Somalia: a clear case of ‘blood oil’ in Africa

[Jacaylbaro]

(FinalCall.com) - As the world took note of blood diamonds through the recent motion picture of the same title, there’s another story that blood diamonds makes all, who see the destruction of life and property look at, and that is, the killing and destruction of governments, the loss of life of civilians as well as military personnel, is the struggle over oil. In most of the articles written recently about the tragedy of Somalia, there has been very little or no mention of oil.

 

 

 

Graphic: Harold Muhammad/MGN Online

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bush administration feeds the American public with stories that some al-Qaeda operatives are in Somalia and they have the right to go in and kill them. And this, after they have killed innocent men, women and children, adds only another straw to the hatred that America has built up for itself, throughout the African and Muslim world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The United States government encouraged, aided and supplied the government of Ethiopia, in its move to rid Somalia of the Islamic court, who had taken control of the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu. The world was made to believe that there was a humanitarian concern, as well as a threat of the terrorist base, in Somalia, but according to a recent report on www.raceandhistory.com or the Center for Research on Globalization, oil is at the root of the tragedy unfolding in Somalia at this moment.

 

Ethiopia, a nation of over 7 million people was the subject recently in the New York Times, of the tremendous number of malnourished children in this nation. With the money that America is spending in order to capture the horn of Africa, through using Ethiopia as a surrogate army, these funds could have been used to feed the malnourished Ethiopian children.

 

America could have encouraged the African Union, which headquarters in Ethiopia, to seek a solution to this problem at a table of negotiation. The Bush administration feeds the American public with stories that some al-Qaeda operatives are in Somalia and they have the right to go in and kill them. And this, after they have killed innocent men, women and children, adds another straw to the hatred that America has built up for itself, throughout the African and Muslim world.

 

Conoco Somalia Ltd. has been exploring for oil since 1952 in Somalia, along with other major oil companies. They have concluded through their geologists, that oil absolutely exists in Somalia but the big question is, how much? They know that it is into the millions of barrels and this is why Amoco, Chevron and Phillips have all gotten into the oil planning business for Somalia.

 

During the time of the pro-U.S., President Mohamed Siad Barre, who was overthrown in 1991, all of these oil companies made a deal to explore for oil in Somalia.

 

The case of Somalia is not unlike many other adventures that America has engaged in, using the talk of concern about the destruction of human life, with a humanitarian agenda as a front, but the real goal was to capture or control the oil fields through governments that America outright controlled, or exercises inordinate influence within those governments.

 

As if the Bush administration is not in enough trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan, now they have moved their war to the African continent, encouraging brother to fight brother at their bidding. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former National Security Advisor to former President Jimmy Carter, warned him against committing American fighting forces to engage in conflict on the African continent.

 

This advice was not followed by President Clinton, when he committed American soldiers to Somalia in 1994 and was forced to withdraw them after 18 American soldiers were killed in the infamous “Blackhawk Down.” When the American public saw American soldiers being drug through the streets of the capital of Somalia, Mogadishu, the pressure was on the White House and the troops were withdrawn from Somalia. We would hope that President Bush has studied this lesson in history.

[mwafrica]

Just to concur:

 

Oil, Not Terrorists, the Reason for US Attack On Somalia

http://allafrica.com/stories/200701220368.html

 

The Nation (Nairobi)

 

OPINION

January 22, 2007

Posted to the web January 22, 2007

Wanjohi Kabukuru

Nairobi

 

JUST WHY DID THE US ATTACK Somalia two weeks ago? Of course, the answer given for the US military intervention and the generally accepted notion is the hunt for terrorists. But is it?

 

Are terrorists the only bone of contention the US has with Somalia? When the US military devised "Operation Restore Hope" in 1993 which was short-lived after they were whipsawed by rag-tag militia in and around Mogadishu, were they fighting the 'war on terror'?

 

They couldn't have been because this war was to start much later. If anything it is a post-Sept 11 phenomenon. So then why did the US bomb ICU extremists in the name of Al Qaeda terrorists and not throughout last year when they occupied Mogadishu?

 

Just why is Somalia so important to the US, and by extension the big boys of Europe and some Gulf states?

 

A UN Somalia Monitoring Group report released in November 2005 reveals that a dozen countries, namely Yemen, Djibouti, Libya, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Syria, Eritrea, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Uganda were all poking their noses into the Somalia pie.

 

What the UN Somalia Monitoring Group didn't reveal, however, is that these were not the only countries which were interested in the country.

 

The little known yet well-heeled contact group, consisting of Norway, the US, UK, France and Tanzania (just an appendage) are also deeply enmeshed in Somalia.

 

While the terrorism theory holds some water, the reality of the factors contributing to the mess in Somalia is pegged on natural resources. Oil and gas are Somalia's Achilles heel. It is an open secret that four US oil giants are sitting pretty on money-spinning concessions expecting to reap huge windfalls from massive resources of both oil and gas in Somalia.

 

The story of Somalia and oil goes back to the colonial period. British and Italian geologists first identified oil deposits during that period of imperialism.

 

The first oil wells historically referred to as the Daga Shabell series were dug in the 1960s. Tiny gas discoveries adjacent to Socotra were also noted.

 

The race for these precious natural resources took a new turn in 1988, when the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank, with the support of the governments of Britain, France and Canada and backed by several Western oil companies financed a regional hydrocarbon study of the countries bordering the Red Sea and the Gulf of Eden.

 

The countries were Somalia, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was later dropped, but not before it had been established that within the study area, massive deposits of oil and gas existed.

 

The results of the findings were presented to a three-day American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Eastern Hemisphere group conference, in London in September, 1991.

 

Is there oil in Somalia? Listen to the answer:

 

"It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said geologist Thomas E. O'Connor, the World Bank's principal petroleum engineer, who steered the in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in Somalia's Gulf of Eden in the northern coastal region.

 

The study was intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations. The conclusions of their findings are quite telling as the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.

 

While presenting their results during the conference, two geologists involved in the study (an American and an Egyptian) reported that the investigation of nine exploratory wells dug in Somalia pointed out that the region was "situated within the oil window, and thus (is) highly prospective for gas and oil."

 

Geologist, Z. R. Beydoun, who was involved in the survey, noted that "the geological parameters conducive to the generation, expulsion and trapping of significant amounts of oil and gas" were within the offshore sites. Soon after a race for lucrative deals kicked off in earnest.

 

Four US oil companies, namely Conoco, Chevron, Amoco and Philips have concessions in nearly two thirds of Somalia. This quartet of oil conglomerates was granted these contracts in the final days of Somalia's deposed dictator, Siad Barre. The US first military engagement in Somalia was fully supported by Conoco.

 

Mr Kabukuru is a Nairobi-based freelance journalist

[N.O.R.F]

Afarta shirkado oh mareekankaa, labo ayeenu contractyo la leenahey in Thailand iyo Indonesia. I will keep my eyes and ears open for Somalia,,,,,,,,,,

[mwafrica]

Africa set to strip Western giants of mining rights

 

Nick Mathiason

The Observer; Sunday, January 28, 2007

Business & Media

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2000151,00.html

 

African governments are gearing up to seize back valuable mining concessions from the global extractive giants.

 

Angry that at missing out on the unprecedented commodity boom, Tanzania is preparing to renegotiate gold mining concessions. The news will send a shiver down the collective spine of some of the world's biggest mining companies, whose profits and share prices have surged in the past five years.

 

The warning comes from Dr Yash Tandon, executive director of the South Centre, the inter-governmental body representing 49 developing countries.

 

Asked if African governments would follow the lead of Russia's President Vladimir Putin and appropriate valuable commodity assets, Tandon said: 'It's a matter of time...within the next five years or even earlier.'

 

'To some extent, African countries have been a victim of the myth that, if they don't open up their markets to investment, it won't come. They have been competing to give concessions to mining firms and banks. I don't believe the Tanzanians get more than 5 per cent of gold. The rest is externalised.'

 

In an interview with The Observer at the World Social Forum in Nairobi, Tandon criticised the Make Poverty History campaign as little more than a 'PR exercise', saying: 'Gleneagles [the G8 summit] wrote off $40bn. At the time, debt was about $400bn for poor countries. You still have $350bn debt. Just the interest rate alone by now has brought that back to $400bn - so on debt relief it hasn't made much difference, because the underlying structure that creates debt is not settled, resolved or even addressed.

 

'If this becomes the last step, they will have indulged themselves in some kind of public relations exercise which gives the impression they've done their job.'

 

He is advocating a debt audit to determine whether poor countries' debt relief had a 'meaningful impact', or whether money has been recycled. He suspects that lucrative infrastructure contracts have been linked to debt relief.

 

Despite Tony Blair's optimism, Tandon believes WTO trade talks are 'more or less doomed'. He says EU pressure to seal an economic partnership agreement with African, Caribbean and Pacific nations by the year's end is 'unrealistic and unfair' because the original intention was to wait until two years after the conclusion of a WTO trade deal.

 

---

 

Putin signals end to foreign ownership of Russian energy

Subcontracting OK; Gazprom to take project from Shell

 

By Carl Mortished

The Times, London

 

Foreign energy companies will be welcome in future as subcontractors, but not as owners in Russia’s energy industry, the Kremlin signaled yesterday as Gazprom moved closer toward wresting control of Sakhalin-2, the giant Siberian gas project, from Royal Dutch Shell.

 

The Russian gas giant confirmed that Shell had made a new proposal in negotiations over Gazprom’s participation in Sakhalin Energy, the company building a $20-billion liquefied natural gas scheme in Eastern Siberia.

 

The project has been beset by claims and threats of prosecution from Rosprirodnadzor, the Russian environmental control agency, a campaign that is seen by Moscow energy analysts as calculated to weaken Shell’s negotiating position.

 

Sources within Moscow suggest that Gazprom will acquire 50 per cent plus one share of the Sakhalin Energy company, reducing Shell’s stake to 25 per cent from 55 per cent. Mitsui and Mitsubishi, the current minority investors, would see their stakes reduced further.

 

Mounting pressure on Shell to cede control of Sakhalin Energy to Gazprom has coincided with nationalist sentiment. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for President Vladmir, said yesterday the environment had changed and Russian firms no longer needed foreign help.

 

“Our companies have the opportunity to be owners by themselves, to attract finance and certain technologies. This changes the conditions for foreign investors. They won’t be so much owners, they will have opportunities as contractors and subcontractors,” Mr. Peskov said.

 

“We understand that it is better to have a direct share, but you have to understand these are Russian resources. No country in the world would want to give up its natural resources to foreigners.”

 

Existing agreements would be respected, he said, but he suggested that the contracts granting major concessions to companies, such as Shell, were a legacy of a past era.

 

“In the 1990’s, our country was in a poor economic state, we couldn’t develop energy by ourselves. We had to attract investors with extremely favourable conditions. Now the situation has changed drastically,” Mr. Peskov said.

 

Shell confirmed yesterday that its chief executive, Jereon van der Veer, had a meeting last week with Alexei Miller, Gazprom’s chief executive, at which “Sakhalin-related issues were discussed.” The meeting, which was attended by Viktor Khristenko, Russia’s energy minister, was described by a Shell spokesman as “positive”.

 

In Moscow, Gazprom said Shell’s proposals were being analysed. “A decision will be taken in view of the existing problems at the Sakhalin-2 project, including ecological,” the Gazprom spokesman said.

 

Shell’s relationship with the Kremlin has been chilly since it signed a draft asset swap agreement with Gazprom last year, under which the Russian utility was to acquire a quarter of Sakhalin Energy in exchange for half of Zapolyarnoye, a large Western Siberian gasfield. A week after the agreement, Shell disclosed that Sakhalin’s costs had doubled to $20 billion.

 

---

 

And the following excerpt:

 

“Too much capitalism has raised fears in China that its economy is sliding into the grip of powerful multinationals as lawmakers question the sales of state assets to foreigners…There is an economic nationalism emerging in China now and many experts…hold the same opinion…Strategic industries and leading companies in these industries, such as nuclear, aerospace and power industries and others must be restricted in the ratio of foreign capital and foreign ownership. Officials blame foreign corporations for unfair competition practices and for establishing dominant positions through mergers, brand management and abundant capital, saying more must be done to protect indigenous players. Foreign investment has helped China economy grow, but after establishing a secure foothold, it has now created many serious problems and risks…Foreign takeover bids for Chinese companies are also endangering Chinese national industries, robbing China of its capacity to maintain and grow its own technical research and management capabilities and potentially making it a permanent developing country” [Economic nationalization rises in China five years after WTO entry: Officials say more must be done to protect indigenous players – The Ottawa Citizen, 12th December 2006].

[KEYNAN22]

Wow! interesting articles, thanx.

[mwafrica]

You are more than welcome KEYNAN22.

 

---

 

It is evident that there is something terribly amiss with the way business is being done in the world today, whereby a handful of people are literally "running the show"...

 

 

The RICH really do own the WORLD

 

The Globe and Mail (Canada), 5th December 2006

 

For those who aren’t wealthy, it seems blindingly obvious that the rich own the world. Now, in a first ever study of global wealth, it’s clear just how unequitably the riches are spread around.

 

The richest 2 per cent of adults own more than half of global household wealth, and almost all of the well-heeled live in North America, Europe and the richest Asia-Pacific countries.

 

While previous global surveys have studied income, this is the first wide-ranging analysis of the international distribution of wealth, defined as the value of physical and financial assets minus liabilities.

 

“We find there’s a lot of unequality, which is what we expected and is not that surprising,” said University of Western Ontario economist James Davies, who was a coauthor of the study, conducted by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations. “But it turns out, the world distribution of wealth [assets minus debts] is more unequal than the world distribution of income.”

 

The United States is the richest country, with a mean wealth in the year 2000 of $144,000 (U.S.) per person. Canada has a mean wealth of $89,000 per person.

 

“Wealth in this sense represents the ownership of capital,” the study says. “While only one part of personal resources, capital is widely believed to have a disproportionate impact on household well-being and economic success, and more broadly on economic development and growth.”

 

The study estimates that the richest 1 per cent of adults alone owned 40 per cent of global assets in 2000, and that the richest 10 per cent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of the world total.

 

By contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1 per cent of global wealth.

 

The research finds that assets of $2,200 per adult places a household in the top half of the world wealth distribution.

 

To be among the richest 10 per cent of adults in the world required $61,000 in assets, and more than $500,000 was needed to belong to the richest 1 per cent. The latter figure, according to the study, is surprisingly high since it represents 37 million adults and is “therefore far from an exclusive club.”

 

Not surprisingly given its massive economic surge and the size of its population, China is a rising star and accounts for 8.8 per cent of world household wealth. At the same time, the distribution of wealth within China is getting more unequal.

 

“The growth of the Chinese economy, greater prosperity of people there, has got an equalizing impact on the world distribution of wealth, but there is increasing inequality within China,” Prof. Davies says

 

According to the study authors, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than its data reveal for the year 2000, and membership of its super-rich seems set to rise quickly in the next decade.

 

“Back in the year 2000, there were one or two billionaires in mainland China,” said Prof. Davies, citing a Forbes list of wealthiest people. “But the numbers have gone up to five or six by now, so it’s a period of rapid change.”

 

A small number of countries account for most of the wealthiest 10 per cent in the world. One-quarter are Americans and another 20 per cent are Japanese, who tend to have a very strong preference for liquid savings, according to the research.

 

The two countries feature even more strongly among the richest 1 per cent of individuals in the world, with 37 per cent living in the United States and 27 per cent in Japan.

 

Prof. Davies said he was particularly struck by one result of the study, which undermines the notion that poor people in low-income countries are mired in debt.

 

“It’s true that there are people heavily indebted in poor countries. But for a couple of reasons there is not that much use of debt and borrowing there as in high-income countries.

 

“The other aspect is that a lot of people in poor countries are leading very precarious lives. One way to react to that is to try to build up your assets as a buffer against things that can go wrong,” he said, giving as an example the hoarding of small quantities of gold.

 

Prof. Davies said the results of the research will provide a baseline for future studies on where the world is going.

 

“The trend over the last 20 to 25 years has likely been more concentration of wealth, simply because that’s been observed for income…Where we’re going in the future depends on a lot of things, for example on what happens to major economies like China and the evolution of wealth in those countries.”

 

---

 

Meanwhile;

 

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2005/1027disposs.htm

[Jacaylbaro]

This is another very useful Information concerning the issue:

 

 

The 'Demonization' Of Muslims And The Battle For Oil