Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[some waygug-in]

[baldrick]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

the Indian oil pipe line would not have been worth it. Bush has other stuff other than oil assests.

It is just a pipe line to India , for the far more important pipe line for the west Afghanistan was not any better than any of the other routes.




Now go complain about the Rothchilds and the Federal reserve.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[some waygug-in]

Golly Joo, you sure are good at evasiveness.

You should be a politician. The big question is

Why didn't they just take another route?

Your article claims that they could, so why didn't they?

They were obviously having trouble getting the go ahead on this one, why not choose an easier route?

Here is a clue: http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex20867.htm

Afghanistan itself has some natural gas in the north of the country, near Turkmenistan. But above all it is ultra-strategic: Positioned between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, between Turkmenistan and the avid markets of the Indian subcontinent, China and Japan. Afghanistan is at the core of Pipelineistan.
The Caspian states hold at least 200 bn barrels of oil, and Central Asia has 6.6 tcm of natural gas just begging to be exploited. Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are two major producers: Turkmenistan is nothing less than a "gas republic". Apart from oil and gas there's copper, coal, tungsten, zinc, iron, uranium, gold.
The only export routes, for the moment, are through Russia. So most of the game consists of building alternative pipelines to Turkey and Western Europe, and to the east toward the Asian markets. India will be a key player. India, Iran, Russia and Israel are all planning to supply oil and gas to South and Southeast Asia through India.

It's enlightening to note that all countries or regions which happen to be an impediment to Pipelineistan routes towards the West have been subjected either to a direct interference or to all-out war: Chechnya, Georgia, Kurdistan, Yugoslavia and Macedonia. To the east, the key problems are the Uighurs of China's far-western Xinjiang and, until recently, Afghanistan. More, much more than Afghanistan is involved. What's at stake is Eurasia.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, stellar hawk and Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, used to wax lyrical on Eurasia: "Seventy-5 % of the world population, most of its material riches, 60 % of the world's GNP, 75 % of sources of energy, and behind the US, the six most prosperous economies and the six largest military budgets." Brzezinski is on record stressing that the US would have to make sure "no other power would take possession of this geopolitical space".
The numbers are clear. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, in 2001 America imported an average of 9.1 mm bpd -- over 60 % of its crude oil needs. In 2020, the country is projected to require almost 26 mm bpd in imports. So Pipelineistan, in the Caucasus and in Central Asia -- for the West and Japan but especially for America itself -- cannot but be the strategic-military No 1 goal. In this geostrategic grand design, the Taliban were the proverbial fly in the ointment. The Afghan War was decided long before September 11.

****************************************************

and later in the same article:

The Bush II team now does not even try to disguise that the whole game is about oil. The so-called brand-new American "Afghan policy" is being conducted by people intimately connected to oil industry interests in Central Asia. In 1997, Unocal led an international consortium -- Centgas -- that reached a memorandum of understanding to build a $ 2 bn, 1,275 km-long, 1.5-meter-wide natural-gas pipeline from Dauletabad in southern Turkmenistan to Karachi in Pakistan, via the Afghan cities of Herat and Kandahar, crossing into Pakistan near Quetta. A $ 600 mm extension to India was also being considered. The dealings with the Taliban were facilitated by the Clinton administration and the Pakistani Inter Services Agency (ISI). But the civil war in Afghanistan would simply not go away.

American energy conglomerates, through the American Overseas Private Investment Corp (OPIC), are now resuscitating this and other projects. Already last October, the Unocal-led project was discussed in Islamabad between Pakistani Petroleum Minister Usman Aminuddin and American Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain. The exuberant official statement reads: "The pipeline opens up new avenues of multi-dimensional regional cooperation, particularly in view of the recent geopolitical developments in the region."

So Joo, you keep saying that it wasn't worth the effort, so why did they keep trying then?

By the way, I am not making charges, I am just quoting from verifiable news sources. If you don't like what these quotes say, that's your problem.


Here is another clue: http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/10/11/wtal111.html

Georgia, already at work on a pipeline crossing the Caucasus to tap the fields of Azerbaijan, thinks it could eventually be driven across or around the Caspian into Kazakhstan. But to Western, and especially American interests, none of these options look attractive. Georgia is too unstable, and the idea of allowing a Russian or Iranian hand to rest on the oil jugular is considered too dangerous. Hence the attractions of Afghanistan.

Another pipeline route exists, and is already at a detailed planning stage. This pipeline, initially for gas, would begin in the Dauletabad field in central Turkmenistan, traverse Afghanistan along the Herat-Kandahar corridor, territory controlled by the Taliban, and exit into Pakistan.


*********************************************************

And Later in the same article:

Oil industry insiders say the dream of securing a pipeline across Afghanistan is the main reason why Pakistan, a close political ally of America's, has been so supportive of the Taliban, and why America has quietly acquiesced in its conquest of Afghanistan.

Pakistan is keen to have a source of oil that bypasses Iran and Russia. The evidence is already overwhelming that the Taliban, which orignated as a group of 2,000 religious students in refugee camps and religious schools just inside Pakistan, have been funded and partly equipped by Pakistani intelligence agencies throughout the two-year campaign that has now led them to Kabul.


Cheers

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[some waygug-in]

Since you have trouble reading:

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1996/10/11/wtal111.html

Georgia, already at work on a pipeline crossing the Caucasus to tap the fields of Azerbaijan, thinks it could eventually be driven across or around the Caspian into Kazakhstan. But to Western, and especially American interests, none of these options look attractive. Georgia is too unstable, and the idea of allowing a Russian or Iranian hand to rest on the oil jugular is considered too dangerous. Hence the attractions of Afghanistan.

Another pipeline route exists, and is already at a detailed planning stage. This pipeline, initially for gas, would begin in the Dauletabad field in central Turkmenistan, traverse Afghanistan along the Herat-Kandahar corridor, territory controlled by the Taliban, and exit into Pakistan.

You claimed their were alternate routes Joo, not me.

As for weather or not is was "worth it" - of course not!!!!!!!!!!

Only a madman would think so.

It wasn't just the cost of the pipeline, or the powerplant, or any other single element. It was the combination of the billions and billions that were already invested in the region and the expectation of getting huge returns on the "investments".

What do you think the ENRON scandal was all about then?

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

there are alterntive routes see the BBC article .

It is not worth it the amount invested would pale in comparsion with 100 Billion dollars of damage at the WTC, and close to 1 tillion dollars to the US economy.


Afghanistan was a possible route but not better than the others , certainly not good enough to allow the WTC to be destroyed.

It was never THAT lucratiive.


Look no Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2265670.stm

[some waygug-in]

Your article talks about the western route, fine.

But the Afghanistan pipeline was still necessary because they wanted access to the "high growth" Asian markets, and the Western route wouldn't give them that.



The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of two possible routes, one line would angle north and cross the north Caucasus to Novorossiysk. The other route would cross Georgia to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea. This second route could be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future. Nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

At Unocal, we believe that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union are all slow growth markets where demand will grow at only a half a percent to perhaps 1.2 percent per year during the period 1995 to 2010.



http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/1990s/marescatestimony021298.html

The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with several variations. One option is to go east across China, but this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers just to reach Central China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. The question then is what will be the cost of transporting oil through this pipeline, and what would be the netback which the producers would receive.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

So the Afghanistan pipeline was considered necessary to ensure a stable
supply of energy to the world's emerging markets.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

but then big pipe line did not include Afghanitan now there is less reason.

The ones who would benefit the most are the Asians- not the US.

Hey maybe they did it?

[some waygug-in]

What? Are you OK Joo?

Can you read?

What do you think we have been talking about?

The article I cited discusses the various routes and concludes with the

reasons why the Afghanistan route was...................................

...........................NECESSARY!!!

The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/1990s/marescatestimony021298.html

So that is the answer to the big question. No other route would give them access the "high growth" Asian market in the short time frame that they wanted it.

The Chinese route would be another 10 years in the future, and they would do anything to avoid letting the Iranians get a route through their country.

So for their purposes, the Afghanistan route was the ONLY choice.

Get it?

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

but it is not US energy.

the big pipe line went west.

the other is just small stuff

[some waygug-in]

Ok Joo, if it was just "small stuff", why were they so desparate to get the project under way?

Why did they try and try and try again to get this route off the ground?

What would cause George W. Bush to think he had to hold ILLEGAL meetings with talliban leaders in Texas, if this were only "small stuff"?

Are you sure you're OK?

Perhaps a trip to an optomitrist is in order.



So I add this again in hopes that you will read it.

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future. Nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

At Unocal, we believe that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union are all slow growth markets where demand will grow at only a half a percent to perhaps 1.2 percent per year during the period 1995 to 2010.


If the Afghanistan route was only "small stuff", what were they talking about here?
Cheers

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

It is a contract , but not such a huge one.

about your meetings I would like to see about them from a mainstream source.

And I would like to know the content of those meetings was it about Oil or was it about Al Qaida.

You are the one making the charges - and I don't accept alternative sources unless they are very , very good.

I don't know if they were desperate any more than any other 2 billion contract.

2.5 billion

If Bush wanted a two point five billion he could have just invested in a company and oredered two 1.2 Billion stealth bombers.


2.5 billion is small stuff.

And it is less than that - how much of that is profits?


2.5 billion small stuff.