The latest James Bond film, "The World Is Not Enough," depicted a fierce battle among oil executives, spies, and villains for control of a lucrative new pipeline linking Caspian oil to world markets. The Hollywood production is clearly a work of fiction. Yet, real-life efforts to construct a new export route for Caspian oil and gas features at least a few elements of Bond-style cloak-and-dagger diplomacy.

"Although the game is not quite at those devastating proportions yet, the Bond film got the gist of the ongoing struggle," a senior diplomat from the region said.

At present, the ambitious project to build a new Transcaspian pipeline faces an uncertain future. Officials in both the United States and Turkey have scrambled to keep key players on board. For example, Turkish President Suleyman Demirel traveled to Turkmenistan for talks March 28-29 to help resolve an ongoing dispute over proposed oil transit quotas. Turkmenistan in recent months has explored several export options, including the Transcaspian pipeline and other routes through Russia and Iran.

"The presidents of Turkmenistan and Turkey reaffirmed their firm commitment to implementing the project, pointing out that it presupposes that all participants fulfill the obligations they assumed," said a joint statement issued at the end of the talks in Ashgabat.

The sizable oil and gas reserves in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have long been the source of fierce competition among regional and world powers. These days, no one appears more concerned about the ups and downs of the power game than do energy officials in Washington. The Clinton administration has sought to reduce the influence of traditional oil and gas power brokers Iran and Russia.

To accomplish that goal, corporate executives and government officials in the United States have advocated the construction of new pipelines via Turkey. These new routes would help reduce the dependency of Central Asia states on existing export routes through Russia and Iran. In recent months, however, construction plans have encountered major obstacles, ranging from resistance from oil companies to diplomatic disagreements among the Caspian states.

The Eurasian Energy Corridor, shorthand for the US energy policy in the region, foresees a $2.4 billion pipeline to transfer crude oil from the Azerbaijani capital Baku across from Georgia and Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. It also envisions a companion 1,250-mile natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to the Turkish city of Erzurum. The gas pipeline could to transport up to 30 billion cubic meters of gas a year.

The multi-billion dollar project seemed close to becoming reality last November when President Clinton presided over the signing of legal framework agreement in Istanbul between the heads of state of Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Georgia.

However, a disagreement between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan on the amount of gas to commit to the pipeline, as well as a prolonged dispute between Georgia and Azerbaijan over transit fees have cast doubt on the project. (Already, another regional mega-project, the Caspian Pipeline Consortium operating lucrative fields in Kazakhstan has already committed itself to the rival route leading to the Russian port of Novorossisk.)

Other more fundamental questions have troubled oil companies, delaying their much-needed commitment to the project. "On the oil front, the Eurasian Energy Corridor is in trouble because right now, the oil volumes are simply not there to move the oil from Azerbaijan," said Julian Nanay, analyst for Central Asia at the Petroleum Finance Company in Washington.

In the last few years, several analysts, including Nanay, have questioned whether the region actually held as much oil as was projected a decade ago. For the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline to be economically feasible there must be a daily flow of 1 million barrels of crude oil from Baku to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. Since the current -- and projected -- production levels of AIOC, the region's principal multi-national consortium led by BP-Amoco, fall short of that, both the companies and the US government is looking for other suppliers in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan that can commit to a future pipeline.

"It's sort of a chicken and egg situation" said a senior U.S. State Department official. "There is plenty of oil in Kazakhstan and there are many other fields and quiet producers in the region. All that is needed is a couple of thousand barrels and our task is to show that there will be an export route available. At some point, a leap of faith will be required from some companies."

While US and Turkish officials continue to lobby for the Eurasian Energy corridor, the Clinton administration's recent overtures to ease sanctions against Iran may undermine the Baku-Ceyhan project. Quietly, Turkish and US officials fear that, no longer deterred by a harsh embargo regime towards Teheran, some oil companies involved in the Caspian could start eyeing Iran as a cheaper alternative to Baku-Ceyhan.

"Sure the Iranian route is probably enticing for some companies. But they also realize that the struggle between the moderates and reformers in Iran will likely go on for a while and that there will not be a sudden change in U.S. policy on oil exports," said the senior US official. {See Eurasia Insight Archives]

As for the Transcaspian pipeline, the first oil and gas is projected to flow in 2002. Prospects for meeting that deadline, however, seem to be tied to the results of a number of ongoing seismic studies in the Caspian. Those studies are expected to provide more accurate information on the region's oil reserves. The effectiveness of US diplomacy will also play a significant role in the project's ability to adhere to the existing schedule.

Many believe that the future map of the region will eventually include a multitude of oil and gas pipelines -- some even passing through Iran – providing a guarantee for the economic independence of the new states, while offering alternative energy routes that avoid potential choking points. But, against a background of civil wars and struggling young democracies, the question of which pipeline gets built first, and where, could have a significant impact on the region's geopolitical future.