While 2 years old, i stumbled upon this piece doing a little research and I believe it is a very well written, important piece.

A tiny excerpt........

According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2004), proven
oil reserves of the five Caspian littoral states total 216.4 billion barrels,
while total gas reserves are estimated at 2819.2 trillion cubic feet. In terms
of percentages, the five Caspian littoral states have about 18.8 percent of
the world’s total proven oil reserves and 45 percent of the world’s total
proven gas reserves.

Officials and analysts from the U.S. Energy
Information Agency stated in 2004 that the world’s unproven oil reserves
are expected to double in the next two decades, where states located in
the former Soviet space will account for a projected fourfold increase.

As
such, there should be no doubt that total Caspian oil and gas reserves are
set to be adjusted upwards in the coming years, where the major share of
this increase will flow from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan.
Meanwhile, the proportion of the Caspian region’s energy exports as a
share of total world energy supply has increased. In 2001, the five Caspian
littoral states exported a total of about 9.2 trillion barrels of oil and 12.05
trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the international market, but exports
are estimated to increase to 31.5 trillion barrels of oil and 41.5 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas by 2010.

Geopolitically, the CEA region belongs to what Mackinder
designated as the “heartland” and is the center of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s
“black hole” of power, equating to “the Eurasian Balkans” implying a
major risk of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalry.

Yet despite this strategic significance, the U.S.’ geopolitical
assessment of the CEA region in late 1990s has been left basically
unchanged since George W. Bush took office in early 2001, although it
has lately undergone major revisions, especially after September 11. As
argued by Svante E. Cornell:

“With strategic access crucial to the prosecution of the war [on
terror], the republics of Central Asia took center stage in the
most important conflict to confront the United States in
decades. Although less prominently covered in the media, the
states of the South Caucasus were equally vital; situated
between Iran and Russia, they were the only practical corridor
connecting NATO territory with Central Asia and
Afghanistan.”
7
However, the emerging strategic landscape of the region has not only
affected the interests of the U.S., but also the national interests of
neighboring countries, such as Afghanistan, China, Iran, Pakistan,
Turkey and even Ukraine, as well as outsiders like the European Union,
India, and Japan. All of these contest for influence in one way or another,
though some are more successful and have more leverage over the CEA
states than others.

Hmmm, if these figures are accurate, the importance of the Caspian region becomes quite obvious.

If 9/11 had never happened, we would have needed to find some other excuse to flex US military might in the region.

We needed a foothold somewhere near the Caspian and now we have one, well actually two.

While Iraq is on many people's minds, Afghanistan seems to have become the "forgotten" war.

Both are vital to our energy security, which no one in our government seems to be willing to admit.

I would be interested in hearing other opinions on this paper. Let me know what you think.

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/d...r_2006/Guo.pdf

If this war had been about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela or Nigeria and not Iraq. If this had been about oil, we would have stayed in Kuwait in 1992. If this had been about oil, we would have drilled in ANWR, off the coast of Florida or in the Colorado oil fields. Had this been about securing our energy future, we would have lifted the restrictions on the billions of tons of coal in Utah.

If we needed the oil in the Caspian see why didn't we go from Afghanistan into Turkmenistan? It seems pretty stupid to me to invade a country that was so far away from the ultimate goal. This especially so when we had good relations with Turkey and Georgia.

RJ

__________________

Geopolitical motivations are always left unspoken in favor of fluffy rhetoric about saving people, freedom, democracy, etc, ad nauseum...

The caspian is tremendously important and it is in Russia's traditional sphere of influence. There is going to be plenty of tension in this region in the years to come. Iran also views this region as a place they would like to play in, as does China.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Did you read the piece I posted?

I doubt it.

Let's look at a little timeline shall we?

1994 — Exxon forms the Exxon Natural Gas Indonesia Corporation in 1994, under the corrupt Suharto regime. In November, they sign a $35 billion gas exploration deal with Indonesia, for exploration of the Natuna gas field in the Spratly Islands.

Objections are immediately raised by China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam, all of whom are equidistant from the Spratlys and lay claim to the mineral rights.

1994 — Exxon, Chevron, BP, Unocal, Lukoil and others are signing deals and exploring for oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin.

1995 — A number of Caspian exploration and pipeline consortiums are formed between Exxon, Chevron, BP, Unocal, Lukoil, Delta Oil, and other oil and gas players.

1995 — Unocal signs a deal with Turkmenistan for gas exploitation, but has no way to get the product to market.

1995 — Unocal begins negotiations with Uzbekistan for oil and gas rights. US military aid to the Uzbeks begins two months after Unocal signs a deal with Turkmenistan and began negotiations with the Uzbeks.

1995 — Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-American employee of Unocal, begins negotiations with the Taliban on the company's behalf in order to secure a pipeline deal through Afghanistan to Pakistan. On the Afghan side, Hamid Karzai, an ethnic Pashtun, is working for Unocal as an advisor, and also wooing the Taliban on behalf of Unocal.

Afghan Roots Keep Adviser Firmly in the Inner Circle (washingtonpost.com)

1996 — Negotiations with the Taliban are going badly. The Taliban want a better deal than the US conglomerates are willing to give, and they refuse to take a pittance in tax revenues to make billions for Unocal and the Centgas consortium.

June 1996 — After the Khobar bombing in Saudi Arabia, which is blamed on Al-Qaeda, the Clinton Administration sets up a sanctions regime against the Sudan, where US oil companies have been stymied.

1996 — The Sudanese government offers to share information on Bin Laden's whereabouts and operations in the Sudan with the Clinton Administration. Clinton refuses to accept the information from the Sudanese government, so Bin Laden remains at large.

Summer 1996 — Former CIA/ISI asset Osama Bin Laden leaves the Sudan after sanctions are in place, and runs to Afghanistan, where pipeline negotiations with US companies have stalled.

1997 — The Taliban sit down to dinner with Unocal in Houston, and take a tour of NASA's space center while they're at it. They're being wooed heavily by US Oil and Gas interests, fronted by Khalilzad and Karzai, but refuse to sign a deal with Unocal.

http://www.tehelka.com/channels/curr...a100301us1.htm

1997 — In late 1997, Unocal gives up on pipeline negotiations. Khalilzad leaves Unocal, and joins the Rand Corporation, a Skull and Bones connected think tank with great influence in Washington. Khalilzad does an about face and turns on the Taliban, now claiming they're a blight on humanity that have to be forcibly removed from power.

1998 — February 12, John Maresca (vice chairman of Unocal) makes a speech to congress, which has become the outline for the current war and oil and gas pipelines.

http://www.house.gov/international_r...wsap212982.htm [link expired]

"... A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.

Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.

The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.

This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project — which is similar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline — is about US$2.5 billion.

There is considerable international and regional political interest in this pipeline. Asian crude oil importers, particularly from Japan, are looking to Central Asia and the Caspian as a new strategic source of supply to satisfy their desire for resource diversity. The pipeline benefits Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expanding and highly prospective hard currency markets. The pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development. Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings for all of them. We know that the different factions in Afghanistan understand the importance of the pipeline project for their country, and have expressed their support of it.

A recent study for the World Bank states that the proposed pipeline from Central Asia across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea would provide more favorable netbacks to oil producers through access to higher value markets than those currently being accessed through the traditional Baltic and Black Sea export routes.

This is evidenced by the netback values producers will receive as determined by the World Bank study. For West Siberian crude, the netback value will increase by nearly $2.00 per barrel by going south to Asia. For a producer in western Kazakhstan, the netback value will increase by more than $1 per barrel by going south to Asia as compared to west to the Mediterranean via the Black Sea."

The announced placement and construction of ten new military bases in and around Afghanistan in December 2002 coincides with the planned route for the newly announced Turkmen-Afghan-Pakistan pipeline deal, which is the route Unocal proposed in 1998.

Remember 9/11 — Part One

The US invasion of Afghanistan began on Oct 7 2001.

Now, let's look at another timeline.

This one concerns joint military excercises between the Uk and the Oman.

A September 3rd BBC article.........

The aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious has sailed from Portsmouth to lead the biggest Royal Navy and Royal Marine deployment since the Falklands.

HMS Illustrious is the flagship of three groups of warships travelling to the Middle East to take part in exercise "Saif Sareea 2".

More than 24 surface ships from Britain, plus two nuclear submarines, will be completing the 13,000 mile round trip.

The operation, costing nearly £100m, will end with a major excercise before Christmas that will also involve the Army, Royal Air Force and Armed Forces of Oman.

From WIKI......

Exercise Saif Sareea II was a major military exercise in September and October 2001 involving the military of the United Kingdom and Oman. It was the largest single deployment of UK forces since the Gulf War. Over 22,500 personnel, 6,500 vehicles, 21 naval vessels, 49 fixed wing aircraft and 44 helicopters were deployed.

The presence of such a large military force in the Middle East gave United Kingdom and United States commanders important assets for conducting the war against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, the UK contribution to which was known as Operation Veritas.

How convenient.

Of course US troops were also in Theater and more were on the way..........

Pre-Planning For September 11th
Like all of the major wars of the last century, this one too has had a hidden but very real and undeniable phase of preparation. International Law Professor Francis A. Boyle, of the University of Illinois wrote on October 12, "Obviously, the war against Afghanistan was planned for quite some time. We know for a fact that it had been war-gamed by the Pentagon going back to 1997. Right around September 11, two US Aircraft carrier task forces conveniently arrived in the Persian Gulf right at the same time on "rotation." Obviously, preplanned. Just before September 11, the UK had put together what was billed as the "largest armada since the Falklands War" and had it steaming towards Oman, where now 23,000 UK troops are on maneuvers. This had been planned for at least 3 years. Also, the US "Bright Star" operation is currently going on in Egypt. 23,000 US troops plus an additional 17,000 from NATO and its associates. This had been planned at least two years ago. Finally, NATO just landed 12,000 troops into Turkey. This had been planned for at least two years. It is obvious that we are seeing an operational War Plan being executed here that had been in the works for at least the past four years. September 11 is either a pretext or a trigger or both."
In light of the known available intelligence information that we have previously presented in these pages, and the hard data on insider trading that we present in this issue, there can be no doubt that the Bush Administration awaited the attacks as a pretext for the massive military operations that we see occurring now. In the words of retired Army Special Forces Master Sergeant Stan Goff - who taught military science at West Point - "I can't help but conclude that the actions we are seeing put into motion now are part of a pre-September 11th agenda. I'm absolutely sure of that, in fact. The planning alone for operations, of this scale, that are now taking shape, would take many months. And we are seeing them take shape in mere weeks."

9/11 war games before and during the attacks



In September, 2000, the neoconservative think tank project for a New American Century (PNAC) published their imperialistic views for the US. In the document, they warned that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" would likely be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

A few months later, many PNAC members would become members of the Bush administration. Those members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Richard Perle.

So, just ONE YEAR BEFORE 9/11 PNAC basically asks for another Pearl Harbor.

You can spin it anyway you want, but this is basically what happened.

They are asking for a Pearl Harbor like event.

Investigative Reporting: 9-11 To Big Oil - Which Facts Behind Afghanistan Invasion And 9-11 Attacks? - Robin Good's Latest News

Allright, one last timeline.........

1996-1999: The CIA officer in charge of operations against Al Qaeda from Washington writes, “I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden.” [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04]

Late 1998-Early 2000: On at least three occasions, spies in Afghanistan report bin Laden's location. Each time, the president approves an attack. Each time, the CIA Director says the information is not reliable enough and the attack cannot go forward. [New York Times, 12/30/01, more]

Sept 1999: A US intelligence report states bin Laden and Al-Qaeda terrorists could crash an aircraft into the Pentagon. The Bush administration claims not to have heard of this report until May 2002, though it was widely shared within the government. [CNN, 5/18/02, AP, 5/18/02, Guardian, 5/19/02]

Jan 2000: George Bush Sr. meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He also met with them in 1998. Bush’s chief of staff could not remember that this meeting took place until shown a thank you note confirming the meeting. [Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01, Guardian, 10/31/01]

Summer 2000: A secret military operation named Able Danger identifies four future 9/11 hijackers, including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, as a potential threat and members of Al Qaeda. Yet none of this is mentioned later in the 9/11 Commissions' final report. When questioned, the 9/11 commission's chief spokesman initially says that staff members briefed about Able Danger did not remember hearing anything about Atta. Days later, however, after provided detailed information, he says the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members had indeed mentioned Atta. [New York Times, 8/11/05, more]

ONLY A PARTIAL LIST FROM THE SITE. THE ENTIRE TIMELINE IS WORTH READING........

9/11 Timeline

So, how long did it take, after the US invaded Afghanistan, for a pipeline deal to get signed?

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Wow, less than 3 MONTHS AFTER WE INVADED AFGHANISTAN.

I don't expect you to read my entire post, after all, closed minded people HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH.

Jeesh.

So, what do you think about my response to Richard J?

Did I leave anything out?

I totally agree that the event of 9/11 was a 'godsend' to those in washington who were advocates for pax americana and american global military superiority. I would even suggest that it is conceivable that they purposely ignored the threat in hopes that it would actually happen.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

I agree.

I do not believe there is enough evidence to prove that members of the US government intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen, but there is zero doubt that at least a few members of the US government were HAPPY when 9/11 happened.

It took decades for the McCOLLUM memo to be declassified regarding Pearl Harbor and it took decades for the US government to admit that the Gulf of Tonkin event was a lie.

I suppose a few decades form now the truth will start trickling out about 9/11, after all the main players are dead. I doubt I will live long enough to see the release of documents which will likely lead to a revision of history regarding 9/11, much like has been done regarding the Gulf of Tonkin event.

What really blows my mind is how so many people aren't capable of seeing how the Middle East is VITAL TO US NATIONAL SECURITY.

When a person says we would have invaded Nigeria, or Venezuela, they obviously know NOTHING about world oil and gas reserves.

N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Of course all of this information is dependent on the "official" estimates of WORLD OIL/GAS reserves by the USGS and other organizations. Since I have little choice but to accept their estimates, for now I must consider them as at least close to accurate.

If anyone has evidence that the USGS estimates are not accurate, please share that info here.

Actually, I did read it. It and others like it. Plus, I've listened to many conspiracy theorists, such as yourself, try and tie global events into criminal conspiracy perpetrated by the Bush Administration. Maybe you've read, "L'effroyable Imposture"? Mon. Meyssan became a huge hit (and quite wealthy) by lecturing on his conspiracy theory.



I'm sorry I don't meet your high standards.


Actually, I don't believe you really want to know what I think. My guess is you want to people to agree with you. Sorry to disappoint you.

RJ

__________________

I was interested in opinions on the paper, but you gave none.

All you did is make moronic statements about what the US would have done if the war was about oil.

You made moronic statements about Nigeria and Venezuela thus proving your ignorance.

Ever see this quote?

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Obviously you are not familiar with that quote.

The corruption in Nigeria is infamous, so the US will have no problem with that country and oil imports as we are masters of corruption. What has happened to the Nigerian people is a crime against humanity, a crime in which US oil companies are largely responsible. Of course, I doubt you have bothered to look at any of that information. No, who cares about the people of Nigeria? Certainly not most Americans, nor especially US oil companies.



Now, if you look at the chart, you will see where most of the world's oil reserves are located. While many of the reserve numbers are questionable, there is ZERO doubt that the Middle East has more "proven" oil and gas reserves than the rest of the world combined. While undiscovered reserves could change this picture, for now it is ESSENTIAL for the US to make sure no country, besides our own, controls these vast reserves.

WIKI actually has a decent page on reserves for the novice. You might find it useful.

Oil reserves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Currently, the US consumes 25% of the world's oil production. With the expected increase in demand and the difficulty with production keeping up with that demand, it is obvious to THINKING people that there is going to be a massive effort to control the largest reserves in the Middle East.

Former National Security Adviser to President Carter, Brzezinski said..........

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

Brzezinski - Grand Chessboard quotes

DO SOME READING.

IT DOESN'T HURT............

HONEST.

Actually, instead of trying to insult me, you should try to reinforce your point. You referenced a basic paper that points out the importance of controling the Eurasian oil supply. And then you implied that America used 911 as an excuse to "flex" our military muscle in the area. Specifically:

Even though your reference is about China and the region, you use it to support a theory that we invaded in order to get military control of the area and confiscate oil. My comments were particularly cogent to your points. Had America only been interested in securing a source of oil, it would have acted very differently.

In fact your reference makes my point very well. The country that controls the logistics of oil delivery controls the oil fields.

In a sense, to control oil and gas pipeline is more important than to possess oil and gas resources.

And this is exactly what America has been doing for the last 20 years, including the Clinton Administration:


So, you see, using the military to get at the oil supplies was never considered the right approach. But building the pipelines through Turkey, Georgia, and Azherbajan were. You'll have to come up with another conspiracy to support your theory about our abuse of military power in the region.

RJ

__________________

So, who is going to protect that pipeline?

But let's go back to my original post....

Who wrote the paper I posted and what was the purpose of the paper?

Yes, it pointed out the importance of controlling the Eurasian oil supply, but for whom?

If to extrapolate increasing of world population, one can get that to 2100 year it tends to infinity. So, in spite of humanistic chat, mankind arrives to wars for resources. It's very sadly.

WELCOME TO THE FORUM.

I am guessing English isn't your first language. That's o.k. though, as there are many people from many countries here and it is nice to get different views from all over the world. There are some good people here, I hope you will make the time to get to know some of them.

I am not sure what you meant by infinity. Surely the population will be nowhere near infinity in 2100.

You might find this paper interesting........

The Oil Drum: Canada | World Energy and Population: Trends to 2100

Infinity is in an asymptotic sense. It's known that for last 5000 years world population change is obeyed to hyperbolic low with very good preciseness. And, using known demographic data, one can get that asymptote of the hyperbole match to 2001. As a theoretical confirmation of the hyperbolic low one can consider differential equation for two component chemical reactions.
In this case it use assumption about non-restriction of the initial components.

What are you talking about?

All of the estimates I have seen vary a lot, but they fluctuate between a decline in population to a high of around 16 billion people. This is a lot of zeros away from infinity. Do you not believe there is a possibility that world population could decline by 2100? I believe it is unlikely, barring some catastrophic event, but population GROWTH is declining already. If the decline continues, we will likely have a world population between 8 and 10 billion by 2100.






The population bomb (…fizzled out in 1989) « lightbucket