Pipeline in Afganistan

[deadhand31]

What I STILL dont understand is, if the Bush administration is so skilled in conspiracy , why they didnt airdrop some WMD's into Iraq and make a convenient discovery.....

Maybe the Bush administration put the sarin warhead in Iraq which injured several troops a few months back. Bush is making WMD!! He needs to be stopped!!!

(For those who cannot tell, this is what is called "sarcasm".)

 

[Makalakumu]

What do you mean ignoring major points? Look who's talking.


Unocal - which led a consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Japan and South Korea - has maintained the project is both economically and technically feasible once Afghan stability was secured.

"Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects," a spokesman told BBC News Online.

Well guess what? I think the project is feasible too. I don't have plans to become involved either. By your logic, I'M PLANNING ON BUILDING A PIPELINE! Do you think it's feasible? Are you planning on becoming involved? If your answers are yes and no, respectively, THEN YOU'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING THE PIPELINE!

You site a source that you claim states western interest, while in fact it states that western companies don't want to touch the place. Are you really wondering why I put your intelligence in question? It's called "reading comprehension". That means you read words, and understand what they mean. Emulating Michael Moore does not make something mean what you want it to.

You are not ignoring the fact that all of these companies have stated that Afghanistan is too unstable. You are ignoring the fact that many of the sources I posted say that a stable Afghanistan changes all of this.

The plans for the pipelines in Afghanistan were made in the USA by a US agency populated by officials from US oil companies. Hamid Karzai signed a deal to build the very same pipeline that Unocal was going to build.

Yes, even Unocal.

This is no conspiracy. It is a clear cut case of national interest in a military industrial complex.

Are you refusing to read anything that does not conform to your beliefs?

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Ive only seen deadhand31 on this thread but what makes you believe he is a "conservative"? Because he disagrees with you on this thread??

He has stated as much. No assumption on my part.

 

[Makalakumu]

No yet another convoluted conspiracy theory.....nope thats about it.

So why is this just another conspiracy? Do you understand what a conspiracy is? Two people who bake an apple pie without telling another have formed a conspiracy?

I'm not seeing anything so secret about any of this.

Perhaps it's a conspiracy because you can't bring yourself around to even examine the ramifications.

 

[Makalakumu]

Enough pummeling with the Left hand. How about the Right? :whip:

So what. So what if the Bush administration planned on securing Afghanistan for the oil companies. 911 may have changed everything, but it did not change the way American works. Can you imagine if the Bush Administration was so short sighted as to go after the terrorists in Afghanistan and completely forget about what our country needs in order to run? Oil and gas, the bottom line is that we need it. Our economy is suffering because the prices are rising through the roof. We are losing jobs and we are losing our place in the world as an economic superpower. The Bush Administration has shown shrewd diplomacy in this regard. In one fell swoop, we have taken out the Taliban and the terrorists AND we have secured a source of resources to help keep America great! In the end, this pipeline deal will be good for everybody. It will give the Afghani citizens jobs and boost their economy and it will do more to show the average Afghani how great America is. Talk about winning their hearts and minds and really putting a stop to terrorism in Afghanistan! The Bush Administration has had noting but the best interests of everyone in mind all along.

Now quit whining you peacenik liberal. :supcool:

upnorthkyosa :asian:

 

[deadhand31]

The only thing that stated that the companies would move in to a more stable guy was a minister of Afghan studies. Other companies have looked to BYPASS Afghanistan. Bypassing Afghanistan would mean that Afghanistan would not be used. Unocal stated that there were NO plans. DO you know what NO plans means? That means there aren't any plans. They didn't say "We're waiting for a stable Afghanistan."

You also are mixing up pipelines. The pipeline that is currently put in production is a NATURAL GAS pipeline. This is not an OIL pipeline. This is a pipeline that is being put into place for two reasons: 1. Internal infrastructure to supply natural gas to Afghanistan, and 2. For the export of natural gas to other countries as a way to pump money into the Afghani economy.

 

[Makalakumu]

The only thing that stated that the companies would move in to a more stable guy was a minister of Afghan studies. Other companies have looked to BYPASS Afghanistan. Bypassing Afghanistan would mean that Afghanistan would not be used. Unocal stated that there were NO plans. DO you know what NO plans means? That means there aren't any plans. They didn't say "We're waiting for a stable Afghanistan."

Funny, the US Trade and Development Agency seems to expect these companies to come back to the table as soon as Afghanistan is stabilized. Unocal is not the only company in question either. Many other companies have bid on this deal and are waiting to see what happens. Who do you think the US Trade and Development Agency is?

If you would actually read all of the sources you might find out that "No Plans" means no plans while Afghanistan is unstable.

Take a look at this...Please note the emphasis near the bottom.

U.S. presence in Afghanistan renews hopes of oil, gas investors

By Sudarsan Raghavan

Knight Ridder Newspapers

TASHKENT, Uzbekistan - Afghanistan in the midst of a grinding war may not look like an investor's paradise. Yet oilman Joseph Naemi sees the conflict - and America's involvement - as a potential opportunity for vast riches.

The 39-year-old executive plans to invest hundred of millions of dollars over the next five to seven years developing oil and natural gas fields in neighboring Uzbekistan, in hope eventually of selling oil and gas to and through Afghanistan by pipeline.

"If the United States' presence continues in the region, (Sept. 11) is probably the best thing that could have happened here for the Central Asian republics," said Naemi, managing director of Chase Energy, a small oil company based in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

America's efforts to replace the puritanical Taliban and bring stability to Afghanistan are resurrecting hopes for a controversial proposal for trans-Afghanistan oil and natural gas pipelines, once strongly backed by the United States. And wildcatters such as Naemi are lining up to capitalize on what may be the most valuable, inaccessible stretch of land in Central Asia.

"This region in terms of oil economics is the frontier for this century," said Naemi. "And Afghanistan is part and parcel of this."

In 1998, the Taliban signed a $2 billion agreement for a proposed 890-mile natural gas pipeline that would start in Turkmenistan's Dauletabad fields, snake through Taliban-controlled areas in Herat and Kandahar, Afghanistan, and end in Quetta, Pakistan. A $2.5 billion oil pipeline stretching 1,000 miles through Afghanistan also was considered.

The pipelines would provide the most direct route from Central Asia's oil and gas fields to Arabian Sea ports such as the Pakistani city of Karachi. They would link oil and gas fields in land-locked Central Asia to lucrative markets in Asia and Australia, and could free up more Middle East oil to flow to the United States and Europe. They also could reduce U.S. dependence on oil from OPEC nations, which have dictated oil prices for decades.

The proposal has been seriously batted around in corporate boardrooms from Texas to Saudi Arabia since the mid-1990s. But given Afghanistan's 22 years of war, there were serious doubts that the pipelines would be built. Now, with the United States vowing to uproot the Taliban, the project seems more possible.

"The oil companies have never stopped thinking about the Afghan pipeline, but they all lowered it on the list of priorities," said a U.S. Embassy commercial officer in Almaty, Kazakhstan, who has close contacts with American energy firms there. "But now they are re-evaluating it with the possible political change happening in Afghanistan." The officer spoke on condition of anonymity.

In recent weeks, the English-language newspaper Baku Sun in oil-rich Azerbaijan has published stories discussing the hopes for proposed Afghan pipelines. Last week, Turkmenistan's president, Saparamurad Niyazov, asked the United Nations to help revive the project, saying it would be "advantageous for all the neighboring countries, and primarily Afghanistan," according to Turkmenistan's official news agency.

Some Central Asian oil consultants are publicly lobbying for the pipeline to be a key part of any post-Taliban "Marshall plan" for the United States to help rebuild Afghanistan.

"It should be an absolute must for the U.S. to pursue this option," said Rob Sobhani, president of Washington-based Caspian Energy Consulting and a former consultant in Central Asia for Amoco, which is now part of British Petroleum. Sobhani has pushed the pipeline on various U.S. television programs.

The Afghan pipelines would make it cheaper and faster for Naemi and Chase Energy to get their oil and natural gas to Asian markets. Currently, they are planning to use railroads along long, circuitous routes via the Caspian Sea region and Turkey.

At war since the Soviets invaded in 1979, Afghanistan has never been able to fully tap its significant deposits of natural gas, oil and coal. Conflict after conflict has shattered its infrastructure, eroded its economy and spawned one of the world's largest refugee populations.

All that seemed to be forgotten when the Taliban grabbed power in 1996, bringing stability to much of the country. By then, an international consortium of oil companies led by Houston-based Unocal Corp. was wooing the hard-line Islamic regime to sign the pipeline deal.

The group included companies from Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Korea, Japan and Pakistan. The Argentine firm Bridas also was competing for the rights to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Unocal pulled out of the pipeline consortium in December 1998, after the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the subsequent American military strikes on Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. The civil war in Afghanistan, low oil prices and pressure at home from U.S. women's groups protesting the Taliban's subjugation of women also played roles.

The State Department was helping Unocal, despite the Taliban's brutal human-rights record and its harboring of bin Laden. U.S. officials said they hoped the Taliban would moderate their policies and the pipeline would boost Afghanistan's crippled economy.

According to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy organization, the American diplomatic dance with the Taliban was partly an attempt to prevent the construction of a pipeline through Iran and to reduce Russian leverage over Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

U.S. ties with the oil-producing former Soviet republics are closer after the Sept.11 terrorist attacks. Uzbekistan's government, which hopes that a stable Afghanistan will open direct routes for its oil and natural gas, and its neighbors have supported the American-led anti-terrorism coalition.

Although the United States is talking about buying oil from Russia, it also is supporting the proposed construction of a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to the Turkish seaport of Ceyhan, which would allow the Caspian Sea nations to lessen their reliance on Moscow.

While modern-day wildcatters such as Naemi are betting on the Afghan pipelines, larger oil companies aren't jumping in so soon. A Unocal spokeswoman said the company had no plans to invest anywhere in Central Asia in the near future.

"The prospects are there, the potential is there," said Abdul Raheem Yaseer, the assistant director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. "But first the Taliban have to be removed, then the terrorists have to be removed. Then the Afghans have to be helped to form their own government, and then they'll need a lot of money for reconstructing their country. Then they will talk about oil projects."

End of Article

You also are mixing up pipelines. The pipeline that is currently put in production is a NATURAL GAS pipeline. This is not an OIL pipeline. This is a pipeline that is being put into place for two reasons: 1. Internal infrastructure to supply natural gas to Afghanistan, and 2. For the export of natural gas to other countries as a way to pump money into the Afghani economy.

Nope. Natural Gas and Petroleum form in geologically similar areas and by very similar processes. Nearly all major pipe routes across the world move both. Unocal wants to move both. The ground work for Unocal's pipeline has been set. Hamid Karzai, their man, signed the deal. The pipeline above is part of one suggested to go through Pakistan. How else do you think they are going to be able to export the gas if they don't build the rest of it? Kabul is landlocked and natural gas is not an easy material to transport by vehicle.

 

[deadhand31]

Dude, the article you put in your last thread basically stated that there was HOPE of investors returning. Yes, they would probably like that, as it would be a boon to their economy. However, I'd like to review your contentions, starting from the very beginning.

1. You stated that Bush was courting the Taliban pre-9/11. This was not the case. As your own articles showed, he simply accepted letters from their envoys to remove sanctions from their country. He did not lift those sanctions.

2. You contended that Bush invaded Afghanistan to get oil there. You seem to forget a few things... like.. 9/11, perhaps? He also did not revert to the invasion right away. He gave them orders to follow, which were: 1, Turn over Bin Laden, 2. Close down the terrorist training camps, and 3, release all foreign aid workers. This would have been a peaceful solution, and if followed, the Taliban wouldn't be on the run. When somebody organizes an attack against innocent civilians, the prudent thing to do is to go after them. When a rogue faux-government is aiding said person, you want to get them to stop. They did not agree to stop. They also tried to use imprisoned foreign aid workers as bargaining chips.

3. You contend that the oil companies are waiting for a stable Afghanistan. Since 1998, the western oil companies have pulled out. All of your articles has the companies themselves stating that they do not have plans. These companies also looked to BYPASS Afghanistan for future projects. The current projects in the works are currently looking to be funded by the ADB, and potential donor countries. You articles state only a possibility of western involvement, however, they looked to bypass Afghanistan. If they were dead-set on Afghanistan, they would not have looked at other areas.

In conclusion, looking at what your own sources say, it is easy to sort out what is pure speculation, and what is, in actuality, happening. This pipeline deal was started in the Clinton era, and was abandoned by western companies at the same time. You're also stating that Bush went after Afghanistan purely for oil. Given how he had ignored the Taliban pre-9/11, do you honestly think that Afghanistan would have been invaded?

 

[Makalakumu]

A quote by Tom Simmons, US delegate at a meeting with the Taliban and Former US ambassador to Pakistan, "accept our carpet of gold (oil pipeline), or you will recieve a carpet of bombs." July, 2001. The US government met with Taliban officials up until August of 2001, then the talks fell apart.

Now that the Taliban are gone and Afghanistan is on its way to becoming more secure because of our brave soldiers...

White House announces 10 new bases in Afghanistan 'in hopes of boosting reconstruction efforts and regional security', whose locations coincide with the route proposed by Unocal in 1998 for a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. [Boston Globe 12/2002]

Hamid Karzai signs deal to build the pipeline. Construction will begin when Afghanistan security has been established.

The economies of all the countries in that region need this pipeline, deadhand31. Our way of life in the US depends on securing foriegn sources of fossil fuels. There is no dispute to the fact that President Bush has strings tied to the Oil Industry. No dispute. I think that you are failing to recognize that this is what happens when those strings are pulled. This is a done deal. It follows the US Agency on Trade and Foriegn Relations plan to get the pipeline done.

As far as my position, I've been very careful in stating in all along. I do not think that profits should be a priority in the War on Terror. This does not mean that I don't think that our country should go after the people who perpetrated 911. My ethical position is based on the fact that the Bush Administration is using 911 to accomplish something they have been planning for years. This is, by definition, a conflict of interest.

The Trans Afghan-Pakistan Pipeline, whoever builds it, will be a boon to US oil companies.

upnorthkyosa

 

[deadhand31]

I would like for you to find the exact date of the meeting that this "Carpet of Bombs" citation was made. I would also like for you to name the delegates present. Also, I would like to know the location, if you can find it. I did a google search on that line, and all I found were forums, conspiracy theory sites, and only one real news reference. However, this news reference was a response to an editorial where a reader asked why the paper didn't put the term in their story. This was because it was not documented aside from a second-hand account in a newspaper.

Basically, what I'm getting at is, you're going to find a conspiracy. This is because you have the Mooreian mindset, and will find one where none exists. I would like to go through a flow of what articles actually said, and what you said they meant.

1. What was actually said: Bush accepted a letter from a Taliban envoy.

What you said: Bush was in league with the Taliban.

2. What was actually said: Unocal pulled out of the deal, and has no plans to participate.

What you said: Unocal is going to build there.

3. What was actually said: Afghanistan is looking for members of the old consortium (including Unocal, among others) to resume the pipeline.

What you said: Unocal is going to be a member, no doubt.

4. What was actually there: An editorial of someone who thinks Bush went in for oil, with no documented sources.

What you said it was: Legitimate research on Bush's oil deal with the Taliban.

4.What you said: Bush went in because of the pipeline.

What actually happened: The Taliban were unwilling to work against Al-qaeda. They refused to turn over bin Laden, and release wrongly imprisoned foreign aid workers. They basically refused any peaceful resolution to the conflict, and sealed their own demise.


Now, another interesting thing, you say that profits should not be a priority on the war against terror. True. It wasn't in this case. You also say that we should go after those who helped make 9/11 to happen. Now, for that to happen, we needed to get cooperation from the Taliban. We did not get it. So we went in after al qaeda ourselves. So, basically, no matter what, Afghanistan would have been a target, since that's what was required. You can agree we should have gone after Afghanistan.

Now, you also say that no matter who builds it, the pipeline will be a boon to US oil. So.... let me get this straight..... with ZERO involvement in the pipeline from the US, the US companies will profit? Interesting point.

So basically what you're saying is that even if we did what was neccessary (which was go after those who made 9/11 a reality), with no plans whatsoever by Bush, no US involvement in the reconstruction efforts, the result would have been the same.

So basically, Bush can invade for security reasons with no motivation for oil whatsoever, and no matter what, you will attack him on this oil conspiracy.

I'll also wait for the date of that meeting, and those who attended. :uhyeah:

 

[Makalakumu]

I would like for you to find the exact date of the meeting that this "Carpet of Bombs" citation was made. I would also like for you to name the delegates present. Also, I would like to know the location, if you can find it. I did a google search on that line, and all I found were forums, conspiracy theory sites, and only one real news reference. However, this news reference was a response to an editorial where a reader asked why the paper didn't put the term in their story. This was because it was not documented aside from a second-hand account in a newspaper.

"Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden." Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. This source is controversial and it makes a few points I disagree with, but the meeting you would like specific information on is well documented in this book.

Basically, what I'm getting at is, you're going to find a conspiracy. This is because you have the Mooreian mindset, and will find one where none exists. I would like to go through a flow of what articles actually said, and what you said they meant.

This is not conspiracy. It's fact. Its happening. I think the reason you are having so much difficulty seeing it is that you don't understand the following...

A. US dependence/obsession with oil
B. Military Industrial Complex
C. Economic Supremacy
D. National Interest

1. What was actually said: Bush accepted a letter from a Taliban envoy.

President Bush not only accepted a letter, his administration was meeting with the Taliban up until August 2001. Then the talks fell apart.

2. What was actually said: Unocal pulled out of the deal, and has no plans to participate.

Unocal may have pulled out of the deal, but the pipeline they wanted is still being pushed. You need to ask yourself the question, why build the pipeline in the first place? Surely the construction of such a thing cannot be the only incentive for US involvement.

3. What was actually said: Afghanistan is looking for members of the old consortium (including Unocal, among others) to resume the pipeline.

Considering that the US agency of Trade and Foriegn relations, of which Unocal is a member, expects them to be a part of the deal, I would say its pretty much a sure thing. Also, Unocal is the DOMINANT oil company in that region. No one else is bigger.

4. What was actually there: An editorial of someone who thinks Bush went in for oil, with no documented sources.

The source in which you refer documents the sources throughout the entire peice. I don't know how you can say this unless you didn't read it very carefully. Also, editorial implies some sort of bias. Everything has bias. Check the sources.

4.What you said: Bush went in because of the pipeline.

These plans were stated by Bush Administration officials in the Plan for the New American Century. They even told other countries in the region...

Plans existed before 911 to put troops on the ground in Afghanistan. Washington tells India that US troops will be in Afghanistan "before the snow falls" - this deadline is then met thanks to the Sept. 11 attacks two months later. [BBC, 9/18/01; 8/5/02]

After 911, the purpose of the Bush Administration became duel. Get the terrorists AND secure Afghanistan for the pipeline. For which do you want the lives of your countrymen and your tax money to be spent.

Now, another interesting thing, you say that profits should not be a priority on the war against terror. True. It wasn't in this case. You also say that we should go after those who helped make 9/11 to happen. Now, for that to happen, we needed to get cooperation from the Taliban. We did not get it. So we went in after al qaeda ourselves. So, basically, no matter what, Afghanistan would have been a target, since that's what was required. You can agree we should have gone after Afghanistan.

This is the official story, for sure, but as you can see, it is much more complicated.

Now, you also say that no matter who builds it, the pipeline will be a boon to US oil. So.... let me get this straight..... with ZERO involvement in the pipeline from the US, the US companies will profit? Interesting point.

The money is going to be lent by ABD. No company will step forward to build it until Afghanistan is secure. The Afghan and Pakistani government PREFER a US company. The future will tell this story.

Here is a scenario that could play out. US companies do not want to risk their money, so they get a local oil company, buy its stock and pump in a little capital. US companies risk very little. The pipeline is built. What comes out of the pipeline? That is where the real profits are located.

The bottom line.

911 gave our Administration an excuse to pursue its own interests as well as the Terrorists. I have an ethical problem with this and I think that many others do to. Profits should not be a priority in the war on terror. Heaven forbid, if we are attacked again, the people of this country are going to find out the hard way why this is true. And that is a lesson that will cost too much in my humble opinion.

Peace.

upnorthkyosa

 

[deadhand31]

Like I said, you're finding a conspiracy which none exists.

Also, whether or not Bush went in with no plans of oil, you'll still attack him on it, because you say
A. We have to go after who attacked us,
and
B. The oil will be a boon to US companies, regardless of who builds it.

You basically set up a trap, where if he didn't go after Afghanistan, then he wasn't going after the terrorists, and if he did, he's only after oil. It's a lose/lose situation made up by Mooreons like yourself.

Now, exact date and delegates, please.

 

[Makalakumu]

Now, exact date and delegates, please.

Read the book. This is no conspiracy. This is reality. If it seems a trap to you then maybe you should re-evaluate why you think so.

:asian:

upnorthkyosa

 

[deadhand31]

I don't have the book, you do. Exact date and delegates, please.