Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 01 Nov 2014 17:16

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Oct 2004 04:08 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Posts: 25872
Location: NowHere
http://deccanherald.com/deccanherald/oct212004/i1.asp

ONGC told to put M’lore project on hold


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Oct 2004 11:50 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
Oil prices are headed for the moon.

US is allied with various gulf countries and control's Eyerack's production. Are they r deliberately keeping prices high in collaboration with OPEC? The money they pay out to gulf countries & eyerack gets reinvested in the US.

But the competition (EU, Japan, China and even India) have no such sweetheart deals and thus fare worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2004 07:04 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 27 Sep 2002 11:31
Posts: 48
We always have russia and other countries...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2004 12:14 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31
Posts: 266
>>US deliberately keeping oil prices high?

Quite possibly, although I doubt whether they have that degree of fine control. Rather their policies (not political ones, economic) seem to help do precisely that.

IMO, this is probably becasue they need to re-capitalise the Saudi economy. Recall that just before 9-11 the Saudi GDP had fallen to by amazing levels. Note, not Saudi GDP-growth, the GDP itself had shrunk, i.e. their economy had shrunk.

The Saudi economy was, like Pakistans, flat on it's back gasping for air.

No longer. The current prices enable the Saudis to tackle that problem. The US helps becasue it allows the Saudis the financial wheewithal to tackle their home critics by their usual policy of bribery and therefore undermine the recruiting of bored jobless Saudis to the terror orgs.

In effect, the US policies seem to be designed to give the Saudis the resources to fight the "extremists" types at home.

Of course, the success of that policy depends on whether you believe that helping the Saudis helps to curtail terror - which to me seems similar to the way the US supports Musharraf in it's war against terror.

Personally, I think the US policy on helping the Saudis get their hands on more cash is like giving F-16's to the Pakees.

It's not going to help the US and by supporting the financial heartland of the problem, like their support for Pak, the operational heartland, will simply ensure the problem morphs into new areas - and against other targets than the US.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 22 Oct 2004 14:17 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
It looks like collusion with the Arab oil producers to keep prices sky high if u ask me. The price is unnaturally high. There must be some deal US worked out with oil producers to drive prices up. Perhaps they agreed to reinvest a portion of their profits back in the US or something to that effect. Works for the arabs, works for the US.

EU, Japan, China & India meanwhile will take a pounding up the you-know-where.

Its even worse for India since nuclear power forms a very small portion of the national energy strategy thanks to all kinds of sanctions and technology regimes setup by US. India's economic growth will hit a brick wall if these prices remain high. Double the effort to produce nuclear energy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 07:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
Folks: BEfore we ascribe to the US powers it doesn't have, lets look at the state of the oil producing market and where the shortfall and demand is coming from.

1. Demand is up - China's crude imports have jumped by almost 40% this year, just like their steel and metals consumption. Net crude consumption worldwide is up 2% this year.

2. Supply is down - The Venezuelans are not meeting their OPEC quota (because of the ridiculous strike that shut production 18 months ago); the Indonesians are not meeting their quota (because of mismanagement); the Russian output is down (because Yukos can't pay its bills); and Iraq is not meeting its quota (because of the unrest in Iraq). Of course, Hurricane Ivan has had its say as well.

Of this, what did the US really have control over?

(Secondly, before any one starts talking about gasoline prices in the US, read up on the Low Sulfur Gasoline specs in Europe and the US)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Aiyar and oil
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 08:19 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15184
Location: Chennai
Aiyar to play the Caspian Great Game


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 15:14 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
> The Venezuelans are...
> the Indonesians are...

From 2003 to 2004, the price of oil did not surge to current levels despite growth in the chinese economy. The Russian production remains second only to saudi arabia despite yukos. The above 2 are legit reasons.

Does any of the above justify oil hitting 54+ dollars a barrel?

I believe there is some major hoarding and price fixing going on behind the scene.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 17:21 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
Rather than basing conclusions on what we "believe" lets look at the data

OPEC puts out a monthly bulletin that is useful: http://www.opec.org/Publications/MR/MR.asp

1. Average World Economic growth was NEGATIVE in 2002, Marginal in 2003, and around 4.7% in 2004.

2. Demand for 2003 was 79.2 MMbpd, for 2004 81.8 MMbpd, 2005 forecast is 83.4 MMbpd

3. NonOPEC supply was 52.3 MMbpd in 2003, and 53.9 MMbpd in 2004, and 55.3 MMbpd estimate for 2005

4. The gap to be filled by OPEC was 26.9 MMbpd in 2003 and 27.9 MMbpd in 2004, and an estimated 28.1 MMbpd in 2005. 2004 growth in OPEC-supported-output is therefore around 3.7%

5. Bear in mind that a 0.1% variation in demand supply will trigger price spikes.

6. Finally, bear in mind that no producer can increase supply overnight. There is currently an excess of production to demand, and we can expect a potential glut in 2005 that will drive prices down to around $25. Of course Mr. Kerry will want to take credit for that. http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex44002.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 20:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
Higher oil prices may cost Bush his presidency in next 4 weeks. It's not only outright stupid but also ignorant to suggest that largest consumer of oil would like to pay twice the price and crush its recovering economy and world economy with it in another recession. Although I also think that Bush could have done little more at initial stage to control the speculation by forcing OPEC to increase the quota faster than have done but now it’s completely out of his hands. Almost all the market players and economists agree unanimously that the current future contracts in the commodities market are not sustainable and they are only sustained by market speculations. Oil prices would crash and will crash fast like any in any other bubble.

Like Calvin said, the high oil prices are fall-out of strong global economic recovery, low capital investment in production and refineries in last few years, weak political stability in oil exporting states, natural calamites and speculation in commodities market.

NS,

You are sounding more like a fundamentalist Arab who sees Christian-Jewish (CIA-Mosad) conspiracy in everything that is wrong in his worldview. Some Arabs even believe that 911 was a meticulously executed intelligence operation of Mosad and CIA to punish larger middle east.
:shock: :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 22:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
Controlling iraq's oil production is almost like a subsidy. Its money out of pocket on one hand for high oil prices and money back in from tax cuts.
US is running huge deficits but still has money for big corporate tax cuts?

I don't see in any of the 6 points how oil prices can roughly double from its long term average of $28 (?) dollars a year. Oil prices at $25 a barrel will be the day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 22:43 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
RK:

Bush did try to get OPEC involved. The Saudi's released a statement on the Rose Garden in March reiterating their committment to the 22-28$ band. Deliberately, or otherwise, the Saudis out did not rise enough to cover the demand gap. Then the attacks on the Iraqi outlets in May and June took 0.5 - 1 MMbpd of Iraqi oil out of circulation for about 3-4 months. The Nigerians raised output somewhat, until they ran into ethnic trouble in the oil delta. And then Ivan put an exclamation mark on the supply deficit.


Ultimately, if we believe that Bush's Iraqi venture was to change the future of the Middle East, we have to assume that the Saudis want no part of that, and despite Fahrenheit/911, we have to confront the reality that the Saudis stand to gain by the election of Kerry. What better way than to facilitate a spike in Oil prices, followed by a gentle landing by the middle of 2005.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 22:52 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
Are u saying saudis are driving the price up?

Are there any oil experts on here who could weigh in.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 23 Oct 2004 23:23 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31
Posts: 1621
Neshant Sajen wrote:
Controlling iraq's oil production is almost like a subsidy. Its money out of pocket on one hand for high oil prices and money back in from tax cuts.
US is running huge deficits but still has money for big corporate tax cuts?

I don't see in any of the 6 points how oil prices can roughly double from its long term average of $28 (?) dollars a year. Oil prices at $25 a barrel will be the day.


NS,
What drove internet/tech stocks to dizzying heights in late 90's? That some what similar force is pushing oil prices today using excuses like possibility of disruption, political instability, anticipating unusually cold winter, low inventory and what not.

Calvin,

Yes you r right, he did but if you remember that when Kerry started racking this issue vigorously and media started showing suspicion on Bush's silence than only Bush uttered few words asking Opec to raise quota etc. He did try but he was slow and seemed willing to let prices rise moderately to help profit large oil corps (not entirely bad idea as spikes usually spurs new investment cycles in that sector). I don't think he ever thought (far that matter no one did) that prices could go this high and jeopardize his presidency and world economic recovery. There is no support for these oil prices (Nov 4th future contract is selling for $54/barrel in US) but the good old speculators/bulls.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2004 00:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
NS:

1. Assuming my reason is not colliding with your emotional feelings, What kind of supply/demand differential would reasonably sustain $54/bbl oil, according to you?

2. Have you considered what the rationale for a "corporate" tax is, when every member of that corporation is a tax-payer?

3. Anyone that thinks that this price rise is calculated to generate investment or profitaking by the oil-majors is giving way more credit to the Bush presidency than it deserves. Bush would have gained far more, and lost far less if Oil was <$30/bbl.


Last edited by Calvin on 24 Oct 2004 00:59, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2004 00:56 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 02 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 63
It is not in the interest of OPEC nations to keep petroleum prices artificially high as they are. When the cartel instituted embargoes against the West, consumers changed their tastes in the long run to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, thus decrease demand of gasoline. Saudis know this and hence subidize crude to a certain point so that alternative energy sources remain expensive relative to gasoline. However, countries like Nigeria differ in this sense because they want to get the most money per barrel of crude they produce-since their entire economy is oil driven.

As far as increase demand of China or India causing increase in oil, one still must remember that US and Japan outstrip China and India.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2004 01:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
Every Opec nation, other than Saudi is producing at the peak of their ability to produce. Iraq, Venezuela and Indonesia are not for the reasons mentioned above. And their output is independent of their actual quotas. The only elasticity that exists, exists in Saudi, and even they cannot respond overnight.

Hell, Iraq is probably more flexible than Saudi because they can turn on the valve if the pipe is not busted


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Peace in a pipeline?
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2004 02:36 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 18
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html

American energy expert, Robert Ebel, was once quoted to have said: "The players in the game of pipeline politics must remind themselves that peace can bring a pipeline, but a pipeline cannot bring peace."

In the last one decade, the idea of linking political peace to oil and gas pipelines has gained a lot of currency in South Asia as a means for reducing the protracted India-Pakistan conflict. Primarily, because this conflict is a critical feature of any talk on the subject of importing oil and gas into energy-deficient South Asia from neighbouring regions of energy-rich Central and West Asia. It has consistently hampered prospects for several imaginative plans from being turned into reality. Pipelines would remain pipedreams, cynics say, as long as the two neighbours remain hostile to each other. Route maps for extending gas pipelines from Central Asia and Iran into Pakistan and India have been lying on the planners' tables for over a decade now. But little headway has been made because of the frequently disrupted peace overtures of the two countries.

There are two options for importing natural gas to South Asia from Central and West Asia. The first entails two pipelines: one from Charjew on Amu Darya in Turkmen-Uzbek border through eastern Turkmenistan, western Afghanistan and to (Pakistan); and the other from Daulatabad gas field along Iran-Turkmenistan border to Multan (Pakistan). Both these trans-Afghan pipelines could be extended to India in future, depending on the volatility of the prevailing political situation in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In competition with Turkmenistan, Iran provides a second and a much more attractive route because it would avoid Afghanistan. Iran floated a proposal for a regional pipeline in 1989, when major oil and gas discoveries were made in its territory, adjoining the Gulf state of Qatar. However, discussions for the construction of the $3.5bn pipeline began in earnest in 1994. The planned IPI line, termed the "peace pipeline", would be approximately 2,670km long. As a transit country, Pakistan would be beneficiary of the pipeline, as it would get royalties amounting to $6m a year. The IPI line will connect the Assaluyen gas and oil fields in southern Iran to the Hazira-Vijaipur-Jagdishpur (HVJ) pipeline in India, with an intermediate focal point in Multan. It is noteworthy, however, that India also has some options of exploiting deep-sea routes with Iran-which avoid Pakistani territory--and some newly discovered gas reserves on its own territory.

Notwithstanding the India-Pakistan conflict, the factors responsible for mystifying pipeline plans are many. Over the last few years, they have multiplied and become more complex, not least because of the post-Nine Eleven global and regional geo-political and economic realities. Generally, these factors include the complex post-Cold War history of pipeline politics that has interwoven the regions of Central, West and South Asia; the consequent readjustment of foreign policies of major players; the rise of the so-called New Great Game; and the oft-conflicting interests-old and new-of the key players in this competitive-cum-co-operative race. In this quagmire of regional geo-politics, locating the India-Pakistan initiative on energy import and linking it to peace between the two neighbours is one gargantuan task, indeed.

[bMore recently, the IPI pipeline project has found increased support within the concerned circles of Pakistan and India, than the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) project, even though the latter has captured the interest of international financial institutions (IFIs) like the Asian Development Bank, the Islamic Bank and the World Bank for possible funding of the project. Apart from Iran's dynamic persistence in following the idea, the primary reason is its political and economic stability as compared to Turkmenistan and Afghanistan; while the factor of bringing about peace between the two South Asian neighbours is considered a premium of the project. However, thanks to the India-Pakistan hostilities, Pakistan-despite its willingness and enthusiasm for IPI-is considered by India as the hurdle in following an energy partnership with Iran.

Most analysts agree that the IPI line would benefit both India and Pakistan, not least because it is the cheapest and most convenient option; but they point to the issues related to its security, which dominate the minds of Indian policymakers. The Iranian Government has reportedly tried allying the Indian fears of possible stoppage of the gas by Pakistan, giving guarantees of uninterrupted supply. Iran has firstly held out an assurance that it would ensure supply to India at its borders; second, international consortia would be made responsible for the provision of adequate safeguards in case of any disruption. However, political instability currently brewing in Pakistan's Balochistan province has not helped in giving credence to such guarantees.

As India and Pakistan engage in a 'peace process' initiated last year by former Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, planners are once again brushing the dust off their maps and feasibility studies that look at the pipeline routes. Yet, uncertainty plagues prospects for these ambitious ventures. This can be gauged from the meeting of Foreign Ministers of both the countries held in New Delhi in early September, as well as the landmark summit between Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on September 25th, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York. On both the occasions, the inclusion of gas pipeline on the talks' agenda was encouraging; yet references made by both sides remained elusive. Energy planners and watchers-on both sides of the border as well as in the neighbouring countries-were left with much to be desired.

As interest grows in exploring the available options, so do arguments of both sides for safeguarding respective interests. Press coverage of the two Foreign Ministers' meeting in New Delhi revealed that India has tied its agreement for the IPI line to the condition that Pakistan grants it the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status--a condition, unacceptable to Pakistan unless the Kashmir issue is resolved. Instead, Pakistan sees the South Asian Free Trade Area (Safta) as an "MFN-plus situation". This impasse is also reflected in the September 25th joint statement announced by Pakistani President General Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York: "It was felt that such a project could contribute to the welfare and prosperity of the people of both countries and should be considered in the larger context of expanding trade and economic relations between India and Pakistan."

Analysing this situation from Pakistan's perspective, journalist Khaled Ahmed argues that the narrow Indian scrutiny of the issue may miss the broader point: "The pipeline project may disarm Pakistani suspicions about India too, and it may give a land corridor for Indian exports to Afghanistan and Central Asia, a sector that awaits fruition once Indo-Pak trade gets going. Needless to say, the big price will finally be Kashmir if India wants to look at it with foresight. It would be simplistic to expect Pakistan to sign Kashmir away for the pipeline before India signs the pipeline."

It remains to be seen whether such a view would be heeded. A high-ranking Indian diplomat (now retired), who has worked closely on the IPI initiaves since it was first conceived, told Political Economy that India's alternative options are not as feasible as this project, and there are strong indications that the Indian Government would agree to its construction in the near future. India's conclusion must also be a result of Pakistan's determination to go ahead with the project-with or without India. In his interview with the Indian daily The Asian Age published last week (October 13th), in response to a question on the pipeline, General Musharraf was quoted as saying: "The ball is entirely in India's court." He reportedly said that earlier he had been of the view that Pakistan did not require gas but now with the increasing industrialisation and development "we have decided we want it, and we are going ahead whether India comes on board or not." According to the report, General Musharraf further said that Pakistan's agreement with Iran would be finalised in November this year.

Meanwhile, a high-level Indian delegation reportedly visited Iran earlier this week. The delegation was led by India's National Security Adviser, J N Dixit who was accompanied by Indian foreign ministry's "point man for Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan", Arun Singh (Dawn, October 20th). According to the report, Dixit--who has been holding quiet talks with his Pakistani counterpart, Tariq Aziz, on issues ranging from the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project to the Kashmir dispute-discussed "co-operation in energy sector and its beneficial impact on the region", with his Iranian counterpart, Dr Hassan Rouhani in Tehran. Both sides reportedly reaffirmed "the commitment of their governments to intensify co-operation in sectors such as energy, transit and trade leading to far-reaching benefits for the entire region".

Things are clearly moving, albeit slowly. The prospective ministerial talks between the oil ministers of both India and Pakistan sometime before the end of this year, as well as an Iran-sponsored international conference and exhibition to be held at New Delhi in December on the subject of Iranian gas export to Pakistan and India should be watched closely in order to gauge the seriousness behind these initiatives.

One notes with concern that the regions of Central, West and South Asia clearly stand outside what political scientist Louise Fawcett calls the "core regions" of regional co-operation. Pipeline politics is the best example depicting this worrisome reality. Let alone regionalism, the progress of even functional co-operation-the bare minimum necessity for such big cross-regional projects-remains far from convincing. Would the status quo continue?

The case of pipeline politics is a case in point to address this question. The rhetoric has certainly matured, and become more pragmatic; thanks to the ongoing India-Pakistan peace process and confidence building measures (CBMs), it is very much on the regional agenda. But old mistrust is too entrenched to overcome fledging hope and ambitious enterprise. Ultimately some tough decisions need to be taken to turn ambition into reality. One could argue that a peace pipeline--with so many options-does not demand the kind of emotional, political and strategic compromises that issues like Kashmir do. The fact that it accrues mutual benefits for all countries, and more so for their impoverished populations, should encourage leaders of India and Pakistan to set the precedent for tangible peace deals, starting from the energy sector, and not make it conditional to issues, which one believes would be resolved in their own time.

Political conflicts are resolved over historical epochs that depend on many complex factors, having equally higher number of stakeholders running into whole populations. But big projects have a relatively simpler makeup and, therefore, should be easier to construct, provided the applied mindsets prioritise functional co-operation to overcome problems of economic need and growth. Let us remind ourselves what A B Vajpayee identified as the common enemy of Pakistan and India--poverty of their peoples. Any initiative that aims at its lessening should be grabbed as a golden opportunity to realise a greater vision.



The theme and arguments contained in this article have been drawn from a full paper presented by the author on October 11th in Islamabad, at a two-day regional seminar titled "Overcoming the Impediments to Regional Co-operation" organised by FRIENDS, Pakistan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2004 02:54 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
This anonymous diplomat's conclusions about the viability of other alternatives must be robustly rebutted.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Pipeline again
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2004 11:13 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15184
Location: Chennai
Progress on land line within a year - TSP PM

Looks like TSP is linking gas pipeline directly with Kashmir. Suddenly, the two are assuming centre-stage.

Quote:
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz expects that palpable progress in talks between India and Pakistan will be made in the next twelve months on the issue of the gas pipeline from Iran to India through Pakistan.

He was talking to a team from Daily Times which interviewed him on Friday afternoon at the PM house in Islamabad.

Mr Aziz said that one should not expect any immediate breakthroughs but move the Indo-Pak process along by creating “mutual dependencies”. The gas project is one such “mutual dependency” because both countries win-win from it and because it creates mutually beneficial vested interests. However, he clarified that his priorities are to engage India in a dialogue process on Kashmir while simultaneously working on the gas-pipeline project so that the two countries come closer to each other.

In the panel interview with Daily Times, the prime minister said: “The best CBM for Pakistan is to engage India in two things – dialogue on Kashmir and progress on the gas-pipeline. I really believe in it. When you create a mutual dependency, you open many other doors. Their (the Indians) views may be different than ours. But if we open up a door which is not in the benefit of both the countries then it will not work. I am not saying the pipeline will be installed overnight, but the dialogue will start, at least. We really want to make progress on the Kashmir issue. The dialogue process should move on. And I think this is a realistic approach.”
[/b]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Oct 2004 13:47 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
> Anyone that thinks that this price rise is calculated to generate
> investment or profitaking by the oil-majors

Hi,
you are looking at it solely from a 1 dimentional prespective. This strategy of raising oil prices may seem counter-productive at first. Sure the US consumer & industry suffers when oil prices rise.

But for every dollar the US spends on oil, their nation is raking say 15 cents back into their economy since they control Iraq's resources and have full fledged alliances in smaller gulf countries. The EU countries to my knowledge have no close alliances in any small gulf countries and obviously won't get anything from Iraq. They are taking the full brunt of the oil price hike at a time their industries (many of which compete against the US) are trying to emerge from a slump.

Thus the US suffers, but the competition (mostly EU, Japan) suffers MORE. Their dependance on the US market increases since their local markets are dead. I'm not saying I know this for sure. Its just a macro economic theory i'm putting forward.

I'll hold out judgement on your $25 per barrel prediction for 2005.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2004 00:38 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
Only 3 ways of generating mass amounts of power. Fossil fuels, hydroelectric and nuclear.

The US is trying to get India hooked on the first (very expensive and they control the taps in the middle east). The second runs into all kinds controversy in India with local & foreign forces raising a stink to obstruct every step of the way (e.g. the dam in Gujarat). The US is trying to sabotage the third with sanctions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2004 01:16 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 02 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 63
Quote:
Only 3 ways of generating mass amounts of power. Fossil fuels, hydroelectric and nuclear.

The US is trying to get India hooked on the first (very expensive and they control the taps in the middle east). The second runs into all kinds controversy in India with local & foreign forces raising a stink to obstruct every step of the way (e.g. the dam in Gujarat). The US is trying to sabotage the third with sanctions.


I wouldn't bank too much on consipiracy theories about getting India hooked to petroleum fuels. For one, majority of our electricty/power comes from coal of which India has plenty in reserves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2004 02:38 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Mar 2003 12:31
Posts: 135
Interesting link

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-08-04.html


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2004 02:42 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 29 Mar 2003 12:31
Posts: 135
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... read=49688


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2004 12:33 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15184
Location: Chennai
Main Sui pipeline to Karachi & Hyderabd bombed

This time, it has happened within Sind and not Balochistan.

Quote:
The police made announcements in the area by megaphone, asking people not to light anything. Last month a main gas supply line was bombed in district Dadu.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: IPI Pipelien
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2004 14:16 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15184
Location: Chennai
Thesis of Indo-Pak mutual dependencies - Edit in Daily Times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2004 19:35 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Posts: 15184
Location: Chennai
Petronet's Dahej Plant to become 5 MMT from early next year

Quote:
They said that there was "very good demand" and given this situation the terminal capacity would be raised to 10 mmtpa by 2008. With an additional investment of around Rs 800 crore, the capacity could be expanded, they said.


Petroleum Ministry approves Kochi LNG project.

Quote:
It has become almost certain that there would be sufficient market for the 2.5-million tonne per annum (MTPA) liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Kochi terminal and hence, PLL would go ahead with the project early next year, he said. The terminal will be a replica of the Dahej terminal.


If we can get the Ennore and Dabhol off the ground and start the deep-sea pipeline, we can forget the IPI landline.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2004 20:33 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 09 Mar 2003 12:31
Posts: 107
Location: USA
Sohum Desai wrote:
For one, majority of our electricty/power comes from coal of which India has plenty in reserves.


Two words - Kyoto protocol.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 01:33 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 02 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 63
Quote:
Two words - Kyoto protocol.

India's has huge coal reserves, about 7% of the world's total that at the current level of production and consumption should last nearly three centuries. Furthermore, India is currently the third-greatest coal consuming country (behind the China and the United States), and accounts for nearly 8% of the world's total annual coal consumption. Nearly three-quarters of India's electricity and two-thirds of its commercial energy now comes from coal. In all, India depends on coal for more than half of its total energy needs, and the demand for coal has been steadily increasing over the past decade. Coal is dirty, but it doesn't look like it will be out the window anytime soon[/b]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 04:33 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
Kyoto is a sign of things to come. Environmental regulations will eventually be sneaked into trade regulations.

I'm sure the US will join it eventually and so will China once they build & import enough n-reactors. That will leave India out in the cold. Blocked on one side by US which does not want India to have n-technology, don't want high priced oil which US controls, hydroelectric dams keeps running into entangles with the displaced persons.... Even the natural gas thing has run into a brick wall with stupid Bangladesh and its BS.

The more dependant India becomes on coal, the harder it will be to change to something cleaner later on. I heard that most of the coal in India is dirty coal (coal with high sulfur content). But I guess its better to have that than nothing at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Rusi- Indi Co-operation
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 04:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Posts: 15155
Location: Deepest & Highest
http://au.news.yahoo.com/041025/3/rd61.html

How viable is this UCG tech for our energey security ? I could not find any refrence on the net that this Tech is used on large commercial scale in any country.

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 07:37 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 02 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 63
Quote:
I'm sure the US will join it eventually and so will China once they build & import enough n-reactors.


I think India has more operating, planned, and proposed nuclear reactors than the PRC.

'Ctrl+F' "Nuclear Power Reactors in Selected Countries"
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/I ... singh.html

Understand that the US intention to stay out of the Kyoto protocol lies in business friendly atmosphere fostered by the Republican party. United States isn't necessarily trying to screw India at every turn, but rather inadvertently does so.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 07:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
Prem: I think this is dork-speak. There is a lot of interest in coal gasification. This is where coal is reformed with steam to make syngas which is then used to drive a gas and steam turbine in a cogeneration plant. The gasified coal can be treated by an amine system to remove sulfur, so that there is minimal sulfur being released into the atmosphere.

China has recently started building around 20+ coal gasifiers, mostly with GE turbines at the back end. GE purchased Texaco's gasification technology and are now licensing the gasification technology to go on their turbines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 08:36 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 11 Nov 2000 12:31
Posts: 111
Location: Earth
I think India has more operating, planned, and proposed nuclear reactors than the PRC.

China has been developing the PBR (Pebble Bed Reactor) which is guaranteed to be safe. Take away the coolant, it the reaction stops. There's no chance of a catastrophic meltdown.

The US public is strictly against "nukular" reactors, so MIT teamed up with China to develop the PBR system. Expect China to bring lots of PBR-based reactors online in the next decade.

Added later: here's a recent Wired article on this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 09:19 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 23 Jun 2003 11:31
Posts: 17
Calvin,

Do you have any references for power generation from coal gasification in China. I googled around and all the articles I find are related to gasification for GTL, specifically the Shell Middle Distillate process and some for Ammonia production.

For instance see:

http://www.clean-energy.us/news/world/s ... -03-30.htm

interestingly L&T seems to have supplied some equipment to this plant:
http://www.larsentoubro.com/news/upload ... orders.htm
If I remember rightly L&T used to have some MOU's with Lurgi for coal gasifiers. Lurgi equipment having famously powered SASOL.

I'm personally a bit wary of the economics of power generation from coal gasification. In the US despite interest from a powerful coal lobby and large subsidies on offer I dont see any commercial plants running (please correct me if I am wrong here). All I find are these prototype/ semi-commercial plants:

http://www.clean-energy.us/projects/wabash_indiana.htm
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/gasificati ... tampa.html

-------
On Oil Prices:
I believe Oil prices are rising partly because Saudi has been shown to be "nanga" in this hamman i.e. they do not have the excess 1-1.5 MMbbl/day capacity that they love to brag about. Substantial time and investment will be required to achieve this. Unfortunately for countries like Saudia the incentive to invest decreases as the price of oil rises.

Problems in Venezuela also may be deeper and longer lasting. Stories of incompetence and mismanagement in PDVSA seem to be getting bad to worse. Production equipment is in a poor state. Investment has been very low since funding is diverted to Chavez's "social programs".


Last edited by Guha on 26 Oct 2004 10:16, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 10:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
Guha: Good points. Coal gasification is more expensive in the US because of the environmental constraints and the level of sulfur removal required. Generally, stand-alone coal or coke gasification plants have not been terribly common. The Wabash plant is one, and there is another one at Tampa. There are a two affiliated with refineries (Premcor-Delaware City and Coffeeville-Kansas), and another two that are proposed Citgo-Lake Charles, and Premcor-Lima.

There is a *tremendous* amount of interest and engineering currently ongoing in the US refining community to look at ways to monetize *coke*. Much of this coke is a byproduct of heavy crude from Venezuela and Mexico (Mayan Crude), that plants with cokers have taken advantage of. There is a substantial spread between the Brent Crude, WTI, and Arab Medium prices, and the cost sour heavy crudes from Venezuela and Mexico.

As far as references for gasification plants in China, I have none. The comment, though, comes from direct conversations with VPs at Engineering firms such as Parsons, Fluor etc and personnel at GE Energy who are involved in the building of such plants in China. These plants are not in existence yet, but are in the process of being engineered and constructed currently.

On Venezuela: You are exactly right. In addition are the physical issues of recovering flow from heavy crude production wells after you have shut them off. These highly viscous liquids are tar-like in nature, for those that are not familiar with them and when you turn the flow off, they behave like solids - not pumpable liquids.

On Saudi: My *belief* (i.e., not based on any fact) is that Saudi could still up their production to 10MM if they wanted to, but choose not to, due to their disagreements with the Bush Admin.

On Speculators: This is a big problem, because these guys are all betting that the price will go up and the bubble is taking a long time to burst. The article that Sohum had posted about how the US government could burst the bubble is interesting. Since it is politically infeasible to do this now, perhaps we will see the USG do it after the elections - although Bush as a man of his word may not back down from his pledge to build up reserves to 0.75B bbl.

On China: Could some one explain how the lack of a futures market in China is causing supply-demand disruptions? Is it because they have to take delivery to enable them to hedge?

On Supply: The world needs an additional 3 MMbpd/y just to keep pace with 3-4% global growth. The easiest places to extract this oil, of course are Saudi, Iran and Iraq. However, we must not overlook Nigeria and Angola in this regard. Angola could easily add 0.5 MMbpd by 2005 end compared to what it was doing at the start of this year as they bring Xikoma, Belize etc on line. Then there is GTL plants being built, for example in Qatar for a total of around 0.3 MMbpd by ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips that will supplement this crude supply by converting the gas to clean diesel.


Last edited by Calvin on 26 Oct 2004 10:29, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 10:25 
Offline
BRFite -Trainee

Joined: 23 Jun 2003 11:31
Posts: 17
thanks Calvin, I'll stick to my wariness of clean-coal. I think China probably has political reasons to push this as well.

On Natural Gas to Liquids I believe its going to hit the big time this decade. ChevronTexaco and Sasol are building a large GTL plant in Nigeria which will comission next year.

On clean coal v/s LNG, I would go with LNG, you can ship LNG half-way across the world and still beat clean coal on almost any metric: life cycle cost, emissions, capital costs. Its the powerful coal lobbies with backing of coal-mining labor unions that keep pumping goverment money into "clean" coal.


Last edited by Guha on 26 Oct 2004 10:39, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 10:32 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 631
Guha: the question is when does Clean Coal become economically viable? Tar-sand upgrading is viable at $10/bbl of crude, Natural Gas to Liquid conversion is viable at $20/bbl. So, if we believe that crude will stabilize in the $30 range in the next 20 years, then Clean Coal is not only economically viable, but necessary.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2004 17:01 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 3065
Govt of India, Ministry of Coal & Mines

http://www.coal.nic.in/



How much coal each state has :

http://www.coal.nic.in/reserve.htm

Its mostly found in Jharkhand & Orissa


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 324 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group