A thread in which we can follow developments over the long term.

Russia Today is saying that the planned pipeline from Turkmenistan, which holds a quarter of the world's gas reserves, is being abandoned as Georgia is considered too unstable. This will not be a problem they say as Russia will have two pipelines. BP (now a US firm) has closed down two plants in Georgia.

The alternative pipeline from Turkmenistan is via Afghanistan, or via Iran.

This is an old one but a good one on pipelines:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q7.html

Quote :

Since Margolis' warning last November (2002), the power balance has shifted back in the US direction. The US now has troops positioned in Georgia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, effectively balancing the presence of Russian troops and pipelines in Central Asia. It would appear that, so far, cooler heads in both Moscow and Washington have moved to avoid a head-on conflict in either Afghanistan or the Caspian basin.
Powerful oil development interests in Texas have had their eyes on Central Asian oil reserves for over two decades, and this may have been a factor in the Reagan-Bush strategy (otherwise questionable from the point of view of world stability) of helping to break up the former Soviet Union.

The wake of that break-up has seen a frenzied oil boom in the Caspian and trans-Caspian republics -- the biggest such oil boom in forty years. American oil companies such as Chevron have played a dominant role in this development. The increased interest in the oil and gas has naturally led to increased planning on how to get the resources out.

For the West, two major alternatives have presented themselves: the so-called Western Pipeline (to the Black Sea or even across the Balkans), and the Eastern Pipeline, via either Iran (the easier route, geographically speaking) or Afghanistan.

The Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan can be linked to the same "single, golden theme" which Michael Griffin (Reaping the Whirlwind, 115) has discerned in the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, Turkish Kurdistan and Chechnya: "each represented a distinct, tactical move, crucial at the time, in discerning which power would ultimately become master of the pipelines which, some time in this century, will transport the oil and gas from the Caspian basin to an energy-avid world."
...

Maybe the West should give up on Turkmenistan as a source of fuel and, as Obama says, get our tyre pressure adjusted.

Russian television coverage has reverted to the Olympic Games.

cactus flower wrote:

A thread in which we can follow developments over the long term.

Russia Today is saying that the planned pipeline from Turkmenistan, which holds a quarter of the world's gas reserves, is being abandoned as Georgia is considered too unstable. This will not be a problem they say as Russia will have two pipelines. BP (now a US firm) has closed down two plants in Georgia.

The alternative pipeline from Turkmenistan is via Afghanistan, or via Iran.

This is an old one but a good one on pipelines:
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/q7.html

Quote :

Since Margolis' warning last November (2002), the power balance has shifted back in the US direction. The US now has troops positioned in Georgia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, effectively balancing the presence of Russian troops and pipelines in Central Asia. It would appear that, so far, cooler heads in both Moscow and Washington have moved to avoid a head-on conflict in either Afghanistan or the Caspian basin.
Powerful oil development interests in Texas have had their eyes on Central Asian oil reserves for over two decades, and this may have been a factor in the Reagan-Bush strategy (otherwise questionable from the point of view of world stability) of helping to break up the former Soviet Union.

The wake of that break-up has seen a frenzied oil boom in the Caspian and trans-Caspian republics -- the biggest such oil boom in forty years. American oil companies such as Chevron have played a dominant role in this development. The increased interest in the oil and gas has naturally led to increased planning on how to get the resources out.

For the West, two major alternatives have presented themselves: the so-called Western Pipeline (to the Black Sea or even across the Balkans), and the Eastern Pipeline, via either Iran (the easier route, geographically speaking) or Afghanistan.

The Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan can be linked to the same "single, golden theme" which Michael Griffin (Reaping the Whirlwind, 115) has discerned in the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, Turkish Kurdistan and Chechnya: "each represented a distinct, tactical move, crucial at the time, in discerning which power would ultimately become master of the pipelines which, some time in this century, will transport the oil and gas from the Caspian basin to an energy-avid world."
...

Maybe the West should give up on Turkmenistan as a source of fuel and, as Obama says, get our tyre pressure adjusted.

Russian television coverage has reverted to the Olympic Games.

Turkmenistan is a basket case of a country run by a total lunatic. The West should give up on it. Putin has but keeps an eye on it all the same.

A lot of people have been killed to get at its gas. Otherwise its sheep and rugs is it?

I have a coat from there, deep red with narrow vertical black stripes, bought in Turkey.

cactus flower wrote:

BP (now a US firm)

This seems like a slightly peculiar statement. Is it more of a political point than a statement of fact?

BP is an an enormous multinational energy company, one of the largest companies on the planet and is a public company listed on both the London and the New York stock exchanges. The chairman of BP is Irish and the Chief Executive is English. Its global headquarters are in a very plush Georgian-styled building in St James's Square in London.

I don't see how this makes BP a firm which could be defined as moving status to a US firm. It has huge interests in America, yes, but it is not more of an American firm than any other.

cactus flower wrote:

A lot of people have been killed to get at its gas. Otherwise its sheep and rugs is it?

I have a coat from there, deep red with narrow vertical black stripes, bought in Turkey.

President Separmyat Atayevich Niyazov, or "Turkmenbashi" as he prefers to be known, was the only candidate in the only presidential election held in Turkmenistan since the break up of the USSR. He renamed the month of April after his mother and he wrote the "Rukhnama", which according to the official blurb, is, along with the Koran and the Bible,one of the great spiritual tracts in the world today. There is a 120-foot gold-plated statue of him in the capital, Ashgabat, which rotates to follow the sun. The country is plastered with portraits, posters and statues of him. A port on the Caspian Sea is named after him, as are foodstuffs, vodka, poerfumes and yoghurt. "The Sayings of Turkmenbashi" is compulsory daily reading in every school and university. Classical music, opera, ballet and the circus are all banned in Turkmenistan. As are beards. It is illegal to enter Turkmenistan if you have a beard. If you do, you must have it shaven off in the airport. Turkmenbashi was decreed president for life in 1999 and rewarded himself with a $100 million "post-modern Ottoman" gold-domed, white-marbled palace. That's the fun stuff.

At the business end of things, "Turkmenbashi" signed a 10 year deal for the supply of gas with President Putin in April 2002. This also included a dual citizenship arrangement whereby ethnic Russians could choose which citizenship they wanted. Most chose Russian and got out. Easy choice really. The average Turkmen has to get by on $540 a year. Turkmenistan was the poorest of the Soviet republics. Not much has changed for the ordinary Turkmen. Turkmenbashi was almost assassinated in November 2002 and since then he is deeply suspicious of all manifestations of opposition. With predictable results. Safe to say that it is not really geared for tourism.

You are right johfas, it is a multinational corporation. Originally it was owned by the British Government and was exclusively a British firm to the 1980s. It is now, since its merger with Amoco, the biggest seller of petrol in the US,

This is a short history-
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=287

Quote :

The company's recent history has been dominated by a number of mergers. BP already held a 55% stake in the US Standard Oil Company and in 1987 successfully acquired the remaining 45% and formed the company BP America [39]. 1987 also saw BP acquire Britoil the North Sea exploration company [40].

On August 11 1998 BP and Amoco: the American Oil Co. established in 1910 [41], announced that they had agreed the world's largest-ever industrial merger [42].

It was not in itself a political point, but a clarification that in spite of its name, it can no longer neccessarily be identified with British political interests. Politics and oil are interconnected. I expect you know that BP was involved in the overthrow of Iran's democratic government in 1953.

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

A lot of people have been killed to get at its gas. Otherwise its sheep and rugs is it?

I have a coat from there, deep red with narrow vertical black stripes, bought in Turkey.

President Separmyat Atayevich Niyazov, or "Turkmenbashi" as he prefers to be known, was the only candidate in the only presidential election held in Turkmenistan since the break up of the USSR. He renamed the month of April after his mother and he wrote the "Rukhnama", which according to the official blurb, is, along with the Koran and the Bible,one of the great spiritual tracts in the world today. There is a 120-foot gold-plated statue of him in the capital, Ashgabat, which rotates to follow the sun. The country is plastered with portraits, posters and statues of him. A port on the Caspian Sea is named after him, as are foodstuffs, vodka, poerfumes and yoghurt. "The Sayings of Turkmenbashi" is compulsory daily reading in every school and university. Classical music, opera, ballet and the circus are all banned in Turkmenistan. As are beards. It is illegal to enter Turkmenistan if you have a beard. If you do, you must have it shaven off in the airport. Turkmenbashi was decreed president for life in 1999 and rewarded himself with a $100 million "post-modern Ottoman" gold-domed, white-marbled palace. That's the fun stuff.

At the business end of things, "Turkmenbashi" signed a 10 year deal for the supply of gas with President Putin in April 2002. This also included a dual citizenship arrangement whereby ethnic Russians could choose which citizenship they wanted. Most chose Russian and got out. Easy choice really. The average Turkmen has to get by on $540 a year. Turkmenistan was the poorest of the Soviet republics. Not much has changed for the ordinary Turkmen. Turkmenbashi was almost assassinated in November 2002 and since then he is deeply suspicious of all manifestations of opposition. With predictable results. Safe to say that it is not really geared for tourism.

China is there too:
May 2007 | Contract News
China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has announced a gas deal with Turkmenistan, worth US$1.5bn.
http://www.oilandgasinsight.com/file/9948/industry-developments-emerging-europe-homepage.html

The same website says that Turkey has been pressured by the US to withdraw from involvement in a 3.5 billion pipeline development
http://www.oilandgasinsight.com/file/68240/risks-to-turkeys-transit-status.html

cactus flower wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

A lot of people have been killed to get at its gas. Otherwise its sheep and rugs is it?

I have a coat from there, deep red with narrow vertical black stripes, bought in Turkey.

President Separmyat Atayevich Niyazov, or "Turkmenbashi" as he prefers to be known, was the only candidate in the only presidential election held in Turkmenistan since the break up of the USSR. He renamed the month of April after his mother and he wrote the "Rukhnama", which according to the official blurb, is, along with the Koran and the Bible,one of the great spiritual tracts in the world today. There is a 120-foot gold-plated statue of him in the capital, Ashgabat, which rotates to follow the sun. The country is plastered with portraits, posters and statues of him. A port on the Caspian Sea is named after him, as are foodstuffs, vodka, poerfumes and yoghurt. "The Sayings of Turkmenbashi" is compulsory daily reading in every school and university. Classical music, opera, ballet and the circus are all banned in Turkmenistan. As are beards. It is illegal to enter Turkmenistan if you have a beard. If you do, you must have it shaven off in the airport. Turkmenbashi was decreed president for life in 1999 and rewarded himself with a $100 million "post-modern Ottoman" gold-domed, white-marbled palace. That's the fun stuff.

At the business end of things, "Turkmenbashi" signed a 10 year deal for the supply of gas with President Putin in April 2002. This also included a dual citizenship arrangement whereby ethnic Russians could choose which citizenship they wanted. Most chose Russian and got out. Easy choice really. The average Turkmen has to get by on $540 a year. Turkmenistan was the poorest of the Soviet republics. Not much has changed for the ordinary Turkmen. Turkmenbashi was almost assassinated in November 2002 and since then he is deeply suspicious of all manifestations of opposition. With predictable results. Safe to say that it is not really geared for tourism.

China is there too:
May 2007 | Contract News
China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has announced a gas deal with Turkmenistan, worth US$1.5bn.
http://www.oilandgasinsight.com/file/9948/industry-developments-emerging-europe-homepage.html

The same website says that Turkey has been pressured by the US to withdraw from involvement in a 3.5 billion pipeline development
[url=http://www.oilandgasinsight.com/file/68240/risks-to-turkeys-transit-status.html

http://www.oilandgasinsight.com/file/68240/risks-to-turkeys-transit-status.html[/quote[/url]]

Presumably Putin and the Chinese know what they are doing but this guy is hardly the most stable and not the sort of person you want to be discussing the nicities of contract enforcement with.

If Putin is buying, he is obviously acting as a reseller of Turkmen energy which is profitable for Russia as I expect he settled on a fixed price in 2002 when everything was a lot less expensive.

Slim Buddha wrote:

Presumably Putin and the Chinese know what they are doing but this guy is hardly the most stable and not the sort of person you want to be discussing the niceties of contract enforcement with.

That's an understatement!

cactus flower wrote:

The same website says that Turkey has been pressured by the US to withdraw from involvement in a 3.5 billion pipeline development.
http://www.oilandgasinsight.com/file/68240/risks-to-turkeys-transit-status.html

That is interesting, I was wondering what pressure exactly the USA could apply as I would have thought that the USA is now probably in more need of support from Turkey than the other way round. Without Turkey they look decidedly exposed in the region.

Shame there is such strong anti Turkish propaganda doing the rounds in Europe. I smell a rat.

Squire wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Presumably Putin and the Chinese know what they are doing but this guy is hardly the most stable and not the sort of person you want to be discussing the niceties of contract enforcement with.

That's an understatement!

cactus flower wrote:

The same website says that Turkey has been pressured by the US to withdraw from involvement in a 3.5 billion pipeline development.
http://www.oilandgasinsight.com/file/68240/risks-to-turkeys-transit-status.html

That is interesting, I was wondering what pressure exactly the USA could apply as I would have thought that the USA is now probably in more need of support from Turkey than the other way round. Without Turkey they look decidedly exposed in the region.

Shame there is such strong anti Turkish propaganda doing the rounds in Europe. I smell a rat.

Come on Squire - there are so many rats in the kitchen - what is your intuition saying ?

The players in the region are so far as I know -

US
EU
UK (not completely the same as the EU)
France (ditto)
Germany (ditto)
NATO
Russia
China
The people of the region - last, but definitely not least

Have I left anyone out ?

I suspect that much of the anti EU sentiment is serving the interests of Uncle Sam.

I question if NATO and missile shields are necessarily to the advantage of Europe generally.

The UK is a strange beast which needs to reposition its affairs.

I question the assumption, that many seem to believe, that our interests and those of Uncle Sam are the same. The USA is a competitor and a pretty ruthless one at that.

With financial mismanagement we may have the reverse to post WW2. A USA that is basically bankrupt. Pay back time for Suez may be in order. The King is weakening.

Squire wrote:

I suspect that much of the anti EU sentiment is serving the interests of Uncle Sam.

I question if NATO and missile shields are necessarily to the advantage of Europe generally.

The UK is a strange beast which needs to reposition its affairs.

I question the assumption, that many seem to believe, that our interests and those of Uncle Sam are the same. The USA is a competitor and a pretty ruthless one at that.

With financial mismanagement we may have the reverse to post WW2. A USA that is basically bankrupt. Pay back time for Suez may be in order. The King is weakening.

In sequence of events over the last week we have firstly seen Georgian government bomb the capital of South Ossetia and invade it in an unprovoked attack on civilians without warning (surely in breach of law) and in breach of the 1992 Treaty. 70% of the population were Russian citizens and many of them had been hiding in basements for days. It was a provocation that Russia could not ignore. The following week, after endless black propoganda portraying the Russians as the agressors, the US sends in military planes to Georgia and Poland signs the Anti Ballistic Missile shield, something I understand the Polish population had been vociferously opposed to.

I was thinking more in terms of attempts to weaken the EU just as there are attempts to weaken Russia and Turkish menbership. It is commonly thought that the US is 100% behind Turkey joining. I am not so sure about that at all.

Poland is a separate issue. The timing of the announcement though would tend to lead one to believe fore knowledge.

With regards Georgia various possibilities.

1 The Georgians were set up and the US wanted a weaker Georgia. I find that hard to buy. It is too risky Georgia could have been completely overrun.

2 The Georgian army was meant to hold out longer than it did and be reinforced by allies. Highly probable. Then they would have reduced the Russian influence permanently and hid behind a web of propaganda.

3 The separatists provoked the Georgians. Given the scale of the retaliation that is beyond belief.

4 The Russians engineered it. Given the scale of damage done to their side I think that that is improbable.

5 The Georgians have a suicidal urge and went for it on their own. Not a chance.

I think No2 is the most likely but the Russians got wind of what was going on and were ready so the Georgian army got done over in record time.

Clearly there have been crimes committed and those responsible should be brought to face justice. It will be interesting to see if there are any such righteous calls coming from the USA. Silence will speak volumes.

Russia, Iran and Qatar have today announced the establishment of an OPEC style carterl between their respective countries in relation to gas supplies. The new organisation will control up to 60% of global gas supplies.

RTE News

I think the oil prices will fall to as low as 50 dollars in the current climate of the global recession as part of the bursting of the commodity super-cycle.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

I think the oil prices will fall to as low as 50 dollars in the current climate of the global recession as part of the bursting of the commodity super-cycle.

The Opec reduction in production has not stopped the slide. Michael Ryan should have consulted you: he would have saved millions.

cactus flower wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

I think the oil prices will fall to as low as 50 dollars in the current climate of the global recession as part of the bursting of the commodity super-cycle.

The Opec reduction in production has not stopped the slide. Michael Ryan should have consulted you: he would have saved millions.

Well, yes. OPEC cannot cut supply fast enough to keep up with the falls in demand. I was accused of being optimistic when I said the price could go as low as eighty dollars! Look at us now! I wouldn't be surprised to see it at 50 by Christmas.

That's what happens when you cartel. You can't move quickly enough. Serves them right.

johnfás wrote:

That's what happens when you cartel. You can't move quickly enough. Serves them right.

Exactly, if the cartel was broken up and market forces allowed to work, oil supply and demand would be dealt with more efficiently. This is because there would be more competition and a greater edge brought to proceedings.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

johnfás wrote:

That's what happens when you cartel. You can't move quickly enough. Serves them right.

Exactly, if the cartel was broken up and market forces allowed to work, oil supply and demand would be dealt with more efficiently. This is because there would be more competition and a greater edge brought to proceedings.

It's such a massive and sudden drop in price really isn't it - although it does coincide with all the other fan-hitting going on. Has demand really gone down so much ?? I can't get great up to date statistics online either although I've been rooting a bit around in the Oil Drum and the EIA site is stocked with data but IS IT REAL?

The only ways of busting this cartel is to discover more oil, make your own or bypass it with alternative technologies.

I wonder how much undiscovered oil is still out there....

I would say it is a combination of a reduction in consumption, a fear of how great that could be, ie uncertainty, and the fact that oil prices were too high. I am not saying that they will not into the future go far higher than they were a couple of months ago. But they were perhaps too high a couple of months ago, for the time being.

Auditor #9 wrote:

It's such a massive and sudden drop in price really isn't it - although it does coincide with all the other fan-hitting going on. Has demand really gone down so much ?? I can't get great up to date statistics online either although I've been rooting a bit around in the Oil Drum and the EIA site is stocked with data but IS IT REAL?

The whole world is going into recession which has sharply reduced demand for oil and if you add in the fact that markets tend to over-correct on the downside in the short term, the fact that lots of institutions are selling oil contracts in the search for liquidity in straitened times and that's why the oil price is down almost $100.

Quote :

The only ways of busting this cartel is to discover more oil, make your own or bypass it with alternative technologies.

Or by taking them to the International Criminal Court on anti-trust charges and bringing the refreshing winds of free market competition down on top of them.

The drop in energy costs is the lull before the storm. When we eventually show signs of coming out of this recession we had better have alternatives to oil in place.

Energy efficient housing with good public transport and amenities close by will become increasingly popular. Businesses, including farms, who can produce much of their own energy on site may well have a competitive edge in the decades ahead.

Where's expatgirl with her horses?