The documented desire of U.S. Oil companies to place a lucartive pipeline in Afghanistan does not hold water?
You brought up the fact that we were in afghan. despite the lack of oil.
zaphoid beeblebox said:
Quote:
By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?
I simply supplied links that showed "where all the oil wealth in Afghanistan" might be. And that it is not the oil free zone that people seem to believe.
The documented desire of U.S. Oil companies to place a lucartive pipeline in Afghanistan does not hold water?
No, the economic rationale no longer holds water. Other pipelines have already been/are already being built. It makes no difference to us how Central Asian oil comes to market. In fact, it could be argued (and has been argued) that a trans-Afghan pipeline would be a poorer choice than most.
Oil companies have dreamed of a trans-Afghan pipeline. Are they crazy enough to pull it off now?
By_Daniel Fisher
Forbes.com
February 4, 2002
It has been called the pipeline from hell, to hell, through hell. It's a 1,270-kilometer conduit, 1.2 meters in diameter, that would snake across Afghanistan to carry natural gas from eastern Turkmenistan--with 700 billion cubic meters of proven reserves--to energy-hungry Pakistan and beyond. Unocal of the U.S. and Bridas Petroleum of Argentina vied for the $1.9 billion project in the 1990s. Now, with the collapse of the Taliban, oil executives are suddenly talking again about building it.
"It is absolutely essential that the U.S. make the pipeline the centerpiece of rebuilding Afghanistan," says S. Rob Sobhani, a professor of foreign relations at Georgetown University and the head of Caspian Energy Consulting. The State Department thinks it's a great idea, too. Routing the gas through Iran would be avoided, and Central Asian republics wouldn't have to ship through Russian pipelines.
Was this pipeline finished? Poor choices are made often. I think for them (unocal etc. ) it would matter more that they owned the pipeline more most.) but unocal later in the article says they are no longer interested. hmm... It also goes onto say that the rebels and taliban did NOT blow things like pipelines and damns up during the past 50 years.
nice to know. if unocal suddenly "revives interest."
Can someone please tell me WHERE IS THE PROFIT FOR THE US IN SECURED LOANS? THE BASIC THESIS OF THIS THREAD HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. Bunge seems to have little ability to READ AND UNDERSTAND.
When you start off with your anti-US basis then I guess nothing needs to be proven just stated as fact.
Bunge seems to have little ability to READ AND UNDERSTAND.
Scott seems to have little ability to think critically, especially when the United States is involved.
There's no reason to attack me directly over the issue. If the claim that we will profit from loans we give out is incorrect, show us. If the article is somehow incorrect, and we actually aren't going to help Iraq mortgage their oil for our own profit, show us.
Otherwise do us all a favor and realize* that the United States sometimes does things that are reprehensible.
EDIT: * You probably already realize it, just admit it. That's what I should have asked you to do.
You take that article and make very big inferences. How do you know that the oil will not flow into the Iraqi economy until the debt is paid off?
Do you know what that $30 will be doing in Iraq?
You're making very broad statements with very very little information.
No, you are insulting my intelligence. It's hard to credit something like this. Or answer it.
Let me ask you, have you ever heard of a company called Kellogg, Brown and Root? Little information? Do you not remember the fuss about the Pentagon awarding reconstruction contacts before the war started? WTflyingF?
I know that money will not flow into the Iraqi economy because it is going to large US conglomerates. They may well pay Iraqis to do a bit of labour, but the cashflow benefit and capital value of the contracts will benefit those companies and increase the size of the US economy. Do you not know what value means? Do you understand that the size of an 'economy' means the amount o' money free inside it? Money is flying out the ground in guaranteed dollars (plus interest). Can I also ask how you've managed to forget what effect huge international debt tends to have on countries?
The US is getting the benefit to its economy as if the oil was from Texas.
(edit: btw scott, THAT is how the US benefits from turning oil into dollars by means of a ... err ... huge loan that turns oil into contracts for US companies)
It's the profiting I'm highlighting. Many people claimed we wouldn't be making money from Iraqi oil. Many claimed we would be.
Good morning to you all Especially to you "Bunge Anders, and Harald, & co"
....Re profits...As I live and breath, I know where you guys stand...
But remember that profits are part of the reward for takings capital risk...( the downside is you might lose the shirt of your back )...
I don't like the idea of gargantuan ( exploitative )profits that bleed the system dry & put nothing back.
And its profits that gave you that raise..It's profits that give your kids a job, its profits that put gas in your car..
It isn't the best system, but compared to the wholesale theft of oil profits being caried out in Iraq by Saddam & his coterie, it is a step in the right direction.
I don't know if this is what they mean but i think the argument is more of a "profit vs. profiteering"
where those "profitteering" are companies that are very close to the vice pres. and president. and neither of which said eactly "we free you iraqi people, all its going to cost you is 18% annually of your most profitiable product you produce."
No. Another route was chosen. It goes to the Black Sea. The first shipment from that pipeline left port in November of 2001. Now another pipeline is being built to transport this oil across Turkey to the Mediterranean. Turkey is concerned about the enviormental impact of tanker traffic through the Dardanelles.
Note how a gas pipeline and an oil pipeline seem interchangeable in this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Was this pipeline finished?
It was never begun, nor does it seem it will be.
Quote:
Poor choices are made often. I think for them (unocal etc. ) it would matter more that they owned the pipeline more most.) but unocal later in the article says they are no longer interested. hmm... It also goes onto say that the rebels and taliban did NOT blow things like pipelines and damns up during the past 50 years.
Afghanistan was a rather peaceful place until the seventies, and the Taliban did not exist till 1993.
The shape of Kabul seems to indicate that warlords, Mujahidin, Taliban, did destroy whatever they could their hands on in the course of their righteous struggles since the end of the Soviet invasion.
Quote:
nice to know. if unocal suddenly "revives interest."
The nineteen-nineties CentGas project never saw the light of day because the main international partners, notably Unocal of the U.S.A., lost interest, and who could blame them? Not only the terrain is difficult and the distance to be covered rather lengthy, but the whole area is so backwards, unsafe, and on the whole not favourable to such endeavours.
The new fledgeling Afghan government, along with Turkmen and Paksitani governments, would like to revive the project (and who could blame them for desiring the jobs and revenues it could entail?) but the lack of interest from First-World companies or governments, to back such an entreprise, is one of the main reasons it is not likely to be implemented.
The idea according to which, the U.S.' intervention in Afghanistan, was motivated by an oil or gas pipeline, is of course, unfounded.
As for the article linked above, it seems hastily assume analogies between the current situation in Iraq and post-WW1 Germany (immediate post-WW2 would be less inaccurate).
Quote:
«Anne Pettifor, head of the Jubilee Plus debt relief campaign, said 'It is outrageous that the poor people of Iraq will be lumbered with billions of dollars of debt that will be used to boost the share prices of Wall Street financiers and US construction giants.'»
Similar things were heard in the late nineteen-forties, and that the Marshall Plan was a fascist plot by bloodsucking Wall Street financiers etc.
Quote:
«She warned against the coalition 'using the instrument of debt to control Iraq', after it leaves. Such a motive was behind the way Germany was treated after 1918, provoking resentment that eventually encouraged the rise of Adolf Hitler.»
Actually, Germany was not controlled by the victorious Allies after 1918 (although the French did attempt it for a short time by occupying the Ruhr area), it was contolled (wholly occupied for ten years and still kept under various constraints later) after 1945, and a good thing it was, I certainly wish the same to Iraq.
Let me ask you, have you ever heard of a company called Kellogg, Brown and Root?
Yeah, I do. I'm in Austin. KBR is based in Houston. I know people who work for them. I know a lot more about them than you do, I assure you.
Quote:
Do you not remember the fuss about the Pentagon awarding reconstruction contacts before the war started? WTflyingF?
Yeah, I remember people talking about things they didn't know about. Especially funny in the case of the company hired to put out oil-well fires. As if there were multiple companies capable of deploying the equipment necessary in a reasonably quick period of time. We totally didn't let JoeVegan's International Organic Oil-Well-Fire-Fighters get a shot!
KBR is one of the (if not the) best at oil infrastructure development in the world. They can handle this task. One thing I saw missing from the "Why did THEY get the contracts?" gripes were alternatives. Can you name companies who could handle this?
Of course oil companies are going to make money from oil deals, who the **** else is going to build oil infrastructure and development?!
"BASEBALL PLAYERS MAKE MONEY OFF BASEBALL! UNILATERALISM!"
Quote:
I know that money will not flow into the Iraqi economy because it is going to large US conglomerates.
A simple black/white view makes critical analysis irrelevant!
Quote:
They may well pay Iraqis to do a bit of labour, but the cashflow benefit and capital value of the contracts will benefit those companies and increase the size of the US economy.
It will? How do you know?
Quote:
Can I also ask how you've managed to forget what effect huge international debt tends to have on countries?
And we're (the US) is pushing/has pushed to get the vast majority of those debts forgiven, debts for things that did not help Iraq at all. Like Iraq having to pay the administrative costs of the sanctions that strangled the nation! w00t!
There's good debt and bad debt. Debt accrued under Hussein's control is bad, debt accrued while rebuilding the nation is good.
Simple math: $120 billion is 4x more than $30 billion.
Quote:
The US is getting the benefit to its economy as if the oil was from Texas.
You asked who would do the reconstruction. I suggest that Iraq should decide who builds their country and where the money comes from, not Bush. You pretend like that's not a viable option.
Comments
Originally posted by keyboardf12
He really should read the links i posted above....
I'm not going to go over that ground again. I've taken apart that argument several times now. It just doesn't hold water.
You brought up the fact that we were in afghan. despite the lack of oil.
zaphoid beeblebox said:
By the way, where's all the oil wealth in Afghanistan?
I simply supplied links that showed "where all the oil wealth in Afghanistan" might be. And that it is not the oil free zone that people seem to believe.
Guess we know who else doesn't hold water...
Originally posted by keyboardf12
The documented desire of U.S. Oil companies to place a lucartive pipeline in Afghanistan does not hold water?
No, the economic rationale no longer holds water. Other pipelines have already been/are already being built. It makes no difference to us how Central Asian oil comes to market. In fact, it could be argued (and has been argued) that a trans-Afghan pipeline would be a poorer choice than most.
Afghanistian: Oil Execs Revive Pipeline From Hell
Oil companies have dreamed of a trans-Afghan pipeline. Are they crazy enough to pull it off now?
By_Daniel Fisher
Forbes.com
February 4, 2002
It has been called the pipeline from hell, to hell, through hell. It's a 1,270-kilometer conduit, 1.2 meters in diameter, that would snake across Afghanistan to carry natural gas from eastern Turkmenistan--with 700 billion cubic meters of proven reserves--to energy-hungry Pakistan and beyond. Unocal of the U.S. and Bridas Petroleum of Argentina vied for the $1.9 billion project in the 1990s. Now, with the collapse of the Taliban, oil executives are suddenly talking again about building it.
"It is absolutely essential that the U.S. make the pipeline the centerpiece of rebuilding Afghanistan," says S. Rob Sobhani, a professor of foreign relations at Georgetown University and the head of Caspian Energy Consulting. The State Department thinks it's a great idea, too. Routing the gas through Iran would be avoided, and Central Asian republics wouldn't have to ship through Russian pipelines.
Was this pipeline finished? Poor choices are made often. I think for them (unocal etc. ) it would matter more that they owned the pipeline more most.) but unocal later in the article says they are no longer interested. hmm... It also goes onto say that the rebels and taliban did NOT blow things like pipelines and damns up during the past 50 years.
nice to know. if unocal suddenly "revives interest."
Originally posted by jimmac
1. Yes but with this regard it was because Saddam had WOMD and was a threat. Uh huh.
2. I'll bet they are still there 10 years from now.
...
Uh? No. They are out now. The "root causes" crowed should be happy. "Root cause" removed our way.
When you start off with your anti-US basis then I guess nothing needs to be proven just stated as fact.
Originally posted by Scott
Can someone please tell me WHERE IS THE PROFIT FOR THE US IN SECURED LOANS? THE BASIC THESIS OF THIS THREAD HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
If these loans are interest free then you might be right, there is no profit. But I guess you're wrong instead.
Originally posted by Scott
Bunge seems to have little ability to READ AND UNDERSTAND.
Scott seems to have little ability to think critically, especially when the United States is involved.
There's no reason to attack me directly over the issue. If the claim that we will profit from loans we give out is incorrect, show us. If the article is somehow incorrect, and we actually aren't going to help Iraq mortgage their oil for our own profit, show us.
Otherwise do us all a favor and realize* that the United States sometimes does things that are reprehensible.
EDIT: * You probably already realize it, just admit it. That's what I should have asked you to do.
Originally posted by groverat
You take that article and make very big inferences. How do you know that the oil will not flow into the Iraqi economy until the debt is paid off?
Do you know what that $30 will be doing in Iraq?
You're making very broad statements with very very little information.
No, you are insulting my intelligence. It's hard to credit something like this. Or answer it.
Let me ask you, have you ever heard of a company called Kellogg, Brown and Root? Little information? Do you not remember the fuss about the Pentagon awarding reconstruction contacts before the war started? WTflyingF?
I know that money will not flow into the Iraqi economy because it is going to large US conglomerates. They may well pay Iraqis to do a bit of labour, but the cashflow benefit and capital value of the contracts will benefit those companies and increase the size of the US economy. Do you not know what value means? Do you understand that the size of an 'economy' means the amount o' money free inside it? Money is flying out the ground in guaranteed dollars (plus interest). Can I also ask how you've managed to forget what effect huge international debt tends to have on countries?
The US is getting the benefit to its economy as if the oil was from Texas.
(edit: btw scott, THAT is how the US benefits from turning oil into dollars by means of a ... err ... huge loan that turns oil into contracts for US companies)
Originally posted by Scott
Uh? No. They are out now. The "root causes" crowed should be happy. "Root cause" removed our way.
Ooooooo! " Our way ".
That was need for troops which means they could always go right back because what you think has been solved hasn't.
Scott
Originally posted by bunge
It's the profiting I'm highlighting. Many people claimed we wouldn't be making money from Iraqi oil. Many claimed we would be.
Good morning to you all Especially to you "Bunge Anders, and Harald, & co"
....Re profits...As I live and breath, I know where you guys stand...
But remember that profits are part of the reward for takings capital risk...( the downside is you might lose the shirt of your back )...
I don't like the idea of gargantuan ( exploitative )profits that bleed the system dry & put nothing back.
And its profits that gave you that raise..It's profits that give your kids a job, its profits that put gas in your car..
It isn't the best system, but compared to the wholesale theft of oil profits being caried out in Iraq by Saddam & his coterie, it is a step in the right direction.
Time will tell, time will tell....
where those "profitteering" are companies that are very close to the vice pres. and president. and neither of which said eactly "we free you iraqi people, all its going to cost you is 18% annually of your most profitiable product you produce."
or not...
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Was this pipeline finished?
No. Another route was chosen. It goes to the Black Sea. The first shipment from that pipeline left port in November of 2001. Now another pipeline is being built to transport this oil across Turkey to the Mediterranean. Turkey is concerned about the enviormental impact of tanker traffic through the Dardanelles.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Was this pipeline finished?
It was never begun, nor does it seem it will be.
Poor choices are made often. I think for them (unocal etc. ) it would matter more that they owned the pipeline more most.) but unocal later in the article says they are no longer interested. hmm... It also goes onto say that the rebels and taliban did NOT blow things like pipelines and damns up during the past 50 years.
Afghanistan was a rather peaceful place until the seventies, and the Taliban did not exist till 1993.
The shape of Kabul seems to indicate that warlords, Mujahidin, Taliban, did destroy whatever they could their hands on in the course of their righteous struggles since the end of the Soviet invasion.
nice to know. if unocal suddenly "revives interest."
The nineteen-nineties CentGas project never saw the light of day because the main international partners, notably Unocal of the U.S.A., lost interest, and who could blame them? Not only the terrain is difficult and the distance to be covered rather lengthy, but the whole area is so backwards, unsafe, and on the whole not favourable to such endeavours.
The new fledgeling Afghan government, along with Turkmen and Paksitani governments, would like to revive the project (and who could blame them for desiring the jobs and revenues it could entail?) but the lack of interest from First-World companies or governments, to back such an entreprise, is one of the main reasons it is not likely to be implemented.
The idea according to which, the U.S.' intervention in Afghanistan, was motivated by an oil or gas pipeline, is of course, unfounded.
More about it was discussed here: Immanuel Goldstein, 25/III/2003 10:54 local
As for the article linked above, it seems hastily assume analogies between the current situation in Iraq and post-WW1 Germany (immediate post-WW2 would be less inaccurate).
«Anne Pettifor, head of the Jubilee Plus debt relief campaign, said 'It is outrageous that the poor people of Iraq will be lumbered with billions of dollars of debt that will be used to boost the share prices of Wall Street financiers and US construction giants.'»
Similar things were heard in the late nineteen-forties, and that the Marshall Plan was a fascist plot by bloodsucking Wall Street financiers etc.
«She warned against the coalition 'using the instrument of debt to control Iraq', after it leaves. Such a motive was behind the way Germany was treated after 1918, provoking resentment that eventually encouraged the rise of Adolf Hitler.»
Actually, Germany was not controlled by the victorious Allies after 1918 (although the French did attempt it for a short time by occupying the Ruhr area), it was contolled (wholly occupied for ten years and still kept under various constraints later) after 1945, and a good thing it was, I certainly wish the same to Iraq.
Let me ask you, have you ever heard of a company called Kellogg, Brown and Root?
Yeah, I do. I'm in Austin. KBR is based in Houston. I know people who work for them. I know a lot more about them than you do, I assure you.
Do you not remember the fuss about the Pentagon awarding reconstruction contacts before the war started? WTflyingF?
Yeah, I remember people talking about things they didn't know about. Especially funny in the case of the company hired to put out oil-well fires. As if there were multiple companies capable of deploying the equipment necessary in a reasonably quick period of time. We totally didn't let JoeVegan's International Organic Oil-Well-Fire-Fighters get a shot!
KBR is one of the (if not the) best at oil infrastructure development in the world. They can handle this task. One thing I saw missing from the "Why did THEY get the contracts?" gripes were alternatives. Can you name companies who could handle this?
Of course oil companies are going to make money from oil deals, who the **** else is going to build oil infrastructure and development?!
"BASEBALL PLAYERS MAKE MONEY OFF BASEBALL! UNILATERALISM!"
I know that money will not flow into the Iraqi economy because it is going to large US conglomerates.
A simple black/white view makes critical analysis irrelevant!
They may well pay Iraqis to do a bit of labour, but the cashflow benefit and capital value of the contracts will benefit those companies and increase the size of the US economy.
It will? How do you know?
Can I also ask how you've managed to forget what effect huge international debt tends to have on countries?
And we're (the US) is pushing/has pushed to get the vast majority of those debts forgiven, debts for things that did not help Iraq at all. Like Iraq having to pay the administrative costs of the sanctions that strangled the nation! w00t!
There's good debt and bad debt. Debt accrued under Hussein's control is bad, debt accrued while rebuilding the nation is good.
Simple math: $120 billion is 4x more than $30 billion.
The US is getting the benefit to its economy as if the oil was from Texas.
Bullshit.
Originally posted by Scott
So bunge you post something you don't know to be true as fact. Maybe you can do better next time?
What are you talking about? Why don't you answer the questions posed for you rather than pretending you're correct?
Originally posted by groverat
Of course oil companies are going to make money from oil deals, who the **** else is going to build oil infrastructure and development?!
I don't know. Why don't we let the Iraqis decide?
Originally posted by groverat
"BASEBALL PLAYERS MAKE MONEY OFF BASEBALL! UNILATERALISM!"
Baseball players in the United States don't get paid by the Cuban or Japanese leagues. Surely you can do better than this groverat.
Originally posted by groverat
A simple black/white view makes critical analysis irrelevant!
I can only assume you're referring to your own post that I've quoted above.
I don't know. Why don't we let the Iraqis decide?
Decide what? And who will be making the decision? "The Iraqis" is hardly an answer to that.
And who else is qualified to do it. There aren't many companies that can handle tasks of this scale.
Baseball players in the United States don't get paid by the Cuban or Japanese leagues. Surely you can do better than this groverat.
Do you think foreign entities weren't making money in Iraq prior to this war?
Ignorance is bliss, they say.
Originally posted by groverat
Ignorance is bliss, they say.
Speak for yourself.
You asked who would do the reconstruction. I suggest that Iraq should decide who builds their country and where the money comes from, not Bush. You pretend like that's not a viable option.
Great "argument."