In a comment Dan of Steele points to an item in the Pakistani Daily Times about the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline. That piece is based on a report by the Pakistani private TV station Geo News:

The government of Pakistan has approved of awarding the mega-project to the US Company, International Oil Company (IOC) for the laying of Turkmenistan-Pakistan oil and gas pipeline at an estimated cost of $10 billion.

[…]
This pipeline with a capacity of supplying 2 million barrel of oil and 4 billion cubic feet of gas would be constructed up to Gawadar, where one refinery would also be constructed at a cost of $3.5 billion.
[…]
IOC said that the matters relating to the security in Afghanistan and insurance guarantee have been finalized and the ceremony of the mega-project agreement inking would soon be held.

There is a livid history about access to Central Asia’s hydrocarbons. The timeline of plans for this pipeline is quite long. I was therefore very suspicious of this sudden ‘news’ and having looked into it I believe the report is likely false. This for five reasons:

First: There is no U.S. oil company named IOC. "International Oil Company" is a generic description for any oil company that is not nationalised.

Second: India is not mentioned. Discussion on this project always said:

Without the Indian market, TAP was not deemed a profitable undertaking.

Third: The Geo News piece mentions a connection of the pipeline to Gawadar which lies on the south west coast of Pakistan next to Iran. Quite some miles away from the markets in India and the possible pipeline routes (pdf) evaluated by the Asian Development Bank.

The port of Gawadar was build in unruly Baluchistan with Chinese money and personal. Did China agree to such a deal?

Fourth: Along any possible route of the pipeline there are independent war-lord, Taliban, tribal areas where such a project will likely meet fierce opposition:

Currently there are two routes under discussion. The first runs through northern Afghanistan, cutting through Kabul before entering Pakistan; the second travels through western Afghanistan, passing through Kandahar into Pakistan.

Unfortunately, security concerns extend beyond Afghanistan. If the route through western Afghanistan emerges as the best option, the pipeline would cross Pakistan’s Baluchistan Province. In January, a little-known separatist group attacked a gas storage facility in Baluchistan. The attack was not unique, as local tribesmen increasingly are targeting natural gas facilities in the province to settle accounts with the central government, ask for higher royalties, or promote their nationalist agendas.

If the alternative option is chosen, the pipeline would cross the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan, which includes the semi-autonomous tribal areas. These regions, most notably the tribal areas, are known for their fierce independence. Both the NWFP and the adjoining Afghan border regions are also home to radical Islamists groups with very strong anti-India sentiments. A pipeline serving Indian interests would present them with a tempting target.

Fifth: No private company or bank would currently invest some US $10 billion in such an insecure project. No insurance company would underwrite the involved risk.

In conclusion, the little piece by Geo News may contain some grains of truth. But that’s also the case with other fairy tale.

But that’s how ‘news’ is made.

The Iranian Press TV copied from the report sourcing it to ‘Agencies’, PakTribune picked it from a  ‘private TV channel’, i.e. Geo News, and Asia Times uses it in a piece on alleged U.S./Taliban negotiations without giving a source at all.

(Searching for "TAP pipeline" Google news labels the Daily Times report ’15 hours ago’, the Press TV report ‘6 hours ago’ and the PakTribune and Asia Times pieces ‘2 hours ago’.)