ASHKABAD, July 12: Turkmen, Afghan and Pakistani ministers met this week to revive a moribund pipeline proposal for transporting gas across Afghanistan that is gaining a new lease of life following the fall of the Taliban regime.

But analysts warn the project, while back on the energy agenda, still faces numerous hurdles and will become a serious contender as an alternative natural gas route only should it win backing of a still-skeptical United States.

The project for a 1,500-kilometer (900-mile) pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan received a boost Tuesday when the Asian Development Bank said it would finance a feasibility study for the link.

The trans-Afghan pipeline was originally intended to be built by a consortium led by the US giant Unocal, but it withdrew from the project in 1998 citing fears over the raging Afghan civil war and uncertainty over costs.

But the long-held plan received a big boost in May when the leaders of the three countries signed a memorandum of understanding to pursue the project, expected to cost two billion dollars (euros).

Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov in particular is pushing the proposal, which would open up his landlocked Central Asian state’s immense gas riches to the wider world for the first time.

At present, Turkmenistan export almost all of its gas through — and with the agreement of — Russia, except for a tiny portion which is shipped directly to Iran.

Afghanistan, meanwhile, stands to benefit from tens of millions of dollars a year in lucrative transit fees, which may help speed the recovery of the war-ravaged state.

“The implementation of this project may have a decisive influence on stability and prosperity in Afghanistan,” US Ambassador to Turkmenistan Laura Kennedy said earlier this month.

Kennedy said that the United States intended to support the realization of the project, which would bypass both of its regional energy competitors, Iran and Russia.

But analysts believe that US backing of the link depends heavily on the project’s economic viability rather than broader geopolitical interests.

And this, at present, is questionable.

“I think most companies would stay away from the project at the present time. There are just too many questions,” said Robert Ebel, with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in London.

Among the many problems likely to keep the investors away is the threatening situation in Afghanistan, where Afghan Vice President Haji Abdul Qadir was assassinated this month.

“It would take a lot of changes in Afghanistan to start practical implementation of this project, especially as the government does not control much outside the capital,” said Alexander Zaslavsky, an analyst with the Eurasia Group.

Instability in Afghanistan is seen as only one of the reasons why Unocal suspended its involvement in the project.

“Beyond that there were a great many problems with the economics of the pipeline,” said senior analyst with the Centre for Global Energy Studies, Julian Lee.

It may become economically viable only if the pipe were to supply India with gas as well as Pakistan, Lee said.

But persistent tensions between India and Pakistan are now threatening to bubble over.

“Clearly India has been unwilling to allow itself to be dependent on gas that first has to come through Pakistan. That situation has to change,” said Lee.

Investors might also shy away from ploughing their cash into a pipeline that would originate in Turkmenistan, where authoritarian and erratic President-for-life Niyazov has ruled for more than a decade.

“Companies are very concerned about an investment that would rely on production in Turkmenistan,” said Lee.

Argentine oil company Bridas began to experience problems with the Turkmen leader in 1994 after becoming one of the first Western oil companies to explore oilfields in Turkmenistan and to propose a gas pipeline through Afghanistan.

Ahmed Rashid in his book, the Taliban, describes how Niyazov at first demanded contract renegotiations with Bridas and then shocked its executives by signing a deal to build a gas pipeline with rival US company Unocal.

The US company, for its part, has repeatedly denied having any interest in reviving the trans-Afghan link, which analysts interpret as a further sign that there was more wrong with it than originally met the eye.—AFP