|
Iraq Rebuilding Contracts Awarded (to Haliburton - Cheney's former employer) (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| 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.
|
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 ...
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 in 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 in 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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.? .. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| 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 |
|
|
| occrider |
| 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.:p |
|
|
| occrider |
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 |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
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 |
|
|
|
|
