The myth that is frequently thrown about when discussing Turkmen issues - that the United States can effortlessly will a Trans-Caspian pipeline into existence - is so far off the mark that it needs some proper exploration.
First of all, building this pipeline presents a vastly complex and expensive logistical exercise. As if the technical and financial limitations were not enough, there is the small matter of the Caspian Sea still disputed delimitation status. All this taken together means a project that would take years to start, even more years to complete, and yet more years to yield return.
Turkmenistan is interested in drastically increasing its gas exports in the short- to mid-term, an eventuality that can only realistically be afforded it by creating a pipeline, with the least possible effort, through Kazakhstan and Russia. This outcome is a pragmatic and sensible, not to speak of inevitable. That it is not desirable from a Western-centric vantage point is utterly superfluous.
Anyhow, President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov has also made explicit statements about his country’s readiness to admit more international investment in the energy sector. Already, he has met with senior executives from BP and semi-independent Russian oil firm LUKoil. Indeed, as recetly as Friday, the Associated Press reported that Chevron had announced plans to open a representative office in Turkmenistan:

Chevron is opening an office in Turkmenistan, following the Turkmen government’s invitation last month for the U.S. oil giant to work in the energy-rich Central Asian nation, state-run television reported Friday.
The agreement was reached Thursday at a meeting between President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov and Chevron vice president Jay Pryor.

In all likelihood, Berdymukhammedov is still keen to pursue the opening up of the country’s energy sector as an economic exercise rather than an instance of diplomatic manouvering. If one is to take the president at face value, which is understandably not yet a safe option, a possible conclusion is that he favours the welfare of his people over Turkmenistan’s role in the recurrent fits of pique between Moscow and the West.
Geopolitical speculation may be entertaining to some, but it is of little value if it is not based on substance. If Western overtures to Turkmenistan seem unambitious, it is primarily because Europe and the United States have precious little to bring to the table.
In essence, commentary on Turkmenistan needs a qualitative leap from hyperbole and cycnicism to a genuine understanding and apprecation of the facts.