack. The Afghan/Pakistani issue is so deep I can’t even begin to cover it in enough detail to do the subject justice. Those who believe the US motives in Afghanistan are simply “terrorism” or “freedom” should take note that the US fully supported and funded the Taliban when it was decided they were the best option with respect to getting the Central Asian pipeline built. Unocal sponsored the Taliban on trips to Houston to stay at 5-star hotels and visits to NASA. It was only later when the Taliban wouldn’t “play ball” that the US stopped their support and labeled the Taliban terrorists. Even the US installed Afghani President Hamid Karzai worked as an advisor and consultant to Unocal during the initial Central Asian pipeline feasibility studies.

So, US policies have had some successes in the region as far as oil is concerned. From a humanitarian aspect, well, I’ll leave that up to the reader to figure out on his or her own. From an economic standpoint, one would have to make a detailed analysis of military spending versus the economic benefits in order to come to any conclusions. Perhaps I will write an article on this some day, but for now, I’ll sidestep that question as well.

For the US, I am not such an idealist to think for one minute the symbiotic “Pentagon-Petroleum” relationship will change anytime soon. Further, as a realist, I also understand how important the game being played in Central Asia is. I am aware of the actions the US and other world powers are taking in Central Asia in order to acquire the energy reserves they need to power their economies. My eyes are wide open.