Oil and Conflict

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

We know that many of our recent wars were actually about controlling the globe's energy resources,mainly fossil fuels which are rapidly being depleted.Discoveries of major new fields is also declining and a global scramble for control over the world's mineral wealth especially oil is going on.WW3 has in fact begun and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the result.Thoguh there are other threads specifically for the various regional conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan,there is none pertaining to the deeper "Great Game" being waged for control of oil.Hence this thread,which could monitor the conflicts around the globe where oil is the major factor.Here is the dirt on Afghanistan.

Afghanistan- A War For Gas And Oil Pipelines

"Since the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the US has a military presence on China’s Western frontier, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. is intent upon establishing permanent military bases in Afghanistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering on the former Soviet republics, China and Iran."

http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2009/08 ... pelines-2/

Excerpts:
Usually when a journalist idiot wants us to become entangled in another war / social work action using the British army / policing role / Oil Imperialism escapade then they either use the usual ‘Think of the children’ routine or now the ‘what about the women’ routine.

We are not in Afghanistan for any of the following reasons ;

1) Helping the children
2) Helping the women
3) Stopping the heroin
4) Fighting terrorism
5) Stopping terrorism in the UK

There is in fact two reasons why we are in fghanistan, and why British soldiers are dying, and that is for ;

1) Oil

2) Gas

The maps above show you the proposed Oil pipe line and gas pipe line planned for Afghanistan – The Eurasian Corridor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2608713.stm
*One could add,bringing in "Democracy" to the list of excuses!
An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

The Global research Group states that ;

The Eurasian Corridor

Since the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the US has a military presence on China’s Western frontier, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The U.S. is intent upon establishing permanent military bases in Afghanistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering on the former Soviet republics, China and Iran.

Moreover, the US and NATO have also established since 1996, military ties with several former Soviet republics under GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldava). In the post 9/11 era, Washington has used the pretext of the “global war against terrorism” to further develop a U.S. military presence in GUUAM countries. Uzbekistan withdrew from GUUAM in 2002.(The organization is now referred to as GUAM).

China has oil interests in Eurasia as well as in sub-Saharan Africa, which encroach upon Anglo-American oil interests.

What is at stake is the geopolitical control over the Eurasian corridor.

In March 1999, the U.S. Congress adopted the Silk Road Strategy Act, which defined America’s broad economic and strategic interests in a region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia. The Silk Road Strategy (SRS) outlines a framework for the development of America’s business empire along an extensive geographical corridor.

The successful implementation of the SRS requires the concurrent “militarization” of the entire Eurasian corridor as a means to securing control over extensive oil and gas reserves, as well as “protecting” pipeline routes and trading corridors. This militarization is largely directed against China, Russia and Iran.

Take a look at the maps above – then note how the army bases are in prime positions to protect the oil and gas pipelines.

That is what this ‘war’ is about.

The Afghanistan war is about securing the territory through which the oil and gas pipelines will have to pass through in order to ensure Russia, China and Iran are outmanouvered in the last great wars for the last of the global oil supplies on the planet.

Only yesterday the Independent reported that the Peak Oil process is even close than the ‘experts’ have been so far admitting.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 66585.html

The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.

Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.

This is what the Iraq War and Afghanistan War are about.

This is also why China is exporting millions of its people into Africa in order to colonise the African continent as Lebensraum for the Chinese state – and to steal its oil and resources from the indigenous African people.

British troops are being slaughtered in Afghanistan for gas and oil pipelines.

That is the truth behind the lies the government spin.

They lied to get us into Iraq and they are lying now about why we went into Afghanistan.

The Taliban are not Al Qaeda.

The Taliban are mainly local Afghans who do not want to be occupied by any invading army, local Afghan nationalists resisting occupation, ISI pakistani agents fighting a proxy war against the US, drug smugglers and opium growers protecting their drug territories, foreign jihadists working with the pakistani ISI and the angry relatives of Afghans killed by coalition forces getting revenge.

The Taliban are not a threat to us – the fact we are over there means Islamists will attack us over there and over here.

We must withdraw and seal our own national borders, deport all islamists from the UK, execute all convicted islamist terrorists in the UK, deport all those that fund, support and assist Islamist terrorism in the UK – and most important of all create a 100 % national energy production system that means we do not have to depend on any imports of energy from the Middle East oil, Russian gas or Eurasian oil and gas supplies.

We are at risk of being attacked here in Britain, because we are over there in Islamic nations stealing their gas and oil, or stealing their land to allow us to pump the gas and oil of other nations into our nations.

http://leejohnbarnes.blogspot.com/
PS:The US wants India to have no role in Afghanistan for this very purpose.It neeeds the Pakis to control Afghanistan to build the pipeline to the Arabian Sea.It is also why it does not want an Indo-Pak-Iran pipeline for gas,as it cannot control it and it would make Pak more energy independent and less inclined to want the Caspian pipeline as well.Iraq was "all about oil",controlling Iraq's oil wealth in a world of declining oil production.Saddam who wasn't playing ball had to go.It is why the US will never let their favourite rent-boy in the region, Pakistan,from going under and will support it to the hilt dspite its terrorism against India.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by RajeshA »

Phillip,

thanks for starting this thread. I think this is an important thread and should include economic, political, strategic aspects. Future projects of Oil Reserves, Peak Oil, etc. are all important. Also the posturing in our immediate neighborhood like in Bangladesh, Myanmar, transit through Afghanistan, etc. have a bearing on India search for resources.

Probably this thread will not move forward at the pace of some other threads, but it is important nevertheless.
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Rahul M »

very topical thread philip boss, we might also bring in the hunt for resources currently goin on in africa.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by NRao »

:roll:

Australia approves huge gas deal with China, India
Australia Wednesday approved a massive energy project that will supply natural gas worth tens of billions of dollars to China and India, giving new impetus to its resources boom.
Between that,
a) and IF India can get two brothers to behave like brothers (the gas finds along the Indian Eastern coast is supposed to reduce imports by some 23%), and
b) Nuclear energy, and
c) FAR better Indian management dumb ar**ed Indian politics (Chai-biscut) (which I think is THE problem)

India should nto have much of a problem.



This topic should be changed to "Water and Conflict".

We can manage without "oil", but never without "water".
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by RajeshA »

NRao wrote:This topic should be changed to "Water and Conflict".

We can manage without "oil", but never without "water".
Water Issues in the Indian Subcontinent Thread
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

Rajesh,haven't you heard that "oil and water do not mix?"
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by RajeshA »

Philip wrote:Rajesh,haven't you heard that "oil and water do not mix?"
I know, but NRao ji wanted to change Oil into Water! Water to Wine is simpler!
Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17167
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Rahul M »

China and India back in for Ghana’s Oil.
http://www.chinaafricanews.com/index.cf ... eId=434809


Siege of Africa: China, India battle it out

http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_beyond/ ... in-africa/

China Oil finally declares interest in Kosmos Energy’s Ghana stake
http://ghanabusinessnews.com/2009/08/27 ... ana-stake/

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090820/j ... 385890.jsp
The Maldives does not have a navy. India will offer to patrol and keep an eye over its territories. For India, the benefit: it gets a listening post that will monitor movement of Chinese vessels as they sail to and from Africa. More than 60 per cent of Chinese oil imports are assessed to be sourced from Africa.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by NRao »

RA,

Thanks. I forgot about that.

However, the issue of "oil" becoming a fractious commodity has been a topic for some 30-40 years. The reason that it has not become an issue: 1) they keep finding more and more oil/gas (actually they find more economical ways to extract it - 20-30 years ago the same oil/gas would have cost a ton more due to the lack of techs) and 2) improvements in consumption!!! Yeah, check out our old buddy Chevy - they suddenly have better gas mileage than BOTH Toyota and Honda (so claims the ad on TV here).

And, guess what, more economical ways are on the horizon.

What might trigger a conflict is hording of resources. There is already talk of (check out ft.com) on China hording metals - specially copper. But the "conflicts" are expected to be financial, rarely escalating to a "war".

However, there has been plenty of gaming (in the US in particular) on water shortages. They expect BD to be a focal point in this respect (in addition to flooding due to bad weather and a rise in sea level). Bad enough to see a flood of BDians into India.

Oil? Do not see it as an issue before those issues are resolved.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

Turkmenistan to build a naval base which will affect wester oil pipeline Nabucco.

"Turkmenistan is putting itself outside Nabucco and choosing the pro-Russian vector in its policy," he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... gD9ADRS0G1
Turkmenistan plans Caspian naval base amid dispute
By ALEXANDER VERSHININ (AP) – 1 day ago

ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan — Turkmenistan will establish a naval base on the Caspian Sea, the Central Asian nation's president said Monday — a move that could inflame disputes over the area's lucrative hydrocarbon fields.

Addressing top security officials in televised remarks, President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov said a base will be built at the port city of Turkmenbashi to help "effectively fight smugglers, terrorists and any other forces."

The joint naval and coast guard base will have two ships armed with missiles and an unspecified number of cutters, Berdymukhamedov said.

Turkmenistan's coast guard has 16 patrol boats and 700 servicemen on the inland Caspian Sea, a minuscule remnant of the Soviet Caspian fleet that has mostly been taken over by Russia.

The Caspian's rich hydrocarbon resources has been a focus of intense competition among shoreline nations Turkmenistan, Iran, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia since the 1991 Soviet collapse.

Turkmenistan is locked in a dispute with Azerbaijan, on the opposite shore, over several oil and gas fields. Berdymukhamedov's decision to install a naval base is seen as a signal that his country will protect its interests.

In July, Berdymukhamedov slammed Azerbaijan for its unilateral development of the disputed fields and threatened legal action.

The tension hurts the prospects for Nabucco, a planned pipeline that the European Union and the United States hope will deliver Turkmen gas via Azerbaijan to Turkey and Europe bypassing Russia.

Moscow has tried to maintain a lock on most of Turkmenistan's gas exports, but relations have been strained since Turkmenistan blamed the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom for a pipeline blast in April.

Azerbaijani political analyst Zardusht Alizade said he believes the plan for a naval base signals that Turkmenistan is mending ties with Russia.

"Turkmenistan is putting itself outside Nabucco and choosing the pro-Russian vector in its policy," he said.

Berdymukhamedov has carefully opened up to courtship by the West and by China since he came to power in December 2006, and expressed increasing interest in diversifying Turkmen energy export routes.

Turkmenistan is the largest gas producer in the former Soviet Union after Russia. The EU and U.S. have been pressing for better access to its resources and for the construction of Nabucco.

The Caspian Sea, home to the world's first offshore wells, is estimated to contain between 17 billion and 33 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. The region is estimated to contain proven natural gas reserves of more than 200 trillion cubic feet.

Associated Press Writer Aida Sultanova contributed to this report from Baku, Azerbaijan
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

BP's giant find in Mexican offshore field.BP's stock soars.This find could have an effect upon the US's wars in the region,as the more such discoveries are easily developed,the less inclined the UIS/west will be to "run the gauntlet" through Central Asia and Fak-Ap routes for the Kashagan field!
BP's 35,000ft well could produce 3bn barrels of oil
BP has made a "giant" oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico after drilling the deepest known oil well in the world.

By Rowena Mason
Published: 7:36PM BST 02 Sep 2009

BP used a similar development driller to find oil 6.6 miles beneath the Gulf of Mexico.
The prospect, named Tiber, is believed to contain more than 3bn barrels of oil – making it a greater find than BP's Kaskida field in the region three years ago.

Sources close to BP said that within the next 10 to 15 years the Tiber and Kaskida finds could increase production by 50pc in the Gulf of Mexico.

Related Articles
Oil find may take a decade to reach commercial production

BP: a history in pictures Transocean, the US offshore rig company, said the Tiber well drilled more than 35,055 feet (10,685m) into the Earth about 250 miles south-east of Houston, Texas, was the deepest known well in the world.

BP currently produces 400,000 barrels per day from the Gulf of Mexico.

The area is particularly important to the Western oil majors because it is more accessible than fields in the Middle East or Russia.

BP has a 62pc majority stake in the Tiber block, while Petrobras, the state-owned Brazilian oil company, owns 20pc and US rival ConocoPhillips owns 18pc.

"Tiber represents BP's second material discovery in the emerging Lower Tertiary play in the Gulf of Mexico, following our earlier Kaskida discovery," said Andy Inglis, BP chief executive for exploration and production.

"These material discoveries, together with our industry-leading acreage position, support the continuing growth of our deepwater Gulf of Mexico business into the second half of the next decade."

A BP spokesman said that more tests would be needed to see how much oil was in the prospect and how much might be recoverable.

Shares in BP closed up 4.3pc at 541.65p, making it the biggest riser in the FTSE 100 index on Wednesday.

BP's find comes as the energy industry this week celebrates 150 years since crude oil was first recovered from a drilled well.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... f-oil.html
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by NRao »

On the BP oil "find":

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f7017778-9821 ... abdc0.html
Analysts said that, although the Tiber field was unlikely to come into production before the second half of the next decade, it was an important boost to BP's longer-term prospects.


Oil found now will take YEARS to get to the surface, build refineries (all oil cannot be sent to any refinery), then marketed.

There has been a ton of finds in the past two-three years - the biggest are in Brazil.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by NRao »

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e6e37994-957a ... abdc0.html
Gush of oil is music to Indian ears

As Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, was invited to turn “the wheel of fortune” that would allow pumping to start at the Mangala oilfield in Rajasthan on Saturday, the academy award-winning song Jai Ho – which in Hindi means “may you be victorious” – pounded from a stereo system.

For Cairn India there is a clear reason to celebrate. London-listed Cairn Energy’s Indian unit, which has a 70 per cent operating interest in the RJ-ON-90/1 block, has spent years in the arid Barmer region of Rajasthan working alongside government, local people and Oil & Natural Gas Corp, its joint venture partner, to turn a series of sizeable discoveries into a profitable business.

But for India, Asia’s third- largest oil consumer, the start of production is far more significant.

Cairn’s discoveries, together with gas finds made by Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries in the Krishna Godavari Basin off India’s east coast, will provide a huge boost to the coffers of the Indian exchequer and lower the amount of oil and gas the nation has to import.

“Currently India is meeting more than 75 per cent of its crude requirement through imports,” said Murli Deora, India’s minister for oil and gas. “The crude oil production from Barmer Field is a significant step towards achieving energy security for our country. At its peak, the crude production from this block will be about 20 per cent of the current crude oil production of the country, and will save around 7 per cent of the crude oil import bill and reduce import dependence.”

India currently imports more than 2m barrels of oil per day (bopd) and produces 700,000 bopd itself.

Once it hits peak production, Mangala – one of the biggest onshore oil discoveries in India in more than 20 years – together with Cairn’s other fields at Bhagyam and Aishwariya, will produce 175,000 bopd.

Reliance Industries’ field in the KG Basin, which started production in April, is expected to produce about 550,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day when it hits full capacity next year.

The start of production in both blocks comes at a critical time for the government. This month it started the eighth round of bidding for blocks under its New Exploration Licensing Programme (NELP). Nearly 70 oil and gas blocks are up for grabs and a series of international roadshows is underway.

But while the Indian government hopes to secure up to $3bn from this round, analysts point out that earlier rounds attracted relatively little interest from overseas players.

To make matters worse, the NELP auction has been overshadowed by the squabble between Indian tycoons Mukesh Ambani and his younger brother Anil over the price at which Mukesh’s Reliance Industries supplies gas from the KG Basin to Anil’s Reliance Natural Resources.

Comments from the oil ministry in recent weeks suggest the government has been rattled. The energy ministry recently admitted the tussle was not helping to attract foreign players in the latest NELP round.

The test will come when NELP bids close on October 12. Meanwhile, the government is doing its best to play up its victories.

“Cairn’s efforts show that the investment climate is very good in India,” insisted Mr Singh.
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Sanjay M »

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Sanjay M »

Bomber Release Involved Oil, British Minister Says

Justice Minister Jack Straw said he was unapologetic that trade deals had played “a very big part” of the choice to let the Lockerbie bomber go back to Libya.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by vera_k »

X-posting from Oil and Natural Gas thread.
India's next big business?
The optimism is grounded in massive oil deposits, close to 30 billion tons, in Central India. That's twice the size of the deposits in Iraq (13 billion tons, according to the Institute of Petroleum) and just shy of Saudi deposits.
Wiki says the Deccan Traps are 2000m deep. Since XOM is able to drill down to 2500m, this oil can be extracted using present day technology.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

More tension between Russia and Ukraine.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... ansit.html
Ukraine and Russia spar over gas transit
Tensions are again growing between Russia and Ukraine over payments for transporting gas to Europe, echoing last winter's crisis that led to shortages.

By Rowena Mason
Published: 7:38PM BST 08 Sep 2009

Plenty in reserve: Ukraine has said it has enough gas to supply Europe this winter, playing down fears of another dispute with Russia Photo: Reuters The Kremlin has insisted that Russia should not pay its neighbour in advance for transporting gas to European nations, despite Ukraine's pleas for early payment at a time when it is seeking an international bail-out package.

Gas prices rose by the most in five years last winter, after Russia briefly turned off the taps to Ukraine, leaving European countries scrambling for shipped supplies of liquified natural gas (LNG) – a more expensive source than pipeline gas.

Ukraine imports 71pc of its gas from Russia and about a fifth of Europe's supply passes through the former Soviet state.

The relationship between the two countries had appeared to soften over the past few weeks, as Ukraine paid Russia a long overdue bill for imported gas for domestic use.

However, the rapprochement did not last long, as the Kremlin has since used its website to urge the state supplier, Gazprom, not to give in to Ukrainian demands over changes to a contract signed in January.

Russia has already allowed Ukraine to cut down the amount of gas bought for supply to Europe after a slump in demand during the recession that caused a glut of reserves. Further cuts could leave Ukraine open to the possibility of hefty penalties from Gazprom.

However, Ukraine insisted this week that it had healthy reserves for supplying Europe this winter, as it sought to play down fears of another stand-off with its gas-rich neighbour.

This year, gas prices have fallen sharply as demand drops during the recession.

Related Articles
Ukraine Gazprom dispute escalates
Ukrainian political battle could hit European gas prices
Ukraine president Viktor Yushchenko accuses PM Yulia Tymoshenko of treason
Ukraine blocks gas after Russia turns taps on
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

Burmese junta make a "Total" windfall!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 84497.html
Burmese generals pocket $5bn from Total oil deal

An impoverished nation is deprived as pipeline cash is deposited in foreign bank accounts, report claims

By Andrew Buncombe, Asia Correspondent

Workers at Total's billion-dollar gas project in eastern Burma

The Burmese military junta has earned almost $5bn from a controversial gas pipeline operated by the French oil giant Total and deprived the country of vital income by depositing almost all the money in bank accounts in Singapore, a new report claims.

Campaigners say Total has also profited handsomely from the arrangement, with an estimated income of $483m from the project since 2000. Campaigners say that the windfall from the Yadana pipeline, operated by Total and two other partners, has been so huge that it has done much to insulate the country's military rulers from the impact of international sanctions imposed over its human rights abuses. The report from EarthRights International (ERI), published today, argues that this makes Total and their partners a major factor in reinforcing the regime's intransigence. And it claims that while their people suffer some of the worst standards of living in Asia, with miserable state investment in health, education, infrastructure and everything else that affects the lives of ordinary people, the self-perpetuating military elite has grown obscenely wealthy.

The pipeline in eastern Burma, which carries gas from rich fields in the Andaman Sea through Burma and into Thailand, has long been controversial. Campaigners have regularly claimed that the authorities have used forced labour in the project, security for which is provided by the Burmese armed forces. Last month, Total rejected claims that forced labour was still being used.

Yet the information contained in the report from ERI, a respected Thailand-based group, provides the most detailed insight yet into the vast sums earned by the regime from the pipeline and what happens to that wealth.

In the report, Total Impact, which has taken two years to research, the group says the junta, headed by General Than Shwe, manages to avoid including almost all its dollar gas revenues in the national budget by using an artificially low exchange rate. This way it calculates its revenue as just 6 kyat to the dollar when the real rate is closer to 1,000. According to a confidential IMF report obtained by ERI, the natural gas revenue "contributed less than 1 per cent of total budget revenue in 2007/08, but would have contributed about 57 per cent if valued at the market exchange rate". The report says that at these rates, the regime has listed just $29m of its earnings while around $4.8bn is unaccounted for.

The report says that "reliable sources" have indicated that the Burmese military regime's portion of the Yadana earnings are located in two leading offshore banks in Singapore - the Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC), which holds the majority of the revenue, and DBS Group. ERI says that OCBC is Singapore's longest established local bank.

"The military elite are hiding billions of dollars of the people's revenue in Singapore while the country needlessly suffers under the lowest social spending in Asia," said ERI's Matthew Smith, the report's main author. "The revenue from this pipeline is the regime's lifeline and a critical leverage point that the international community could use to support the people of Burma."

The apparent disregard for its people is a charge that has long been levelled at the Burmese junta, which calls itself the State Peace and Development Council. The group Burma Campaign UK has estimated the regime's spending on health services is the lowest in the world – just 50 pence per person a year – while it spends up to half its budget on the military.

Criticism of the regime increased last year in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis when the authorities were accused of a fatally slow and inadequate response to the storm that left 140,000 people dead. Suspicious of the motives of outside organisations, the authorities resisted granting entry visas to scores of aid workers. US and other foreign vessels carrying badly needed emergency supplies were refused permission to dock.

Yet while the regime appears happy to let its people suffer – Burma today is the poorest country in the region – senior members of the junta enjoy lives of luxury and excess. In November 2006, a rare insight into the extravagance of the regime was provided by a video of the wedding party of Than Shwe's daughter to an army officer. In the video, posted on the internet, copious amounts of champagne was poured while gifts totalling an estimated $50m were handed to the couple. The wedding presents included cars jewellery and houses.

For a regime facing a series of sanctions and widespread pressure to release political prisoners, including the detained opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, energy deals have become a key bargaining chip in its relations with regional powers such as China and India.

The junior international partners in the Yadana pipeline are Chevron, which is said too have earned $437m from the project, and PTTEP of Thailand, which has earned around $394m. Burma's state-controlled Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise is also involved in the operation. Last month The Independent revealed allegations that the Yadana pipeline was still being serviced by forced labour, claims that were denied by Total.

Last night the Burmese Embassy in London failed to respond to questions about the report's allegations. A spokeswoman for Total said it was unable to respond comprehensively to the claims made by ERI as it had not seen the document. Asked about its earning in Burma, the spokeswoman said: "We do not usually comment on our earnings per country. Nevertheless our amount in Myanmar represents 0.7 per cent of the group's results."

She said that in 2008, the group's income was €13.9bn (around $20bn), suggesting Total annually earns $140m from Burma and its controversial pipeline.

A brutal regime: Military rulers who profit

Burma has been under the thumb of the military since 1962, and the current junta has ruled since the late 1980s when it brutally crushed a democracy movement, killing up to 6,000 people.

At the head of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) sits senior leader Than Shwe, a former postal clerk now aged 76. Initially considered something of a moderate, the general has shown himself to be increasingly authoritarian and hostile to negotiations. Located in the remote jungle capital of Naypidaw since late 2005, the SPDC's other senior members include vice chairman Maung Aye, who has a reputation for ruthlessness and xenophobia. Some reports suggest that he and Than Shwe are involved in a power struggle.

Third-in-command in the military structure is Shwe Mann, Joint Chief of Staff and co-ordinator of the special forces. A father of three sons, Shwe Mann became a powerful figure in the regime when he was appointed head of all three services.

Then Sein holds the position of prime minister and is considered to be a strong supporter of Than Shwe. In May 2008, as head of the junta's disaster preparedness committee, he became the point man for relief efforts related to Cyclone Nargis. He was notoriously pictured on the front page of a state-run newspaper handing out television sets when people were desperate for food, water and electricity.

The oil giant: Total's global reach

Total's adventures with the Burmese generals have disturbing parallels with the involvement of another French oil giant, Elf – a company Total swallowed in 2000 – with corrupt military dictators in Africa. It's an inglorious story that ended with one of Europe's biggest corruption trials in 2003 and the conviction of three senior executives at Elf. Soon afterwards the company was absorbed into Total and Elf's African operations were rebranded.

A Paris courtroom heard how the oil riches of West and central Africa from Gabon to Cameroon and Congo to Angola had flowed back and forth between Elf and its client leaders – three of whom are still in power while the third, Omar Bongo, died earlier this year.

In that case, although not in this, the company's senior management were accused of personally profiting from the deals. Elf's former chairman, Loïk Le Floch-Prigent, received a five-year jail sentence in 2003, as did the former director Alfred Sirven, while the company's "Mr Africa", Andre Tarallo, was jailed for four years and fined €2m (£1.75m).

The court heard how huge sums were paid – more than €16m annually to President Bongo – to ensure these leaders stayed loyal to Elf. The defendants maintained that French leaders and parties received similar sums to ensure no one interfered with the arrangement.

In Gabon, that meant Elf could act as a "state within a state", while the sweeteners ensured that France's military and espionage operations operated with impunity.

Today, Total is investing nearly $5bn (£3bn) in its Africa operations and is doing business with the same stalwarts from the Elf years: Paul Biya in Cameroon, Denis Sassou Nguesso in Congo-Brazzaville, and José Eduardo dos Santos in Angola. What these countries have in common are sham elections, broken constitutions, rampant corruption and mass poverty.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19332
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by NRao »

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

Amazing,Russia is now the world's leading exporter of oil and gas too!
This gives Russia enormous leverage on global politics and when seen in the light of it being able to influence the route of Central Asian oiol and gas from Kazakh's Caspian Sea Kashagan mega field,Russia's predominant status as the globe's petro Czar can be understood.
Europe fears winter energy crisis as Russia tightens grip on oil supplies

Russia overtakes Saudi Arabia as top exporter – and uncertainty continues over Ukraine pipelines

Luke Harding and David Hearst in Moscow
The Observer, Sunday 13 September 2009

Russia's stranglehold over dwindling global energy resources was dramatically confirmed yesterday when new figures showed that the country has become the world's biggest exporter of oil.

With production in August hitting record levels, Russia toppled Saudi Arabia from the number one spot. It is already the world's largest exporter of gas, and supplies around a third of the European Union's consumption.

The news is likely to heighten unease in EU capitals over the Kremlin's tightening grip on energy reserves. There are fears of a repeat of January's debilitating gas war between Russia and Ukraine – which saw winter supplies to EU consumers cut off for weeks. Members of Opec agreed to cut oil production last year in response to the economic crisis. Moscow indicated last December that it would follow suit but instead ramped up production in the second quarter of 2009, as new fields in Siberia came on stream.

Russia produced almost 10 million barrels of oil a day in August, according to International Energy Agency figures – a post-Soviet record. Relations with other oil producing countries are likely to come under increasing strain, since Russia is now profiting from Opec production cuts.

"The fear is that Russia will get a big head," Andrew Neff, an oil analyst with Global Insight in Washington, told the Observer. "Not only is it the world's largest gas exporter but now the world's biggest oil exporter as well. The question is will Russia want to exploit its feeling of superiority and demand a seat not just at the table, but at the head of the table."

Yesterday, however, the head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom denied claims that gas and oil supplies were used as a political weapon – insisting that the country was a reliable supplier. Alexei Miller said that the EU would remain Russia's most important client, despite the construction of new pipelines to supply China.

Opec, Miller said, was no longer calling the shots in determining the world price of oil, currently around $70 (£42) a barrel. He also said that Ukraine – through which 80% of the EU's gas travels – was paying for its own supplies on time. But he warned of a possible crisis in early February, two weeks after Ukrainians go to the polls to elect a new president on 17 January.

"I must say at the moment relations [with Ukraine] could not be better. I think there will be no problems until December. My Ukrainian colleagues say they will use between $20m and $30m in reserves to pay for Russian gas until the end of 2009," Miller said.

He added, however, that he wasn't sure Ukraine would be able to settle its debts to Gazprom in 2010: "When I met my colleagues from Naftogaz [Ukraine's state gas company] I asked them whether they will be able to pay next year. They replied to me in words I cannot repeat in polite company. They could be translated as: 'We don't know'."

Analysts say that there is a strong probability of another damaging gas war between Moscow and Kiev, which could halt deliveries to the EU. "The question is whether Ukraine will try to blackmail Gazprom and Europe. We have a very divisive presidential election coming up [in Ukraine]. There is a perfect storm brewing," Neff predicted.

One leading Russian oil executive said that the international community should not be alarmed about Russian production. "Russia has about 6% of the world's proven oil reserves," Segei Bogdanchikov, president of the Russian state oil company Rosneft, told the Observer. "We have 40% of the world's oil resources." Making a distinction between resources – that is, oil which has so far not been tapped and may not be extractable – and definite reserves, Bogdanchikov said: "We understand that resources are not oil in the field. On the other hand 6% allows us to look safely into the future. We are sure that resources are going to be reserves. We will act responsibly."

Over the past decade Russia has recovered its economic and international prestige largely because of the massive increase in energy prices. The main beneficiary has been Vladimir Putin, who has claimed credit for delivering increased prosperity to Russia's 142 million citizens. The biggest winners, however, have been Russia's oil-connected elite, who now enjoy lavish lifestyles.

Russia, however, has been badly battered by the global economic crisis, with GDP shrinking by more than 10% in the first half of 2009. The Russian government has been deeply anxious about the spectre of social unrest spreading across the country. The recent rise in oil prices has apparently banished such fears.

Yesterday Putin – currently Russia's prime minister – struck an optimistic note. He said that Russia was "modestly" edging out of recession, with growth of around 1% a month since June.
shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2212
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by shravan »

A TIMELINE OF OIL AND VIOLENCE AFGHANISTAN

July 3, 1979
President Carter signed a secret directive aiding opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul, calculated to induce a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. (See: Interview with former President Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski)

Mid to Late 1980s
Sept. 1986: In response to apparent successes of the Soviet Hind-D helicopter-gunship in Afghanistan, President Reagan authorized the shipment of Stinger missiles via Pakistan to Afghanistan. Overwhelmingly successful use of the Stinger resulted in neutralization of the Hind-D, and three years later (1989) to full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The US, wishing to increase its regional influence, worked with the Saudis to import an army of Saudis, Egyptians, and others into Afghanistan. The Saudis chose a member of a wealthy construction family with close royal family ties - Osama bin Laden - to lead the effort. Many of the men bin Laden recruited were connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, a regional fundamentalist group. bin Laden's newly constructed army (shortly thereafter known as al Qaeda) successfully fought to settle Afghanistan in favor of an Afghan fundamentalist group, the Taliban.


Dec. 1991
Collapse of the Soviet Union, and the birth of Caspian Sea nations of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan


1993
US Oil companies reached for the estimated 200 billion barrels of oil in the Caspian Sea area. (Also:1 2 )

1995
Unocal, seeking to build a pipeline across Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (for delivery to energy hungry Asia via the Pakistani Arabian Sea coast), signed an agreement with Turkmenistan for natural gas purchasing rights for transport through a proposed pipeline. Unocal also signed an agreement with Turkmenistan for an oil pipeline along the same route.

Aug. 13, 1996
Unocal and Delta Oil Co. of Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding with Russia's Gazprom and Turkmenistan's Turkmenrusgaz to build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan.

Oct. 1997
Unocal and other oil companies formed Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) in preparation for building the trans-Afghanistan pipeline.

1997
US Congress passed a resolution declaring the Caspian and Caucasus region to be a “zone of vital American interests”.

Dec. 1997
Unocal invited Taliban representatives to their corporate headquarters in Sugarland, TX. to discuss the pipeline project. They were thereafter invited to Washington for meetings with Clinton Administration officials.

Jan. 1998
Unocal agreement signed between Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and the Taliban to arrange funding of the gas pipeline project, with Unocal also considering a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-Arabian Sea coast oil pipeline.

1998
VP Dick Cheney, then CEO of the giant oil services company, Halliburton, stated: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

Feb. 28, 1998
Unocal VP International Relations addressed US House of Representatives clearly stating that the Taliban government should be removed and replaced by a government acceptable to his company. He argued that creation of a 42 inch oil pipeline across Afghanistan would yield a Western profit increase of 500% by 2015.

March 1998
Unocal announced a delay in finalizing the pipeline project due to Afghanistan's continuing civil war

Aug. 7, 1998
Terrorists said to be linked to Osama bin Laden bombed two US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

Aug. 20, 1998
Clinton ordered a 75-80 cruise missile attacks (17) on Afghanistan and Sudan targets.

Aug. 21, 1998
Unocal temporarily halted development of the pipeline(18) project following the US missile attack above.

Aug. 22, 1998
BBC reported that the US and al-Queda leader Osama bin Laden exchanged warnings of things to come following the cruise missile attacks ordered two days earlier.

Nov. 1998
The Trade and Development Agency commissioned Enron to perform a feasibility study re: an east-to-west route, crossing the Caspian Mountains and terminating in Turkey along the Mediterranean. (The route was considered impractical as it would cost an estimated $1 billion more than a route through Afghanistan.)

Dec. 1998
Unocal issued a statement that it had withdrawn from the pipeline project on 12/4/98, noting "business reasons."

April 30, 1999
Excluding US interests, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Turkmenistan reactivated the pipeline project.

July 4, 1999
An executive order (13129) was issued by Clinton, freezing US held Taliban assets, & prohibiting trade plus other transactions.

Oct. 15, 1999
UN Security Council Resolution 1267 imposed sanctions on the Taliban, demanding that the Taliban "turn over the terrorist Usama Bin Laden without further delay..."

Oct. 12, 2000
The USS Cole was attacked in the Yemeni port of Aden.

Dec. 19, 2000
UN Security Council Resolution 1333 demanded compliance with Resolution 1267, and imposed further sanctions on the Taliban.

Jan. - Feb. 2001
Upon taking office, the Bush administration immediately engaged in active negotiations with Taliban representatives with meetings in Washington, DC, Berlin, and Islamabad. During this time the Taliban government hired Laila Helms, niece of former CIA director Richard Helms, as their go-between in negotiations with the US government.

Bush (oil) administration includes:

* Dick Cheney, VP: Until 2000 - President of Halliburton (in position to build the Afghan pipeline).

* Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor: 1991-2000 - Manager of Chevron Oil, and Kazakhstan go-between.

* Donald Evans, Sec. Commerce: former CEO, Tom Brown, Inc. (a $1.2 billion oil company).

* Gale Norton, Sec. Interior: former national chairwoman of the Coalition of Republican Environmental Advocates - funded by, among others, BP Amoco.

* Spencer Abraham, Sec. Energy: Up through his failed bid for senatorial reelection in the 2000, he received more oil and gas industry money than all but three other senators (January 1997 through July 2000).

* Thomas White, Secretary of the Army: former Vice Chairman of Enron and a large shareholder of that company's stock.


May 15, 2001
Regarding the placement of the Unocal Pipeline, a US Official delivered this ultimatum to the Taliban (via the Pakistani delegation acting as their interlocutors): "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs."


June 2001
US Ambassador to Yemen, Ms. Barbara Bodine forbade Deputy Director FBI John O'Neill from entering Yemen in that group's ongoing investigation into al-Qaeda and the USS Cole attack.

July 2001
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.(BBC report)

Aug. 2, 2001
Last meeting with the Taliban (5 weeks before the 9/11/01 attack). Christina Rocca, in charge of Central Asian affairs for US government, met with the Taliban Ambassador to Pakistan (Abdul Salam Zaeef) in Islamabad, at which time Taliban representatives were reminded that the US had provided monetary relief assistance.

Aug. 22, 2001
John O'Neill - Deputy director FBI, established national expert on the al-Qaeda network and in charge of that investigation, resigned in protest over the Bush Administration's obstruction of those investigations.

Aug. 23, 2001
John O'Neill accepted position as chief of security, World Trade Center buildings. NOTE: Electronic security for the World Trade Center was provided by Securacom (now Stratesec), a company initially founded with Kuwaiti capital. Marvin P. Bush, President George W. Bush's youngest brother served as a Securicom/Stratesec board member from 1993 through 2000.

Sept. 4-11, 2001
July - Sept. 2000 - Pakistani Intelligence Chief (ISI) Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad reportedly instructed British born Saeed Sheikh (alias: Ahmad Umar Sheikh, Mustafa Muhammad Ahmed, ....) in Pakistan to wire $100,000 (7/00-9/00) to two Florida bank accounts held by hijacker Mohammed Atta. (Times of India 10-9-01)

Sept. 4, 2001 - ISI's Lt. General Ahmad entered the United States and subsequently met with many top officials within the Bush Administration. (Philadelphia City Paper 12-20-01)

Sept. 11, 2001 - Lt. General Ahmad concluded a breakfast meeting with Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Representative Porter Goss (R-FL), and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ). (Graham and Goss subsequently served as CO-Chairs of the Joint-Intelligence Committee investigating the 9/11 attacks.)(Online Journal 8-7-03)

During Ahmad's brief stay in the US, he also met with: Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE).



Sept. 9, 2001
Ahmed Shah Masood was assassinated in Afghanistan. His assassination severely weakened the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, which he had led.

Sept. 11, 2001
World Trade Center attacked by al Qaeda; fifteen of the nineteen were from Saudi Arabia. John O'Neill, WTC security chief, and former deputy director of the FBI, where he headed investigation of the al-Qaeda network, was killed in those buildings on that day.

Sept. 28, 2001
UN Security Council Resolution 1373 imposed further sanctions on the Taliban.

Oct. 7, 2001
Military operations with aerial bombardment began in Afghanistan.

Dec. 22, 2001
The US-backed interim government headed by Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Hamid Karzai had formerly functioned as a Unocal Corporation consultant )

Jan. 29, 2002
CNN reported: "President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of 9/11/01".

Feb 8, 2002
Afghanistan's interim ruler Hamid Karzai and the Pakistan president agreed to revive plans for a trans-Afghanistan pipeline..


Feb 9, 2002
Turkmenistan officially stated that they hoped their trans-Afghanistan route would be soon built.

Feb. 2002
Proposal to deploy US Special Operations forces to the Caucasus state of Georgia (would help enforce a Washington pipeline policy - neutralizing Russian influence in Central Asia.)

May 13, 2002
Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts regarding a pipeline from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, and through Pakistan to the coast. Mohammad Alim Razim, Afghanistan's minister for Mines and Industries, stated Unocal was considered "the lead company" to build the pipeline.

May 30, 2002
Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan agreed to construct a gas pipeline to the subcontinent.


----TimeLine----
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

...and now the US is furious with Karzai because he isn't playing ball,refuising to cut a power-sharing deal with the Taliban and the Pakis (ISI).Karzai has trumped the US by his electoral "victory" with help from Gen.Dostum,which has enraged the UIS as its entire Afghan strategy is about to collapse and the billions spent in developing the Kashagan oilfield and payouts to Kazakh leaders is literally about to go down the tube!
shravan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2212
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 00:08

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by shravan »

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

The Georgian conflict was due mainly to control over the pipeline routes for Caspian Sea oil through the "GUAM" nations and not through Russia.The naval domination of the Black Sea is vital therfore for this oil,being extracted at huge cost by US oil and western companies.Ukraine,trying to cosy up to the west and NATO,is trying to get Russia out of the militarily important Crimea,a region historically part of Russia and consists of a pro-Russian population.The lease to Sevastopol runs out in 2017 and Russia is exerting pressure upon Ukraine to extend the lease.Ukraine is in no position to be able to evict Russia by force if Russia does not budge.The naval spat during the war saw Russian naval weaknesses,especially in amphibious warfare vessels,which it is trying to rectify through new acquisitions from France or Spain.

http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?opti ... Itemid=132
Maritime Security Weaknesses in the Black Sea
September 19, 2009
Vladimir Socor

Russian naval operations in August 2008 highlighted the security deficit in the Black Sea. As a littoral country, Russia misused the territory of another littoral country, Ukraine, as a staging ground for attacking a third littoral country, Georgia, using its Black Sea Fleet based in Ukrainian territory in Sevastopol (warships from Novorossiysk also participated in the operation).

The Russian fleet landed thousands of troops on the Abkhaz coast, attacked Georgian coastal guard vessels, as well as shore targets further south in Georgia, and blockaded Poti. In that port, Russian troops blew up Georgian coastal guard cutters at the pier.

The Russian fleet's actions violated Ukraine's neutrality, which Russia otherwise professes to uphold vis-á-vis NATO. The naval operation also breached the 1997 basing agreements, which rule out any involvement in hostilities by the Russian fleet based in Ukraine.

According to Russian media accounts from naval sources in the war's aftermath, the Russian naval group moved slowly from Sevastopol in the direction of Georgia, four or five days before the August 8 assault. Yet, no littoral or non-littoral country or organization reacted at the political level, before or afterward, to Russia's naval operation.

In the war's aftermath, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko issued a decree requiring the Russian Black Sea Fleet command to provide advanced notification to Ukrainian authorities in each case when its ships and personnel exit and re-enter Ukrainian territory. The decree cites international law and the 1997 basing agreements as the basis for this requirement. Ukraine's foreign ministry has repeatedly taken up the issue with its Russian government counterparts. Yet the Russian government and naval command have largely ignored it.

As part of its naval modernization program, Moscow hopes to buy a Mistral-class helicopter carrier from France. Announcing that intention, the Russian Navy's Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Vladimir Vysotskiy, said: "In the conflict in August last year [against Georgia], a ship like that would have allowed the Black Sea Fleet to accomplish its mission in 40 minutes, not 26 hours which is how long it took us [to land the troops ashore]." The navy also hopes to acquire the license to build three or four Mistral-class ships in Russia. Moscow is preparing an international tender for France, the Netherlands, and Spain - states which also build helicopter carriers of this class- to compete for selling the ship and the technology to Russia (Interfax, September 11, 15).

According to Vysotskiy, the negotiations are in progress. Moscow apparently expects these NATO countries to enhance Russia's military capabilities in order to intimidate its neighbors, after the same countries helped block Ukraine's and Georgia's membership action plans with the Alliance.

Moscow has recently introduced adjustments to the command arrangements for its Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine. The fleet shall be subordinated to the Russian North Caucasus Military District (ground forces), headquartered in Rostov-on-the-Don, in the event of "operational missions in the southern and southwestern directions." Prior to this change, the Russian Fleet in Ukraine was subordinated to the naval command at all times. The change is designed to integrate these naval forces with Russia's ground forces for operations in the Black Sea region. By the same token this change erodes the provisions of the 1997 Russia-Ukraine agreements that ensure this fleet's separation from the Russian ground forces and precludes the fleet's involvement in hostilities (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 3; Interfax, September 11).

Russia openly questions Ukraine's sovereignty in the Crimea while signaling that it will try to prolong the stationing of its fleet beyond the 2017 deadline. For that deadline to be observed, the fleet would have to begin the process of withdrawal by 2011-2012. However, Moscow is unwilling and international attention is also lacking. Even some leading Ukrainian proponents of the orientation toward NATO believe that the Alliance and the United States lack a strategy for securing Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity, particularly in the case of escalating Russian pressures in the Crimea (Volodymyr Horbulin and Valentyn Badrak, Defense Express [Kyiv], September 11).

The existing arrangements for confidence-building and security in the Black Sea are proving inadequate to these challenges. The naval confidence-building undertaking BlackSeaFor and the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization (BSEC) are consensus-based groups, unable even to discuss officially, let alone deal with, hard-security challenges such as those relating to the territorial integrity of littoral countries.

Those groupings and arrangements were not designed to cope with those hard-security challenges; indeed such challenges were not initially anticipated, and went unaddressed after becoming manifest. In terms of naval security, the current situation in the Black Sea amounts to a Russian-Turkish naval condominium, with Turkey probably being the stronger side. The Turkish-led exercise Black Sea Harmony, held periodically with Russia in the southern Black Sea, also has no restraining impact on Russian behavior in the eastern and northern Black Sea.

Source: http://www.jamestown.org
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

Another angle on RUsso-US relations and the oil factor.
It's All Business Between U.S. and Russia
June 28, 2009
by Andrei A. Piontkovsky

Germany's ex-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is a legend in Russia. He serves Gazprom's interests for a measly couple of million euros a year, sits in at sessions of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and writes books about his staunch friendship with 'Genosse Wladimir,' who, in the not-so-distant past, earned himself the well-deserved nickname of 'Stasi' among business circles in gangster-ridden St Petersburg.

But it is not immediately obvious whether it is Schroeder who is currying favour with Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin nowadays or vice versa.

The two of them are trying to build, the Nord Stream gas pipeline, an exceptionally costly project that satisfies twin strategic objectives.

Demonstratively hostile to the interests of Belarus and Ukraine, the pipeline is intended to ensure these countries are under Russia's energy thumb. As a bonus, the pipeline will also consolidate the Russian economy's status as an appendage of Germany's - its supplier of natural resources.

The Kremlin's achievements in securing the help of Americans willing to offer their influence are equally impressive. Indeed, the Obama administration's Russia policy is being nurtured with advice from people who have no official position in the administration but close business ties to Russia and the Kremlin: Henry Kissinger, James A. Baker, Thomas Graham, and Dimitri Simes.

Like Schroeder, all these people are not economically disinterested. Baker is a consultant for the two companies at the commanding heights of the Russian economy, Gazprom and Rosneft. The Kissinger Associates lobbying group, whose Russian section is headed by Graham, feeds in to the Kissinger-Primakov working group, a quasi-private-sector effort, blessed by Putin, to deepen ties between Russia and the US.

It is highly instructive to read the recommendations of these people and groups, as they unobtrusively render the objectives of their Kremlin clients into a language familiar to American leaders. Graham's latest contribution, Resurgent Russia and US Purposes, is most revealing in this respect. The author finds the government of a "Russia getting up off its knees" to consist of progressive modernisers fully aware of the challenges facing their country as it attempts to "return to the great powers club".

"In order to become a genuinely developed and modern country," Graham continues, "in the coming decade Russia will need to invest at least one trillion dollars [Dh3.67 trillion] in modernising its infrastructure. America and the West in general have a vital interest in seeing the modernisation of Russia succeed. The lion's share of the technologies, know-how, and a substantial proportion of the investment, needs to come from Europe and the US." In addition to the technology and investments, Graham quietly slips in a foreign policy suggestion for the Obama administration that is sure to please the Kremlin: "Finlandising" Ukraine.

Unless that sort of appeasement is pursued, he warns, Russia will continue to oppose the US "wherever and whenever it can".

According to Graham, "At the extreme, a weak Russia, with its vast resources and sparse population east of the Urals, could become the object of competition among the great powers, notably China and the United States".

That unspoken help-us-develop-or-we'll-let-the-Chinese-do-it threat is a logical development of Putin's homily at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos.

His recipe? Western countries should write off half a trillion dollars worth of debt owed to them by the Russian state corporations run by his pals from the Dresden KGB and the Ozero dacha co-operative.

But no amount of money will succeed in modernising Putin's regime, which has already squandered trillions in oil wealth. Simply put, the Putin system is politically, institutionally, and intellectually antithetical to the task of modernisation.

Graham's only error in his presentation is his attempt to frighten the administration with a hypothetical confrontation between the US and China over Russian resources. This is not his area of specialisation.

Kissinger works with the Chinese account, jointly propounding with his long-time rival Zbigniew Brzezinski the notion, so seductive for an America growing weary of its imperial burden, of a global Big Two.

Here is a recent sample of Kissinger's geopolitical arts: "The role of China in a new world order is crucial. A relationship that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the international system... The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level. This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with trans-Atlantic relations in the post-war period."

No doubt Kissinger believes every word he wrote, but his ideas also honestly articulate the aspirations of his customers.

It is just that not all customers have the same motives. One wants to put its hooks into a further trillion dollars that it can pick away at, while the other wants to become "a central construct of the system of international relations".

But, in both cases, the customers are getting the influence for which they are paying.

Andrei Piontkovsky is a visiting fellow with Hudson Institute.

URL: http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseact ... ls&id=6280
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

The dark secrets of the trillion-dollar oil trade
Tankers full of oil its owners don't want to sell. Shady deals with brutal regimes. Vast profits. Pollution scandals. Cahal Milmo investigates a very murky business

Saturday, 26 September 2009

Vessels moored near Singapore. It is now more profitable to use them for storing than transporting oil

With a combined capacity for 313,000 tonnes of oil, the Delta Ios and the NS Burgas supertankers were launched two months ago to criss-cross the globe in search of trade. Instead, the vast vessels were to be found yesterday lying idle off the coast of Singapore after their owners were paid by two of the world's richest and most secretive oil companies to turn them into floating petrochemical warehouses.

At first glance, the decision by Trafigura Group and Vitol Holding BV to charter the newly built ships at an estimated cost of £47,000 a day to do nothing for up to four months in South-east Asia while laden with cargos of diesel worth at least £77m per vessel makes little economic sense.

When this is combined with the fact that the Delta Ios and the NS Burgas are just two ships in an enormous fleet of tankers which are currently being paid about £80m a month by independent oil traders like Trafigura and Vitol, as well as giants such as Shell, to stay anchored around the globe with anything between 50 and 150 million barrels of redundant crude on board, it seem that the ruthless barons of black gold must be losing money as fast as they can make it.

Trafigura refuses to aid fire inquiry
Far from it. The phenomenon of "floating storage", which has been brought about by a huge over-supply of global tanker capacity and unusual market conditions, is just one example of the multitude of ways in which a small group of private, mostly Swiss-based companies have become adept at turning vast profits from the closed and often murky world of independent oil trading. A glut of oil caused by the recession means that crude available for immediate purchase is currently cheaper than that bought on longer-term or "future" contracts – a practice known as "contango". The result is that independent traders have been rushing to buy the cheaper "spot" oil and storing it wherever they can – namely in under-employed tanker fleets – in anticipation of a sharp rise in price as the global economy begins to recover. The resulting profit can be anything between 15 and 20 per cent – tens of millions of dollars – even after the cost of hiring a tanker is deducted.

It is a situation which prompted one senior oil company executive to declare that the spring and summer of 2009 represented "blessed times for trading". Another oil trader told The Independent: "Contango has been a real boon. The independents have become very adept at buying up tanker capacity as cheaply as possible, sitting on the stock and selling it on via arbitrage. They've been as slick as you like."

The deals are part of a world in which discretion and an ability to keep out of the public eye have long been treasured. While the oil majors such as ExxonMobil, Shell and BP operate as global corporations, the independents or "jobbers" have thrived in the grey zone of fast trading-room deals and personal contacts that allow access to lucrative oil reserves.

But increasingly the activities of the "big four" independent traders – Trafigura, Vitol, Gunvor (which has consistently denied reports that it is linked to the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin) and the hugely successful Glencore – are coming under scrutiny. Questions are being asked about their role in uniting the oil wealth of some of the world's more unsavoury regimes with the open market.

Trafigura, which until August 2006 was barely known outside the oil trade – despite growing to become one of the world's biggest companies with a turnover of $73bn (£46bn) since it was founded 16 years ago – last week found itself making headlines around the world when it agreed to pay about £30m to thousands of residents of the Ivory Coast port of Abidjan who fell ill after toxic oil waste from a ship chartered by the company was dumped by a sub-contractor near the west African city.

The settlement of the claim brought on behalf of 31,000 Ivorians at the High Court in London after tonnes of foul-smelling sludge were fly-tipped in August 2006 was said by Trafigura to vindicate its position that there was no link between the waste and people who died or suffered serious illnesses.

But the Abidjan pollution disaster shone a light into the nature of the way these multibillion-pound "jobbers" of the oil trade make their money. In the case of Trafigura, the events of August 2006 were just part of a deal conducted across three continents in which a cheap, low-quality form of oil known as coker gasoline bought from a Mexican refinery was further refined in Europe, and the subsequent fuel was sold at a profit of about $7m per cargo.

Oil industry insiders have told The Independent that coker gasoline is just one of a myriad of methods used by independent traders to turn a profit, ranging from "paper" deals struck in the City of London's trading floors, to floating storage, to what is known as "physical trading" – transporting hundreds of consignments of different grades of oil on chartered tankers looking for the best price from dozens of offices across the globe. Executives, who are frequently equity partners in the companies, speak of constant shuttling around the world to close deals and negotiate prices.

By any standards, it is a huge and profitable industry. From a situation 20 years ago where the "majors" dominated the international trade, independents now account for about 15 per cent of world's $2 trillion oil industry.

Glencore, founded in 1974 by the controversial trader Marc Rich – who was indicted for tax evasion and later pardoned by President Bill Clinton – is estimated to supply 3 per cent of the world's daily oil consumption. The company is no longer involved with Mr Rich.

Between them, the "big four" had turnovers last year of about $415bn – equivalent to the GDP of Austria. Because the companies are privately owned, comprehensive profit figures are hard to come by, but Glencore announced a profit of $4.75bn for 2008. Trafigura made $440m last year.

In an industry which deals with a commodity for which many countries have gone to war, insiders say it is inevitable that traders will find themselves dealing with authoritarian oil-rich regimes and dabbling in controversial schemes. On at least one occasion, three of the big four – Glencore, Trafigura and Vitol – have been found to have crossed the line between incentives and kickbacks through their involvement in the United Nations' oil-for-food scheme to help Saddam Hussein's Iraq buy humanitarian supplies.

In the UN's Volcker report, all three companies were cited for paying surcharges demanded by Saddam's regime to win oil supply contracts. In 2007, Vitol pleaded guilty in America to paying $13m in surcharges, and the Swiss arm of Trafigura forfeited $20m. Both companies insisted that the deals had been handled in good faith via third parties. Glencore, which was cited for paying $6.6m in surcharges, denied any wrongdoing.

Glencore was also named in a 2005 High Court judgment as one of the companies which handled shipments of oil sold by the state-owned oil company of Congo-Brazzaville in central Africa. It was subsequently shown that cash derived from the shipments was used by the son of the country's President to pay credit card bills for shopping sprees in Paris. There was no suggestion that Glencore acted improperly.

All of the "big four" point out that they operate in accordance with international law and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's guidelines on business conduct. But campaigners complain that a lack of transparency in the industry means that proper scrutiny of the oil-rich governments in Africa and the middlemen they deal with is impossible.

Gavin Hayman, director of campaigns for Global Witness, said: "These companies play a major role in selling Africa's oil and their operations are notoriously opaque. It would be legitimate to ask: 'How do they get these contracts, do they sell the oil for its proper price, and do they send the money back to the correct place?'

"This lack of transparency creates a big risk that corrupt officials can siphon off some of the profits and deprive ordinary citizens of their rightful benefit from natural resource wealth."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 93503.html
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

All that Gas?

Is Gas the new oil?Yes,say some experts who predict that new gas fields have the potential to bail the globe out of the oil crisis and rescue economies beleaguered by high oil prices.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... world.html
Energy crisis is postponed as new gas rescues the world
Engineers have performed their magic once again. The world is not going to run short of energy as soon as feared.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Oil shale is rock containing deposits of oil and is pictured here burning.
Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, says that proven gas reserves are higher than believed

A fleet of LNG carriers built by Samsung for Qatar

Alexander Medvedev, the chief of Gazprom, has cast doubt on the ability of shale to solve the energy crisis
America is not going to bleed its wealth importing fuel. Russia's grip on Europe's gas will weaken. Improvident Britain may avoid paralysing blackouts by mid-decade after all.

The World Gas Conference in Buenos Aires last week was one of those events that shatter assumptions. Advances in technology for extracting gas from shale and methane beds have quickened dramatically, altering the global balance of energy faster than almost anybody expected.

Energy bills could hit £2,000 Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, said proven natural gas reserves around the world have risen to 1.2 trillion barrels of oil equivalent, enough for 60 years' supply – and rising fast.

"There has been a revolution in the gas fields of North America. Reserve estimates are rising sharply as technology unlocks unconventional resources," he said.

This is almost unknown to the public, despite the efforts of Nick Grealy at "No Hot Air" who has been arguing for some time that Britain's shale reserves could replace declining North Sea output.

Rune Bjornson from Norway's StatoilHydro said exploitable reserves are much greater than supposed just three years ago and may meet global gas needs for generations.

"The common wisdom was that unconventional gas was too difficult, too expensive and too demanding," he said, according to Petroleum Economist. "This has changed. If we ever doubted that gas was the fuel of the future – in many ways there's the answer."

The breakthrough has been to combine 3-D seismic imaging with new technologies to free "tight gas" by smashing rocks, known as hydro-fracturing or "fracking" in the trade.

The US is leading the charge. Operations in Pennsylvania and Texas have already been sufficient to cut US imports of liquefied natural gas (LGN) from Trinidad and Qatar to almost nil, with knock-on effects for the global gas market – and crude oil. It is one reason why spot prices for some LNG deliveries have dropped to 50pc of pipeline contracts.

Energy bulls gambling that the world economy will soon resume its bubble trajectory need to remember two facts: industrial production over the last year is still down 19pc in Japan, 18pc in Italy, 17pc in Germany, 15pc in Canada, 13pc in France and Russia. 11pc in the US and the UK and 10pc in Brazil. A 12pc rise in China does not offset this.

OPEC states are cheating on quota cuts. Non-compliance has fallen to 62pc from 82pc in March. Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela et al face a budget crunch. Why comply when non-OPEC Russia is pumping at breakneck speed?

The US Energy Department expects shale to meet half of US gas demand within 20 years, if not earlier. Projects are cranking up in eastern France and Poland. Exploration is under way in Australia, India and China.

Texas A&M University said US methods could increase global gas reserves by nine times to 16,000 TCF (trillion cubic feet). Almost a quarter is in China but it may lack the water resources to harness the technology given the depletion of the North China water basin.

Needless to say, the Kremlin is irked. "There's a lot of myths about shale production," said Gazprom's Alexander Medvedev.

If the new forecasts are accurate, Gazprom is not going to be the perennial cash cow funding Russia's great power resurgence. Russia's budget may be in structural deficit.

As for the US, we may soon be looking at an era when gas, wind and solar power, combined with a smarter grid and a switch to electric cars returns the country to near energy self-sufficiency.

This has currency implications. If you strip out the energy deficit, America's vaulting savings rate may soon bring the current account back into surplus – and that is going to come at somebody else's expense, chiefly Japan, Germany and, up to a point, China.

Shale gas is undoubtedly messy. Millions of gallons of water mixed with sand, hydrochloric acid and toxic chemicals are blasted at rocks. This is supposed to happen below the water basins but accidents have been common. Pennsylvania's eco-police have shut down a Cabot Oil & Gas operation after 8,000 gallons of chemicals spilled into a stream.

Nor is it exactly green. Natural gas has much lower CO2 emissions than coal, even from shale – which is why the Sierra Club is backing it as the lesser of evils against "clean coal" (not yet a reality). The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said America may not need any new coal or nuclear plants "ever" again.

I am not qualified to judge where gas excitement crosses into hyperbole. I pass on the story because the claims of BP and Statoil are so extraordinary that we may need to rewrite the geo-strategy textbooks for the next half century.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by RamaY »

I hope GOI is building those oil reserves exploiting the cheap oil prices...

On the oil reserve finds under deccan plateau; could it be the reason behind Anil-bhayya's white flag to Mukhesh-bhayya?
hanumadu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5353
Joined: 11 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by hanumadu »

Philip wrote:Ukraine,trying to cosy up to the west and NATO,is trying to get Russia out of the militarily important Crimea,a region historically part of Russia and consists of a pro-Russian population.The lease to Sevastopol runs out in 2017 and Russia is exerting pressure upon Ukraine to extend the lease.Ukraine is in no position to be able to evict Russia by force if Russia does not budge.
I met a Ukranian software engineer in the bay area who said that Ukraine will merge with Russia again. He was critical of the Ukranian leadership's decision to ally with the west and said that Russia is so big in that area, Ukraine has no choice but to be pro Russia.

--hanumadu
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

China's road to Iran.

http://www.chinasecurityblog.com/2009/1 ... hinas.html#

Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Guest Note by Flynt Leverett: China's Persian Gulf Dilemma and Deepening Relations with Iran via thewashingtonnote.com

Guest Note by Flynt Leverett: China's Persian Gulf Dilemma and Deepening Relations with Iran:

This is a guest note by Flynt Leverett. Flynt directs the New America Foundation/Iran Project and is the former Senior Director of Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council. He is also publisher of the forthcoming blog, The Race For Iran.

A lot of attention is being focused on Chinese policy toward Iran, particularly with reference to the Obama Administration's threats to impose 'crippling' international sanctions if diplomacy does not provide Washington with satisfaction (however defined) regarding Iran's nuclear activities.

This week, the Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS published a monograph on China-Iran relations that I co-authored with Hillary Mann Leverett and John Garver (an outstanding China expert at Georgia Tech's Sam Nunn School of International Affairs).

All modesty aside, the monograph, Moving (Slightly) Closer to Iran: China's Shifting Calculus for Managing Its 'Persian Gulf Dilemma', is the best work out there on this critical issue. The monograph documents how China is proceeding to develop an increasingly strategic energy relationship with the Islamic Republic - including a growing number of upstream investment positions by Chinese energy companies.

While China remains disinclined to challenge America's longstanding hegemony in the Gulf directly, Beijing is becoming more assertive about advancing its own economic and energy interests in Iran. Under these circumstances, China is not about to support anything approaching 'crippling' economic sanctions against Iran.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by svinayak »

hanumadu wrote:
I met a Ukranian software engineer in the bay area who said that Ukraine will merge with Russia again. He was critical of the Ukranian leadership's decision to ally with the west and said that Russia is so big in that area, Ukraine has no choice but to be pro Russia.

--hanumadu
Ethnic groups in Ukraine:
Ukrainian 77.8%, Russian 17.3%, Belarusian 0.6%, Moldovan 0.5%, Crimean Tatar 0.5%, Bulgarian 0.4%, Hungarian 0.3%, Romanian 0.3%, Polish 0.3%, Jewish 0.2%, other 1.8% (2001 census)

After I talked to a Ukraine lady who said they are tired of the democracy and the fighting in democracy and want to go back to old system- even I concluded they cannot stay independent. There is strong Russian ethnicity connection and history.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Philip »

Oil yet again!
US builds up its bases in oil-rich South America

From the Caribbean to Brazil, political opposition to US plans for 'full-spectrum operations' is escalating rapidly

By Hugh O'Shaughnessy
Sunday, 22 November 2009

The United States is massively building up its potential for nuclear and non-nuclear strikes in Latin America and the Caribbean by acquiring unprecedented freedom of action in seven new military, naval and air bases in Colombia. The development – and the reaction of Latin American leaders to it – is further exacerbating America's already fractured relationship with much of the continent.


The new US push is part of an effort to counter the loss of influence it has suffered recently at the hands of a new generation of Latin American leaders no longer willing to accept Washington's political and economic tutelage. President Rafael Correa, for instance, has refused to prolong the US armed presence in Ecuador, and US forces have to quit their base at the port of Manta by the end of next month.

So Washington turned to Colombia, which has not gone down well in the region. The country has received military aid worth $4.6bn (£2.8bn) from the US since 2000, despite its poor human rights record. Colombian forces regularly kill the country's indigenous people and other civilians, and last year raided the territory of its southern neighbour, Ecuador, causing at least 17 deaths.

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has not forgotten that US officers were present in government offices in Caracas in 2002 when he was briefly overthrown in a military putsch, warned this month that the bases agreement could mean the possibility of war with Colombia.

In August, President Evo Morales of Bolivia called for the outlawing of foreign military bases in the region. President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, overthrown in a military coup d'état in June and initially exiled, has complained that US forces stationed at the Honduran base of Palmerola collaborated with Roberto Micheletti, the leader of the plotters and the man who claims to be president.

And, this being US foreign policy, a tell-tale trail of oil is evident. Brazil had already expressed its unhappiness at the presence of US naval vessels in its massive new offshore oilfields off Rio de Janeiro, destined soon to make Brazil a giant oil producer eligible for membership in Opec.

The fact that the US gets half its oil from Latin America was one of the reasons the US Fourth Fleet was re-established in the region's waters in 2008. The fleet's vessels can include Polaris nuclear-armed submarines – a deployment seen by some experts as a violation of the 1967 Tlatelolco Treaty, which bans nuclear weapons from the continent.

Indications of US willingness to envisage the stationing of nuclear weapons in Colombia are seen as an additional threat to the spirit of nuclear disarmament. After the establishment of the Tlatelolco Treaty in 1967, four more nuclear-weapon-free zones were set up in Africa, the South Pacific, South-east Asia and Central Asia. Between them, the five treaties cover nearly two-thirds of the countries of the world and almost all the southern hemisphere.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the world's leading think-tank about disarmament issues, has now expressed its worries about the US-Colombian arrangements.

With or without nuclear weapons, the bilateral agreement on the seven Colombian bases, signed on 30 October in Bogota, risks a costly new arms race in a region. SIPRI, which is funded by the Swedish government, said it was concerned about rising arms expenditure in Latin America draining resources from social programmes that the poor of the region need.

Much of the new US strategy was clearly set out in May in an enthusiastic US Air Force (USAF) proposal for its military construction programme for the fiscal year 2010. One Colombian air base, Palanquero, was, the proposal said, unique "in a critical sub-region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from... anti-US governments".

The proposal sets out a scheme to develop Palanquero which, the USAF says, offers an opportunity for conducting "full-spectrum operations throughout South America.... It also supports mobility missions by providing access to the entire continent, except the Cape Horn region, if fuel is available, and over half the continent if un-refuelled". ("Full-spectrum operations" is the Pentagon's jargon for its long-established goal of securing crushing military superiority with atomic and conventional weapons across the globe and in space.)

Palanquero could also be useful in ferrying arms and personnel to Africa via the British mid-Atlantic island of Ascension, French Guiana and Aruba, the Dutch island off Venezuela. The US has access to them all.

The USAF proposal contradicted the assurances constantly issued by US diplomats that the bases would not be used against third countries. These were repeated by the Colombian military to the Colombian congress on 29 July. That USAF proposal was hastily reissued this month after the signature of the agreement – but without the reference to "anti-US governments". This has led to suggestions of either US government incompetence, or of a battle between a gung-ho USAF and a State Department conscious of the damage done to US relations with Latin America by its leaders' strong objections to the proposal.

The Colombian forces, for many years notorious for atrocities inflicted on civilians, have cheekily suggested that with US help they could get into the lucrative business of "instructing" other armies about human rights. Civil strife in Colombia meant some 380,000 Colombians were forced from their homes last year, bringing the number of displaced since 1985 to 4.6 million, one in ten of the population. This little-known statistic indicates a much worse situation than the much-publicised one in Islamist-ruled Sudan where 2.7 million have fled from their homes.

Amnesty International said: "The Colombian government must urgently bring human rights violators to justice, to break the links between the armed forces and illegal paramilitary groups, and dismantle paramilitary organisations in line with repeated UN recommendations."

Palanquero, which adjoins the town of Puerto Salgar on the broad Magdalena river north-west of the capital, Bogota, is one of the seven bases that the government of President Alvaro Uribe gave to Washington last month despite howls from many Colombians. Its hangars can take 100 aircraft and there is accommodation for 2,000 personnel. Its main runway was constructed in the 1980s after Colombia bought a force of Israeli Kfir warplanes. At 3,500 metres, it is 500 metres longer than the longest in Britain, the former US base outside Campbeltown, Scotland. The USAF is awaiting Barack Obama's signature on a bill, already passed by the US Congress, to devote $46m to works at the base.

Many Colombians are upset at the agreement between the US and Colombia that governs – or, perhaps more accurately, fails to govern – US use of Palanquero and the other six bases. The Colombian Council of State, a non-partisan constitutional body with the duty to comment on legislation, has said that the agreements are unfair to Colombia since they put the US and not the host country in the driving seat, and that they should be redrafted in accordance with the Colombian constitution.

The immunities being granted to US soldiers are, the council adds, against the 1961 Vienna Convention; the agreement can be changed by future regulations which can totally transform it; and the permission given to the US to install satellite receivers for radio and television without the usual licences and fees is "without any valid reason".

President Uribe, whose studies at St Antony's College, Oxford, were subsidised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has chosen to disregard the Council of State.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 25398.html
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by ashkrishna »

Having worked in the indian oil industry and currently pursuing my masters in petroleum engg. I can contribute a bit to thius thread....


First , about oil reserves: The days of gushers are over. So, huge game changing oil fields will become rarer and rarer. This is extremely important in the geopolitical context. I dont think, any potential oil find is big enough to cause an oil glut.

Second, Whether we like it or not, India is very very poorly endowed in terms of oil resources ( gas is a different story). It is in our interest to diversify energy supply and to go for non-conventional resources in a big way. It is ironic that even though India is not known for oil, some the best reservoir engineers in the US are Indians!!

Third, compared to other industry, the oil industry has always been slower at adopting new technologies, as newer technologies proliferate it may become economically viable to redrill abandoned holes and recover the 40-50% net oil that was too expensive to extract. This may mean that marginal fields will be opened up in the future ( provided prices stabilise at 100 $/bbl)

Fourth, Believe it or not, Primary oil recovery from the best fields does not exceed 35% at times. There's quite a bit of oil that is just too expensive to retrieve.

Fifth, Places to look out for in the context of oil - Africa and deep sea (expect some conflict over maritime drilling rights).....

.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4446
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by vera_k »

^^^

How about this news report below that claims how India has about as much untapped oil as Saudi Arabia? Are they bluffing?

India's next big business?
The optimism is grounded in massive oil deposits, close to 30 billion tons, in Central India. That's twice the size of the deposits in Iraq (13 billion tons, according to the Institute of Petroleum) and just shy of Saudi deposits.
Wiki says the Deccan Traps are 2000m deep. Since XOM is able to drill down to 2500m, this oil can be extracted using present day technology.[/quote]
sugriva
BRFite
Posts: 318
Joined: 15 Jun 2005 20:16
Location: Exposing the uber communist luddites masquerading as capitalists

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by sugriva »

Acharya wrote:After I talked to a Ukraine lady who said they are tired of the democracy and the fighting in democracy and want to go back to old system- even I concluded they cannot stay independent. There is strong Russian ethnicity connection and history.
Well, there are two parts to this story. Western Ukraine is more influenced by Poland, is predominantly Catholic and in the middle ages was part of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. This is the part of the country that is pro US and pro Nato and the current leaders of Ukraine happen to belong to this part. Eastern Ukraine is majority Orthodox and shares long ties of friendship and kinship with the Russians. Before the colour revolution in Ukraine, its leaders were all from this part.
Muppalla
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7115
Joined: 12 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by Muppalla »

sugriva wrote:
Acharya wrote:After I talked to a Ukraine lady who said they are tired of the democracy and the fighting in democracy and want to go back to old system- even I concluded they cannot stay independent. There is strong Russian ethnicity connection and history.
Well, there are two parts to this story. Western Ukraine is more influenced by Poland, is predominantly Catholic and in the middle ages was part of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. This is the part of the country that is pro US and pro Nato and the current leaders of Ukraine happen to belong to this part. Eastern Ukraine is majority Orthodox and shares long ties of friendship and kinship with the Russians. Before the colour revolution in Ukraine, its leaders were all from this part.
You posted exaclty when I started typing the similar post.

I worked with four Ukranians at different times of my career. One of the recent one told me that Ukraine merging with Russia is a possibility but the western portion will never allow the merger and if push comes to shove the country will split and the western portion remains independent. They seem to have deep wounds about Russian heagomony. I beleive most of the leaders from the past soviet republics have no pragmatism. Ukraine, Georgia or whatever - all of them are suddely vengeful of the past and want to go/do anything that is not Russian sphere. As Russia is growing and asserting itself these republics have no real means to survive with anti-Russian agenda. The west and NATO's help is all lip-service and no one has the interest to start a new conflict with Russia on behalf of these poor states.
ashkrishna
BRFite
Posts: 132
Joined: 03 Feb 2007 01:53
Contact:

Re: Oil and Conflict

Post by ashkrishna »

vera_k wrote: How about this news report below that claims how India has about as much untapped oil as Saudi Arabia? Are they bluffing?
Those aren't proven reserves, but estimated..

They needn't be bluffing. It is extremely unfortunate that they make such tall claims based on cursory seismic surveys. Let them drill a few wildcat wells and do some well testing, then I (or any other driller) will believe it. The Gondwana region in India may have a huge shale gas potential, which can revolutionize the gas industry just like it did in the US.

The best indicator of huge oil fields is rapid drilling activity, if there was so much oil, I am sure atleast some of the majors would have started drillling left and right...

Drilling technology is not a problem, I have worked on horizontal wells (upto 18000 feet TVD) in baroda in ONGC's Jambussar fields. 2000 m is nothing...


Ashwin
Post Reply