Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer)

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer)
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

Posted by occrider on Sep-22-2003 01:15:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
As an afterthought, I should have bolded #3 as well!

(3) to assist actively in the resolution of regional conflicts and to facilitate the removal of impediments to cross-border commerce;

But again, how is that indicative of anything? Of course congress is going to want to resolve differences in order to remove impediments of cross-border trade, is that different in any other region? This is how global trade is conducted everywhere. Companies do not simply approach foreign governments to accomplish trade deals. Companies must establish proper channels with the government to do business abroad. Governments lobby these other governments and lend a hand in negotiating the deal. Without official government intervention ANY country can screw over any business by simply not paying them. What's the company going to do? Sue them? Therefore it is not unsurprising that it is US policy is to HELP companies do business abroad. But I wish not to digress into the manner in which global business is conducted. Let's look back on the pipeline situation. It seems much confusion can be avoided if we actually get into the specific details of the pipeline project rather than making erroneous assumptions.

quote:
TRANS-AFGHAN PIPELINE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD, FACES RISKS
Mark Berniker: 12/19/02

The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan are expected to meet in late December to hammer out an agreement on building a trans-Afghan pipeline that would carry Central Asian energy to southwest Asia, and possibly beyond. Experts caution, however, the project faces numerous obstacles, including political risks and potential financial pitfalls.

The pipeline project is primarily geared for southwest Asia, and POTENTIALLY beyond. What does this mean? Right now the pipeline is ONLY going to satisfy southwest asian energy demands and only if that becomes profitable, possibly YEARS down the road, will they consider expansion of the pipeline to satisfy world demand. Even in the event of such an occurrence, the transit costs alone to ship this natural gas past the pipeline wouldn't be worth much farther than the asian market in general.

quote:

The three heads of state � Afghanistan�s Hamid Karzai, Pakistan�s Pervez Musharraf and Turkmenistan�s Suparmurat Niyazov � are scheduled to gather December 26-27 in the Turkmen capital Ashgabat. According to initial estimates, the 1,500-kilometer-long pipeline, stretching from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, would cost upwards of $2 billion to build, and would be capable of transporting about 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually.

Of the three countries involved in the pending deal, Turkmenistan stands to gain the most from much-needed revenues for its natural gas exports. The pipeline would also ease Turkmenistan�s dependence on existing Russian pipelines to carry Ashgabat�s abundant energy resources to international markets. Afghanistan would benefit from transit revenues and infrastructural development, while Pakistan would receive natural gas for its domestic market. But the pipeline�s main long-term customer, India, is not invited to Ashgabat, and has given no indication it wants its natural gas to flow through Pakistani territory.

Once again, the primary benefactors of the pipeline are, as I described in my last post except I left out Pakistan. And once again, the main, intendid customer of this pipeline is going to be INDIA. And even that prospect is tenuous given India's apprehension with becoming dependant upon Pakistan.

quote:

Many analysts suggest that while the project is sensible in theory, unstable political conditions in all three countries mean that actual pipeline construction may not begin for a long time.

�Pipelines are easier to conceive than to build. The �in principle� agreements may be easier than the technical details. The political situation in Afghanistan is not sufficiently stable, yet. And the pipeline will have a lot of politics associated with it. So we have to wait and see how things evolve, but I don�t think we will see a pipeline anytime soon,� says Husain Haqqani, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and a specialist on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Politics aside, financing the project is expected to be a complicated and time-consuming process. Currently, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) is conducting a series of studies, and has bids out for companies that will conduct a major feasibility study next year.

�The ADB has short-listed a number of firms to carry out the $1 million technical study and the firm should be in place in the first quarter of 2003,� said ADB spokesman Ian Gill, speaking from the bank�s offices in Manila, Phillipines.

�The three participating countries have requested ADB to mobilize co-financing for the Project after the feasibility study is completed. This would be from private sector participants and also from other multilateral and bilateral donor agencies,� according to ADB documents. The documents go onto say the ADB expects it will take �another twelve months after the feasibility study� before the financing is likely to be secured. If all the studies pass lending muster, construction on the Trans-Afghan pipeline will not likely begin before the first quarter of 2004.

Documents provided to EurasiaNet by the ADB show that international lending institutions would like to �actively pursue India�s involvement in the Project as the principal consumer of the gas to be delivered by the pipeline.�

Well, well, well ... and the facts come out that the intended financiers of the project are NOT American lender institutions but the ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK!!! So that's one less channel of American involvment you can leave out.

quote:

Ultimately, the pipeline�s future could depend on India. Experts say that India�s often tense relationship with Pakistan makes New Dehli wary about participating in the trans-Afghan pipeline project, as the Indian government does not want to become dependent on Islamabad for energy supplies. At the same time, India is perhaps the primary market for Turkmen natural gas.

We went into this war to build this pipeline and we weren't even sure about the DEMAND for the pipeline's natural gas??? Shouldn't we have invaded India while we were at it to ensure that there's going to be demand for our oh so profitable pipeline??

quote:

The trans-Afghan pipeline is crucial for the future of the Turkmenistan gas market, which has not been meeting its production targets, and faces the serious challenges of replacing outdated technology and attracting foreign investment. Turkmenistan is banking on the construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline to reverse years of decline in its drilling, processing and gas pipeline infrastructure.

Maybe Turkmenistan paid us to invade Afghanistan? They do seem to benefit the MOST from the project.

quote:

According to a report broadcast by Turkmen television December 17, Ashgabat seeks to increase natural gas production to 85 billion cubic meters annually by 2005 and 120 billion cubic meters by 2010. To meet its targets, the Turkmen government is counting on upwards of $25 billion in investments in the country�s oil and gas sector.

The ADB and World Bank are expected to provide the bulk of the financing for the Trans-Afghan pipeline project, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done before a financial package is finalized. The US Agency for International Development (USAID), the international aid agency of the US State Department, is playing a role in the pipeline project, as well.

�USAID is in a complimentary role to the multilateral agencies, including the ADB and World Bank. USAID has a resident expert team in Afghanistan which is prepared to work with the Afghanistan government to help develop a legal and regulatory framework that will be required to secure investment to the build the pipeline,� says Harry Edwards, press officer for USAID.

The ADB spells out its view of the Trans-Afghan pipeline when it says the �ADB is fully cognizant of the risks attached to this project, and these are considerable.�

Once again, financing is going to come primarily from the ADB and the World Bank. Where are all the evil American financiers??? We did this war for them!! And just so I didn't fall completely flat on my face, I researched who the Asian Development Bank were just to see if they were a front for those sneaky, imperialistic americans.

quote:

ADB is a multilateral development finance institution dedicated to reducing poverty in Asia and the Pacific. Established in 1966, we are now owned by 61 members, mostly from the region.
http://www.adb.org/About/default.asp

* Afghanistan (1966)
* Australia (1966)
* Azerbaijan (1999)
* Bangladesh (1973)
* Bhutan (1982)
* Cambodia (1966)
* China, People's Republic of (1986)
* Cook Islands (1976)
* Fiji Islands (1970)
* Hong Kong, China (1969)
* India (1966)
* Indonesia (1966)
* Japan (1966)
* Kazakhstan (1994)
* Kiribati (1974)
* Korea, Republic of (1966)
* Kyrgyz Republic (1994)
* Lao People's Democratic Republic (1966)
* Malaysia (1966)
* Maldives (1978)
* Marshall Islands, Republic of the (1990)
* Micronesia, Federated States of (1990)

* Mongolia (1991)
* Myanmar (1973)
* Nauru (1991)
* Nepal (1966)
* New Zealand (1966)
* Pakistan (1966)
* Papua New Guinea (1971)
* Philippines (1966)
* Samoa (1966)
* Singapore (1966)
* Solomon Islands (1973)
* Sri Lanka (1966)
* Tajikistan (1998)
* Taipei,China (1966)
* Thailand (1966)
* Timor-Leste (2002)
* Tonga (1972)
* Turkmenistan (2000)
* Tuvalu (1993)
* Uzbekistan (1995)
* Vanuatu (1981)
* Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of (1966)

Those damned Australians are a part of ADB though!! Maybe they ARE behind this whole thing!!!

quote:

All three countries feature uncertain political environments. A recent assassination attempt against Turkmenistan�s Niyazov suggested that cracks in the country�s authoritarian system may be opening. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In addition, Niyazov has proven to be a fickle negotiating partner, capable of making sudden shifts in position. Some observers say Turkmenistan poses one of the major obstacles to a Caspian Sea treaty. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archives].

Beyond uncertainties in Turkmenistan, there are also concerns about the Afghan stretch of the pipeline. There are questions concerning the potential impact that feuding warlords could have in Afghanistan on the security of pipeline construction workers and energy operations specialists. In addition, experts say no pipeline equipment is manufactured in the region, so it will have to be imported from Japan or western Europe, considerably increasing the costs and financial risks of the project.

So many uncertainties! If the goal of the invasion was to secure the necessary conditions to make the construction of the pipeline possible one would think that we WOULD secure those necessary conditions by now. I guess we all just forgot what the war was really about!

quote:

While the three governments of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan along with the ADB are pushing the project forward, questions remain whether private companies and major global financial firms will legally enter into a still unformed consortium. Governments and multilateral institutions may be more willing to take on that risk than private firms.

This is not the first time that the three governments, multilateral lending institutions and private companies have tried to develop a trans-Afghan pipeline. In October 1997, California-based private company Unocal established a consortium to develop the pipeline, but by August 1998, the company suspended construction plans after failing to secure financing for the project.

Although the trans-Afghan pipeline project is being revived, Unocal will not be a participant in the venture this time around. �Unocal is not interested in getting involved, again. The issue was that the lack of a stable government in Afghanistan made it difficult to get financing,�says Terry Covington, manager of international communications for Unocal.
http://www.eurasianet.org/departmen...121902_pr.shtml

So ... for the last time, the pipeline's demand is coming from India, the primary benefactors are 4 southwest asian nations, US companies are not financing the deal, and it seems that no US companies wish to be contracted out to build the pipeline. Furthermore, US costs in this whole ordeal appear to be astronomical with NO END of cost cutting in sight. Nothing quite adds up with respects to factual evidence, and logical reasoning of the evidence we have.

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 01:36:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Well, well, well ... and the facts come out that the intended financiers of the project are NOT American lender institutions but the ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK!!! So that's one less channel of American involvment you can leave out.

The ADB was founded in 1966 with an objective of promoting the social and economic progress of the Asian and Pacific region. Funds come from member governments, borrowing on the world capital markets, and the Bank's own earnings.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB)'s principal functions are to:

Make loans and equity investments for the economic and social advancement of developing member countries;

Provide technical assistance and advisory services for the preparation and execution of development projects and programmes;
Promote investment of private and public capital for development purposes;

Respond to requests for assistance in co-ordinating development policies and plans of member countries.

The ADB is headquartered in Manila. It has 56 member countries of which 40 countries are from the Asian and Pacific region and 16 from Europe and North America.

The largest shareholders are the United States and Japan and the largest borrowers are Indonesia and China. The transportation and communications sector have received the largest share of lending, followed by energy, social infrastructure, multi-sector loans, agriculture and natural resources, industry, finance, and non-fuel minerals. Total yearly ADB lending is US$6-7bn.

For further information about the ADB, contact:

Denny Barnes, Senior Commercial Officer
Commercial Liaison to the ADB
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service
U.S. Embassy, Manila
APO AP 96440
Tel.: 63 (2) 890-9364 or 895-3020
Fax: 63 (2) 890-9713
E-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http//www.adb.org

I really wish you would take off those rose colored glasses.

Posted by Izzy on Sep-22-2003 01:56:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
So ... for the last time, the pipeline's demand is coming from India, the primary benefactors are 4 southwest asian nations, US companies are not financing the deal, and it seems that no US companies wish to be contracted out to build the pipeline. Furthermore, US costs in this whole ordeal appear to be astronomical with NO END of cost cutting in sight. Nothing quite adds up with respects to factual evidence, and logical reasoning of the evidence we have.

i would almost say check-mate but seems like Trancer-X has pulled the classic "the US is a shareholder of the ADB" move.

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 02:27:

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 02:35:

The Carlyle Group's decision to take its prot�g� public at this juncture seems heavily influenced by the expected buildup in U.S. military might in the wake of Sept. 11. United Defense makes this clear in its IPO filing, where it states:

"The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 have generated strong congressional support for increased defense spending."

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,48956,00.html

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 02:49:

He certainly was employed by a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...6¬Found=true

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 04:14:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
We went into this war to build this pipeline and we weren't even sure about the DEMAND for the pipeline's natural gas??? Shouldn't we have invaded India while we were at it to ensure that there's going to be demand for our oh so profitable pipeline??

Oh, there's always a need!

Bush 'Concerned' by High Natural Gas Prices
Fri Sep 5,10:57 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Friday he was concerned about natural gas prices, citing supply constraints.

"I'm more concerned, frankly, of natural gas prices than I am oil prices," Bush said in an interview with CNBC. "And the reason I'm concerned is because at least oil ... you can move it around the world and there's some new supplies coming on."

Bush said he had seen some reports of non-OPEC oil production beginning to come on line. "That'll be positive for American consumers. You know, the best thing that you can do diplomatically is to try to prevent (an) enormous spike."

Unlike oil, Bush said natural gas is hard to transport and the United States does not have a lot of liquefied natural gas facilities.

"Therefore we must rely upon natural gas discovered either at home or in Canada," Bush said. "We're now more reliant upon natural gas as a result of the electricity industry diversifying away from coal. So I'm concerned obviously about high gas prices, gasoline prices, but I'm also troubled by supply constrictions on natural gas."

Natural gas is used to meet about one-fourth of U.S. energy needs, including the generation of about 20 percent of the nation's electricity.

Energy traders have driven gas prices higher this year, citing near record low inventories after an especially cold winter and fears of shortages heading into next winter.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...nergy_bush_dc_1

Rising U.S. natgas demand boosts LNG prospects
Tue Sep 16, 7:20 PM ET

By Erwin Seba

HOUSTON, Sept 16 (Reuters) - Increased U.S. natural gas demand and rising prices are making imports of liquified natural gas (LNG) attractive, energy industry executives said on Tuesday.

Current U.S. natural gas demand is about 23 trillion cubic feet (tcf) annually and is projected to be 35 tcf by 2020, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The U.S. produces 87 percent of the gas it now consumes, but will need more imports in the future, they said.

"Obviously, LNG is part of the solution," said Elizabeth Spomer, chief executive of BG LNG Services LLC, a subsidiary of natural gas major BG Group Plc (BG.L), at a Houston energy conference. "LNG can compete in this market at a price of about $2.50 per million British thermal units (btu)."

Natural gas now sells at $4.50 per thousand cubic feet, which is roughly equivalent to one million btu.

EIA estimates U.S. LNG imports will increase over the next 20 years to 2.1 trillion cubic feet annually, up from 240 billion cubic feet in 2001. Most LNG currently comes from Africa and Latin America.

Natural gas is liquified by cooling it. In a liquid state, it can be transported by ship.

While the ability to liquify natural gas was discovered in the early part of the 20th century, it only became economically viable in the mid-1960s. Low domestic natural gas prices slowed its growth.

Several companies have announced multiple projects to build terminals along U.S. coastlines to re-convert the liquid into vapor natural gas, which would then be transported by pipeline, Spomer said.

Terminals on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, like BG's operation in Lake Charles, Louisiana, can tie into the existing pipeline infrastructure, she said.

Environmental opposition is the biggest challenge to growth of the LNG industry, said Dory Little, president of Rodeo Resources Ltd and a consultant to LNG Japan Corp.

"The fly in the ointment is obtaining the necessary environmental permits and governmental licenses," Little said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...r/lng_outlook_1

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 04:15:

It hurts, doesn't it?

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 04:20:

Get ready for bigger gas bills: Heating costs may rise as much as 30 percent

Friday, September 19, 2003

By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau Chief

HARRISBURG -- If your home is heated with natural gas -- as nearly 80 percent of Pittsburgh-area homes are -- you may be in for heating-bill shock this winter.

"I anticipate that retail gas prices paid by Pennsylvania consumers this winter could be as much as 20 percent to 30 percent higher than they were a year ago," state Consumer Advocate Irwin "Sonny" Popowsky told the state Public Utility Commission yesterday.

For a typical consumer, he added, "This could mean that bills over the course of this coming winter could be as much as $30 to $45 per month higher than what they paid a year ago."

Liz Robinson, director of a Philadelphia consumer group called the Energy Coordinating Agency, agreed.

"Since the spring, everyone from [Federal Reserve Chairman] Alan Greenspan to [U.S. Energy Secretary] Spencer Abraham has been warning that natural gas prices are likely to go up by 20 to 30 percent this winter," she said. From October to April, such increases could mean a total of "almost $300 more out of the average residential heating customer's pocket."

The dire predictions were somewhat at odds with comments Wednesday by Guy Caruso, a federal Energy Department official, who said natural gas supplies had rebounded due to a cool summer, which lowered usage demand and eased fears of skyrocketing bills. Prices are still expected to be higher than last year, he added.

Even if this winter turns out to be milder than expected, "The long-term price trend for natural gas is upward," said Dan Desmond, a deputy secretary in the state Department of Environmental Protection.

One reason is that natural gas is becoming a year-round fuel, powering more electric plants than in the past. Summertime air conditioner demand is increasing the use of natural gas for power plants in the summer, a time when it used to be low.

Dennis Darling of the state Department of Community and Economic Development estimated that 79 percent of the homes in the Pittsburgh area and 75 percent in the Philadelphia area are heated with natural gas. The percentages are lower in smaller towns and rural sections of the state.

Terrance Fitzpatrick, chairman of the five-member Public Utility Commission, said yesterday's hearing was designed to gather information about where natural gas prices are headed, whether the in-state production of natural gas can be increased, and what things consumers can do to hold down their bills.

"This special hearing is an important first step for addressing potentially high natural gas prices," said Commissioner Kim Pizzingrilli Representatives from several state business groups, especially chemical companies, said natural gas costs eat up a large chunk of their budgets, and they said that state farmers are being hurt by higher fertilizer prices, which are linked to natural gas costs.

http://www.post-gazette.com/localne...puclocal2p2.asp

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 13:13:

quote:
Originally posted by Izzy
i would almost say check-mate but seems like Trancer-X has pulled the classic "the US is a shareholder of the ADB" move.

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Fact_S...sp#shareholding

Posted by occrider on Sep-22-2003 14:45:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
I really wish you would take off those rose colored glasses.

Now hold on a second, all I have been doing is probing your theory and looking into it in greater detail by looking up the specific facts. Now simply because I express doubts because after looking into the facts in GREAT detail, I'm looking at the world through rose colored glasses?? Would you rather me be a yes man, not bother researching the facts, and simply say "why yes Trancer-X, the war WAS about the pipeline, everything you say must be true, and I'm not going to waste both of our times by going into it"? The hypocrisy of that statement does not go unnoticed. If anything, you should WELCOME my exploration of the facts and details of the pipeline project if you are TRULY interested in uncovering the truth. Now, with that being said, let's return to the matter at hand.

quote:

The largest shareholders are the United States and Japan and the largest borrowers are Indonesia and China. The transportation and communications sector have received the largest share of lending, followed by energy, social infrastructure, multi-sector loans, agriculture and natural resources, industry, finance, and non-fuel minerals. Total yearly ADB lending is US$6-7bn.

quote:

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Fact_S...sp#shareholding

I'm really glad you posted that already, because I was just about to do it myself. Now, assuming that the ADB is one big funnel of moneys to its shareholders, the US compromises an astonishing, whopping 15.84%!!!

The United States is one of the two largest shareholders in ADB; the other is Japan.

Number of shares held: 552,210 (15.84% of total shares)
Votes: 566,501 (13.00% of total membership, 37.34% of total nonregional membership)

Soooooo, going back to our little math equation concerning the profitable earnings of this little venture, 15.84% of $600 million comes out to an astonishing $95 million (assuming the firm that actually does the construction work doesn't earn any money for its efforts)!!! Once again we see the wonders of American returns on investment. We spend $2-5 billion + to wage the war and we make earn $95 million dollars for our efforts! But wait a minute ... WE were the ones that paid for this war, WHY does Japan get a cut of our money???

Number of shares held: 552,210 (15.84% of total shares)
Votes: 566,501 (13.00% of total membership, 19.94% of total regional membership)

Why does Canada get a cut of our earnings?

Canada is the second largest shareholder in ADB among its nonregional members. Overall, Canada is the seventh largest shareholder.

Number of shares held: 185,086 (5.31% of total shares)
Votes: 199,377 (4.57% of total membership, 13.14% of total nonregional membership)

Why does Germany get a cut of our earnings???

Germany is the third largest shareholder in ADB among its nonregional members. Overall, Germany is the ninth largest shareholder.

Number of shares held: 153,068 (4.39% of total shares)
Votes: 167,359 (3.84% of total membership, 11.03% of total nonregional membership)

And above all, why do the HATED FRENCH get a cut of our earnings????

France is the fourth largest shareholder in ADB among its nonregional members. Overall, France is the 12th largest shareholder.

Number of shares held: 82,356 (2.37% of total shares)
Votes: 96,647 (2.22% of total membership,
6.37% of total nonregional membership)

Could it be that this multinational organization was actually conceived with the notion to develop Asian markets, reduce poverty in Asia and the Pacific, and increase trade in the region for the betterment of all parties involved? Nah ...

quote:

The war financiers profit every time a bomb is dropped.

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030918/iraq_costs_1.html

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/arti...,370593,00.html

No, no, no, let's not change the argument. The argument is that we invaded Afghanistan for this pipeline. Bring this up in another thread if you wish.

quote:

Get ready for bigger gas bills: Heating costs may rise as much as 30 percent

Bush 'Concerned' by High Natural Gas Prices

Excellent, I can use your very own articles.

quote:

Unlike oil, Bush said natural gas is hard to transport and the United States does not have a lot of liquefied natural gas facilities.

"Therefore we must rely upon natural gas discovered either at home or in CANADA," Bush said. "We're now more reliant upon natural gas as a result of the electricity industry diversifying away from coal. So I'm concerned obviously about high gas prices, gasoline prices, but I'm also troubled by supply constrictions on natural gas."
.
.
.
The U.S. produces 87 percent of the gas it now consumes

So we invaded, in order to set up this massive transit system of natural gas from Turkmenestein, through Afghanistan, through Pakistan (incurring tarriffs and taxes through each location no doubt), then by ship from the Indian ocean through the pacific or the atlantic, THEN reaching US shores, where it must THEN be transported to the consumer???

Considering how the actual cost of the natural gas to the consumer itself is only 34% of the total bill, and trasnportation/distribution represents 47%

of the costs, I find this all to be somewhat ludicrous. Granted Bush is a fuckin dummy but SOMEONE must have told him that this master plan to address the nation's natural gas needs is retarded. What, did he see that Pittsburgh (i fuckin hate that city) needed more nat gas and decided to invade afghanistan for it???

Well, I need more info on this whole natural gas crisis we're facing ... why don't we look to see what the people of www.naturalgas.org has to say about it shall we?

quote:

How Much Natural Gas is there?
There is an abundance of natural gas in North America, but it is a non-renewable resource, the formation of which takes thousands and possibly millions of years. Therefore, understanding the availability of our supply of natural gas is important as we increase our use of this fossil fuel.

This section will provide a framework for understanding just how much natural gas there is in the ground available for our use, as well as links to the most recent statistics concerning the available supply of natural gas.

As natural gas is essentially irreplaceable (at least with current technology), it is important to have an idea of how much natural gas is left in the ground for us to use. However, this becomes complicated by the fact that no one really knows exactly how much natural gas exists until it is extracted. Measuring natural gas in the ground is no easy job, and it involves a great deal of inference and estimation. With new technologies, these estimates are becoming more and more reliable; however, they are still subject to revision. For more information on how geologists locate reservoirs and attempt to quantify how much natural gas they contain, click here.

A common misconception about natural gas is that we are running out, and quickly. However, this couldn't be further from the truth. Many people believe that price spikes, such as were seen in the 1970's, and more recently in the winter of 2000, indicate that we are running out of natural gas. The two aforementioned periods of high prices were not caused by waning natural gas resources - rather, there were other forces at work in the marketplace. To learn more about the price spikes observed in 2000, click here. In fact, there is a vast amount of natural gas estimated to still be in the ground. In order to understand exactly what these estimates mean, and their importance, it is useful first to learn a bit of industry terminology for the different types of estimates.

Furthermore, the US has approximately 3% of the world's natural gas market, a significant amount when you compare that to the rest of the world's natural gas reserves.

Africa and the far east in TOTAL only has 15%. Wouldn't it be far more efficient to simply get more of our natural gas from the 1% Canda has or the 4% that central/south america has??? Oi, well I give up.

quote:

It hurts, doesn't it?

What hurts??? You keep attempting to straw man my entire argument by attacking one specific aspect of it. No actually wait .... my head is starting to hurt. Now please excuse me while I put on my blinders and mope about my hangover.

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 15:05:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Excellent, I can use your very own articles.

"Unlike oil, Bush said natural gas is hard to transport and the United States does not have a lot of liquefied natural gas facilities."

"Therefore we must rely upon natural gas discovered either at home or in CANADA," Bush said. "We're now more reliant upon natural gas as a result of the electricity industry diversifying away from coal. So I'm concerned obviously about high gas prices, gasoline prices, but I'm also troubled by supply constrictions on natural gas."

READ:

Natural gas is liquified by cooling it. In a liquid state, it can be transported by ship.

While the ability to liquify natural gas was discovered in the early part of the 20th century, it only became economically viable in the mid-1960s. Low domestic natural gas prices slowed its growth.

Several companies have announced multiple projects to build terminals along U.S. coastlines to re-convert the liquid into vapor natural gas, which would then be transported by pipeline, Spomer said.

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 15:09:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
Would you rather me be a yes man, not bother researching the facts, and simply say "why yes Trancer-X, the war WAS about the pipeline, everything you say must be true, and I'm not going to waste both of our times by going into it"?

You already seem to be doing a fine job as a yes man... not for me but for the establishment that's been lying to us for quite some time now.

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 15:21:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
No, no, no, let's not change the argument. The argument is that we invaded Afghanistan for this pipeline.

The real argument is that we enacted a pre-emptive strike, forever changing American foreign policy as we know it. And for what? To line those corporate pockets.

All we really did was poke at the hornets nest.

Look at the world in it's current light, the radical Muslims are now LINING UP to throw their bomb-laden bodies at us. They want to go to heaven, and their belief is that by killing American's in their so called 'Holy War' they will have 72 virgins waiting for them when they get there.

I haven't seen any American as zealous as they are to fight this war.

The repercussions will undoubtedly last a long time. This whole argument is so stupid it's almost frivolous.

Read your history.

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 17:00:

In Memory of (Wall Street) Journalist Daniel Pearl - R.I.P.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0209/kamber.php

http://www.danielpearl.org/

Posted by LiquidX on Sep-22-2003 19:24:

WoW. About the pipeline and the US. Thats actually old news, and I guess it's been discussed here allready. The pipeline crossing afghanistan, has anyone mentioned that one.? ..

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 19:33:

quote:
Originally posted by LiquidX
WoW. About the pipeline and the US. Thats actually old news, and I guess it's been discussed here allready. The pipeline crossing afghanistan, has anyone mentioned that one.? ..

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...061#post1845061

Posted by occrider on Sep-22-2003 19:43:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
READ:

Natural gas is liquified by cooling it. In a liquid state, it can be transported by ship.

While the ability to liquify natural gas was discovered in the early part of the 20th century, it only became economically viable in the mid-1960s. Low domestic natural gas prices slowed its growth.

Several companies have announced multiple projects to build terminals along U.S. coastlines to re-convert the liquid into vapor natural gas, which would then be transported by pipeline, Spomer said.

I never said that transporting LNG from Pakistan by tanker was impossible, I said it was too costly given the expensive nature involved in cooling down the gas, and that it would be more economically feasible to transport LNG from Canada or South America.

quote:

There are large volumes of natural gas in the US classified either as proven reserves or considered as potentially recoverable resources. Natural gas reserves often exist alongside deposits of other hydrocarbons, such as petroleum and coal that have historically been more valuable and easier to extract. However, a considerable portion of these reserves or potential resources are currently inaccessible because they are on protected lands or because of the costs of transporting the gas. A sizeable percentage�up to 40 percent�of U.S. natural gas resources lies beneath protected federal lands, and drilling in these lands is limited by strict environmental controls. And natural gas supply is greatly affected by difficulties in transporting it. Unlike petroleum, which can be shipped long distances in tankers, natural gas is most economically shipped in pipelines, in a pressurized gaseous state. Natural gas can be shipped as a liquid in tankers, but liquefying natural gas (LNG) requires that it be cooled to around -162�C (-260�F), which is expensive. For petroleum producers in the Middle East, the cost of liquefying (for shipment abroad) the natural gas that comes up from oil wells is simply too great. Gas from these wells is generally discarded � burned off in huge gas flares � rather than collected. Because of the difficulties in transporting natural gas, most natural gas supplies (85 percent) comes from the United States.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/subcategory.php/234.html

If it wasn't so costly, then you would see a lot more ventures to tap the vast amount of Nat gas reserves in remote regions.

quote:

many large reserves are in remote locations like Alaska�s North Slope or Siberia, and the result is that much of the world�s natural gas is now commercially worthless.�Of the [natural gas] that everyone agrees is there, over half has absolutely no market [value],� says Mark Agee, president of Syntroleum, a Tulsa, OK,energy firm. �None whatsoever. It�s inplaces like the northwest shelf of Australia, Papua New Guinea, the west coast of Africa, the North Slope of Alaska. Really remote places with no ready market close by.�
http://smalley.rice.edu/UNIV116/Hit...s%20Jackpot.pdf

quote:

I scored 99+ %ile in reading comprehension. How about yourself?

What can I say? You are truly a gifted individual.

quote:

You already seem to be doing a fine job as a yes man... not for me but for the establishment that's been lying to us for quite some time now.

The real argument is that we enacted a pre-emptive strike, forever changing American foreign policy as we know it. And for what? To line those corporate pockets.

All we really did was poke at the hornets nest.

Look at the world in it's current light, the radical Muslims are now LINING UP to throw their bomb-laden bodies at us. They want to go to heaven, and their belief is that by killing American's in their so called 'Holy War' they will have 72 virgins waiting for them when they get there.

I haven't seen any American as zealous as they are to fight this war.

The repercussions will undoubtedly last a long time. This whole argument is so stupid it's almost frivolous.

Read your history.

And now as the argument deteriorates from actually discussing the topic to character attacks, I suggest we break off the debate and agree to disagree. I'll go bury my head in the sand and you go on believing your whack job conspiracy theories.

Posted by occrider on Sep-22-2003 19:54:

And as an interesting side note, those LNG facilities that are being built along the coast are specifically being built for Peruvian nat gas project. That project oddly enough, was denied funding by the American lending institution that Peru was lobbying for. They had to get funds for their project from a South American lending consortium.

http://www.enn.com/news/2003-08-29/s_7892.asp

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 20:36:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0716/p02s01-usec.html

https://www.iqpc.com/iowa-robot/sin...=229&event=3895

Posted by MrSquirrel on Sep-22-2003 20:45:

Just a question.

Why resurrect a thread that has been inactive for over 4 months and then continue to post and post and post "off-topic" arguments/information?

The title of the thread is: "Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer) "

MrS

Posted by occrider on Sep-22-2003 20:50:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0716/p02s01-usec.html

https://www.iqpc.com/iowa-robot/sin...=229&event=3895

From that christain science monitor article.

quote:

In the past, the US has imported LNG from Algeria. But in the future, more of its gas will come from closer sources: Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela.

Let's face it, the pipeline is being built to satisfy demand in the southwest asian market.

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2...main/main12.htm

Posted by occrider on Sep-22-2003 21:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Vesa
The world seems to be going down in flames on the path of a new World War again. And just because of a few ideological imperialist idiots with an elaborate unrealistic world view (didn't this happen in World War II already?)

Well I think that's a little bit exagerated Vega. Right now the neocons are on the defensive and whereas they used to have Bush's ear directly after 9/11 they are growing more and more detached from power as a result fo the quagmire of Iraq. I just read an article somehwere on this, have to see if I can find it again.

Anyway let's just hope that younger shits actually get out and vote to affect change. The apathy of youth towards politics is disgusting as I preached about in that education thread a while back.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2003Sep22.html

Posted by Trancer-X on Sep-22-2003 22:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Vesa
On average, one US soldier has been killed per day, which is not much compared to Vietnam or World War II.

A relative who recently came back from the Gulf said that they have only been reporting a fraction of the total casualties.

quote:
Hopefully, young Americans wake up, revive the original American ideas, and vote for politicians who convince foreigners about the US foreign policy using diplomacy and wisdom rather than stick and carrot.

YES! Finally someone with some sense.

"War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses."

- Thomas Jefferson

"The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair."

� H.L. Mencken

"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizens from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

� U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Parker

Posted by occrider on Sep-22-2003 22:57:

quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
A relative who recently came back from the Gulf said that they have only been reporting a fraction of the total casualties.

That wouldn't surprise me. I think the Pentagon is only obligated to release figures of soldiers who were killed as opposed to soldiers who are wounded.

Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »