|
Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer) (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You see what you've done to me Mr.Squirrel??? I've had your sig for exactly 3 days so far, and already people are formulating slanderous misconceptions! |
If it's in print it's considered libel. Hehe.
Why would you want that crap as a signature anyways? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Why would you want that crap as a signature anyways? |
humor.. I thought it was funny. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
humor.. I thought it was funny. |
Yeah uncle Prescott, I'm sure you would. |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
The Carlyle Group's decision to take its protégé 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 |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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! :whip:
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 |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| It hurts, doesn't it? |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
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 |
|
|
|
|
