Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

For you Afghanistan pipeline theory types, some serious talk:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:11 PM
Original message
For you Afghanistan pipeline theory types, some serious talk:
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 01:22 PM by Robb
For those who think we're in Afghanistan to secure the TAP/I gas pipeline, a new twist.

Many of you may recall I was among the first to suggest Turkmenistan gas reserves might be a bigger issue for the U.S. than a garden-variety "war on terror." As I was considering writing an update to that well-aged article, noting such things as an ExxonMobil pullout in 2002, I came across the quite-recent news that the Turkmen president sacked the heads of the nation's gas corporations last month. Official (e.g. state) news releases say it's because the president thought they were incompetent; Russian news sources are saying it's because they were feeding independent auditors exaggerated numbers.

Those auditors recently admitted they overstated Turkmenistan's natural gas reserves, but decline so far to say by how much. Their high numbers meanwhile are being repeated in nearly every story I've read, particularly as more and more western oil/gas interests are shelling out (ooh, a pun!) for exploration contracts in the region -- most recently U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Krol made a plea to allow U.S. companies to get in on the action.

Obviously it's in Russia's best interest to play down the importance/significance of the Turkmen gas reserves in an attempt to keep the prices down -- they're still the number-one importer of Turkmen natural gas (Iran being a distant, distant second) and are doing everything they can to renegotiate their contracts under the guise of fretfulness after April's pipeline explosion.

More interestingly: what if they're right? What if there is less gas out there than Turkmenistan's been letting on? And if the pipeline to the Chinese is operational in two weeks as expected, delivering 40 billion cubic meters of gas per year, what does that say of either the auditors' (possibly inflated) estimate of 14 trillion cubic meters of reserves, or the CIA's estimate of 2.8 trillion cubic meters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. could you take the word ''conspiracy'' out of your subject line? It undermines the legit info
you have to share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well, OK. Replaced with the word "theory" then. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Conspiracy? You mean when two or more gather in the name of greed?
Pure fiction. It never happens.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. I only recall Louis Farrakhan making the claim after 9/11 and saying the attacks were retribution
for a failed attempt by the US to lay some pipe over there...

Something like that; 7 years goes by so fast...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. It does indeed.
The date on that Bartcop piece I wrote is November, 2001. I can hardly even remember there being a November in 2001. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
6. You forgot to mention how much money Obama is going to make from this pipeline
- the REAL reason for his Afghanistan carpet-bombing genocidal war...

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Or the brazillion barrels of Iraqi oil flowing to the US.
:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattvermont Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. obama
what is your information about obama making money from this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It was sarcasm - there is none, but you cannot convince the Anti-Obama crowd
that his war of carpet bombing nuclear genocide and sundry crimes against humanity are NOT motivated by the fact he is personally making a pile of $$$$ from this war and this pipeline.

(he is not)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. AYE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I don't believe I mentioned Obama.
If you wish to derail the discussion, though, I guess it's your right. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. It's the major reason Obama planted all those miniature nukes in the WTC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Don't confuse me with that guy
:D

There's a lot of money to be made and lost around this area, and I just believe it bears following.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
11. Maybe you should
have mentioned Obama in this regard:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.php?ind=E01

Obama was #2 on list of 2008 pres candidates' receiving $$$$ from the oil/gas industries.

He logged in with $889,051, behind only McCrusty with $2,402,437.

Next thing you will no doubt try to say is that lobbying is dead in DC.

When Obama bucks the Pentagon, the oil/gas industries, etc., then call me.



Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. LOL!!!!1111
Edited on Sun Dec-06-09 03:01 PM by jpak
How many hundreds of millions of $$$ did Obama raise and spend in the primary and general elections?

clue - over $750 million

and Big Oil "bought" him for a lousy $889,051?????

what a stupid post

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Excuse me, but
did I say "bought?"

I don't think I did. What I did do was to point out from OpenSecrets.org the pecking order, such as it is. As with most things, that is not the whole story, but hey, have a little giggle, it's the holiday season and I suspect you are not here to really have any serious discussion. I can tell from your reaction to one little factoid.

Here are some more to keep you entertained:

Lobbyist Loopholes?
Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.
Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isnt a perfect solution to the problem and it isnt even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.

by Viveca Novak, with Justin Bank
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spil...

You get what you pay for in DC:

Obama Drops Big Oil Tax as Prices Plunge
The plan was for a windfall-profits tax on oil over $80 a barrel. But even though oil is under $50 now, some are upset that the issue is being dropped
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/dec...


About other connections to the MIC, oil/gas industries in particular;


26 November 08
Obama's Security Chief From Big Oil?
http://www.desmogblog.com/obamas-security-chief-big-oil


Obama security adviser: Picture not good on Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091206/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_u...

Why am I not surprised at today's headline?

When Obama bucks the Pentagon and oil/gas industries call me.


More centavos

robdogbucky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Spoken like a true believer - Obama Bad!!111 Obama Bad!!111
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robdogbucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-06-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I voted for Obama
as I believed he would end this madness. Yes, I heard his campaign rhetoric but chose to see it as such and that he would do the right thing once in office.

You continue to snark, as that appears to be all you got.

As for Afghanistan and our current folly there, take your pick; far-off civil war, pipelines, 100 al Qaeda, Taliban, borders, opium, pressure against a resurgent Russia, etc.

I think recently resigned Matthew Hoh's statements express what many here agree with:


"I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan," he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel. "I have doubts and reservations about our current strategy and planned future strategy, but my resignation is based not upon how we are pursuing this war, but why and to what end."

"There are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," he said of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys."

But many Afghans, he wrote in his resignation letter, are fighting the United States largely because its troops are there -- a growing military presence in villages and valleys where outsiders, including other Afghans, are not welcome and where the corrupt, U.S.-backed national government is rejected. While the Taliban is a malign presence, and Pakistan-based al-Qaeda needs to be confronted, he said, the United States is asking its troops to die in Afghanistan for what is essentially a far-off civil war.
As the White House deliberates over whether to deploy more troops, Hoh said he decided to speak out publicly because "I want people in Iowa, people in Arkansas, people in Arizona, to call their congressman and say, 'Listen, I don't think this is right.' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...


Not expecting any response but snark. Happy Holidays!

robdogbucky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 19th 2017, 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC