Thursday, December 16, 2010

Astana builds energy depth


Astana builds energy depth....
By Robert M Cutler

MONTREAL - Three recent developments testify to the latent dynamism of the energy sector in Kazakhstan. These concern an extension of industrial cooperation with Ukraine and with India, and new plans for increasing the capacity of the pipeline of the Caspian Pipeline Corporation.

Kazakhstan is negotiating with Ukraine on terms for construction of an oil refinery, which would enable Kazakhstan to export not only crude oil but also refined products, which are often much more highly profitable. This comes soon after Kazakhstan has expressed definite interest in sending oil from the offshore Kashagan deposit across (or eventually under) the Caspian sea to Azerbaijan and Georgia, then under the Black Sea to Ukraine.

That route would provide the oil to help Ukraine reverse the flow of the Odessa-Brody Pipeline (OBP) back to the originally intended southeast-to-northwest direction, with further construction to extend the pipeline to Plock, Poland, ending finally in Gdansk, which would give access to world markets through sea transport.

There two countries are also discussing the possibility of Kazakhstan's natural gas transiting Ukraine for European consumption, although this would be dependent upon Russian gas monopoly Gazprom's agreement to convey the gas across Russia.

This is not Kazakhstan's only export option, for the associated gas underlying Kashagan's salt dome could also be piped under the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan or be taken overland to Aqtau for shipment as either compressed or liquefied natural gas. The Kazakhstan-Caspian Transportation System (KCTS) upon which the latter alternative depends seems, however, to have gone dormant, since French firms had been exploring participation in its construction but it did not figure in the industrial agreements reached between Presidents Nursultan Nazarbaev and Nicolas Sarkozy when the former visited France earlier this year. (See
Kazakhstan deepens relations with Europe, Asia Times Online, October 29, 2010).

Kazakhstan is looking to the south as well as to the west for partners in energy-industrial cooperation. Reports in the Indian press suggest that Delhi and Astana will sign a commercial accord in two to three months that will make it possible for India's state-run ONGC (actually its foreign arm, OVL) to acquire a 25% stake in Kazakhstan's offshore Satpaev exploration bloc, which is not far from Kashagan and other significant oil deposits. This deal has been in the works for over three years, delayed by administrative complications arising from various industrial reorganizations and the resulting need for legal and economic clarifications.

Originally, in 2007, there was some talk about Kazakhstan joining the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline, for which the first quadripartite intergovernmental agreement was signed just this month. However, that was before the Gaffney Cline audit of Turkmenistan's natural gas reserves was conducted, revealing the extent of the country's potential riches.

Nevertheless, India's geo-economic penetration into Central Asia is finally beginning: the Indian press reports that Turkmenistan's President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow has offered India a lead role in the pipeline construction consortium. (Cabinet approval in New Delhi will be required for India to accept the offer.) It is not clear that gas exports from Kazakhstan to India would be justifiable on a commercial basis. At any rate, they would likely come only at a subsequent stage of the TAPI, if at all.

The third development mentioned above is potentially the major one of the three. On November 25, all shareholders in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), which operates the pipeline from the Tengiz deposit in northwest Kazakhstan across southern Russia to the Black Sea port of Novorossissk, approved measures to enlarge the CPC. This enlargement was part of the original agreement to build the CPC, but plans have been stymied for some years, although not by Astana. The main roadblock here is thought to be Transneft, the state firm managing the country's oil pipelines.

If the enlargement does indeed go ahead, then the extra oil (and throughput would be nearly doubled) would require somewhere to route by which it could reach world markets. This would not be through the Turkish Straits, which are already overloaded with commercial traffic including energy, and where ecological security is a real issue on the ground. (Also the Montreux Convention governing passage through the Straits places restrictions on tanker traffic, and there is no reason to suppose that the Turkish government will not continue to invoke it.)

However, that oil also cannot find its way to world markets via the once-planned Burgas-Alexandropoulos pipeline that was intended to link the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Sea through Bulgaria and Greece. Not long ago, Russia admitted that this was a non-starter, and it is no longer even on the drawing boards. An alternative is the Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline project (also called the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline, TAP).

With Burgas-Alexandropoulos sidelined, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin publicly raised last year the possibility that Kazakhstan may supply oil for the Samsun-Ceyhan pipeline. The head of the Italian energy firm Eni, one of the principals in the project (the other is the Turkish group Calik), once suggested that oil from the offshore Kashagan and the onshore Karachaganak deposits in Kazakhstan could be used for this purpose....


Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Pipeline project a new Silk Road

.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=125660&contextid734=125660&contextid735=125659&tabid=125659

Pipeline project a new Silk Road....

By M K Bhadrakumar

An American diplomatic cable that puts Washington to shame originated from the United States Embassy in Ashgabat last December, portraying Turkmen President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov as "vain, suspicious, guarded, strict, very conservative, a practiced liar", a good actor who can be vindictive but isn't a "very bright guy" and is wary of his intellectual superiors.

The CIA/WikiLeaks revelation is not likely to please Berdymukhamedov. Yet the irony is that it is this allegedly insecure, mediocre, mercurial politician with a racy private life who is set to make the critical difference between the success and failure of the US strategy in Afghanistan.

The significance of the signing of the inter-governmental agreement over the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas-pipeline project on Saturday in Ashgabat cannot be underestimated. It is a unique Silk Road project that holds the key to resolving many complicated issues in the region.

The project is ostensibly about the transportation of the huge Caspian energy reserves to the world market, but it is also about the stabilization of Afghanistan, fostering of Pakistan-India amity, bonding of Central Asia and South Asia and the overall consolidation of US political, military and economic influence in the strategic high plateau that overlooks Russia, Iran and China.

Ashgabat tips its hand
TAPI is tiptoeing to center stage in the geopolitics of the region primarily due to the pressing need for Ashgabat to find new markets for its gas exports. With the global financial downturn and the fall in Europe's demand for gas, prices crashed. Russia cannot afford to pay top dollar (“European prices”) for the Turkmen gas, nor does it want the 40 bcm (billion cubic meters) of Turkmen gas it previously contracted to purchase.

Ashgabat faces an acute dilemma. Turkmenistan traditionally produces around 70 bcm of gas annually. The volume dropped to 40 bcm this year. Roughly 10 bcm goes to Russia and 12 bcm each to Iran and China. The gas revenue has dramatically fallen and the Turkmen political system is under pressure.

Several large gas fields are coming on line in Russia, which will reduce its need for Turkmen gas. The Yamal Peninsula deposit alone is estimated to hold roughly 16 trillion cubic meters of gas. Yamal can easily feed both the North Stream (55 bcm at full capacity) and South Stream (63 bcm at full capacity) pipelines and still have a surplus.

Meanwhile, Turkmenistan is sitting on the world's fourth-largest gas reserves and plans to increase its gas production to 230 bcm per year by 2030. It desperately needs to find markets and build new pipelines independent of the Soviet-era pipeline system that binds it to Russia.

The South Yolotan field, 350 kilometers to the southeast of Ashgabat, is potentially one of the world's largest natural-gas deposits, with reserves anywhere between 4 and 14 trillion cubic meters. Ashgabat awarded Chinese, United Arab Emirates and South Korean companies with contracts worth US$9.7 billion last December to develop the field. Also, Caspian offshore fields contain another estimated 6 trillion cubic meters (and 12 billion tons of oil). Three American majors - Chevron, ConocoPhillips and TXOil - are bidding for two offshore blocks (out of 32 licensed blocks).

Thus, Berdymukhamedov is being driven by a combination of factors to adopt an energy-export diversification policy. In the recent months, he evinced interest in trans-Caspian projects, but it is a problematic idea since Russia and Iran have so far insisted that such projects require the consent of all riparian countries and this requires a settlement over the status of the Caspian Sea. Besides, Turkmenistan has unresolved territorial disputes with Azerbaijan.

In November, a second Turkmen-Iranian pipeline came on stream and there is potential to increase exports up to 20 bcm. But there are limits to expanding energy ties with Iran or to using Iran as a regional gas hub while the US-Iran standoff continues.

All this compelled Berdymukhamedov to robustly push for TAPI. The projected 2,000-kilometer pipeline, at an estimated cost of $7.6 billion, traverses Afghanistan (735 kilometers) and Pakistan (800 kilometers) to reach India. Its initial capacity will be around 30 bcm but that could be increased to meet higher demand. India and Pakistan have shown interest in buying 70 bcm annually. The pipeline will be fed by the Dauletabad field, which used to supply Russia.

Berdymukhamedov did smart thinking in accelerating TAPI. This is an enterprise whose time has come. Russia cannot easily browbeat him. The US has lined up the Asian Development Bank for the project's funding. An international consortium will undertake the construction of the pipeline.

The pipeline can be easily extended to the Pakistani port of Gwadar and connected with European markets. In short, without appearing to be leaning too far toward the West, Ashgabat is loosening Russia's stranglehold on its gas and oil exports and developing leverage in its dealings with Moscow in future.

Russia can't stop it
Moscow has kept its thoughts to itself, but the geopolitics of the TAPI pipeline are rather obvious. The US is succeeding with a major Silk Road project connecting the Central Asian region with the Western market, while bypassing Russian (and Iranian) territory.

The security of the pipeline is going to be a major regional concern. The onus is on each of the transit countries to secure the pipeline. Part of the Afghan stretch will be buried underground as a safeguard against attacks and local communities will be paid to guard it. But then, Kabul will expect the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to provide security cover, which, in turn, leads to the formalization of the long-term Western military presence in Afghanistan.

Without a doubt, the project leads to an overall strengthening of US influence in South Asia. The US put heavy pressure on Pakistan and India to spurn the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) project. Delhi unabashedly buckled under the US pressure. Pakistan showed some degree of defiance and is still keeping its options open.

There have been occasional threatening noises that Pakistan will turn IPI into an IPC (Iran-Pakistan-China) pipeline. However, the US is offering TAPI as an alternative bone for Pakistan to chew so that it won't be left with much zest to press ahead with the IPC pipeline in any tearing hurry. In sum, Moscow should realize that short of playing a spoiler's role, TAPI might go through.

Pakistan has strong reasons to pitch for TAPI. It is in critical need of staving off an energy crisis. The TAPI pipeline can be operational as early as 2013-14. During 2008-2009, Pakistan's demand for natural gas began outstripping its production by a shortfall of 203 mmcfd (million cubic feet per day). Pakistan's share from TAPI is pegged at 1325 mmcfd (the same as India's).

Pakistan also hopes to get a hefty amount from India as transit fee. Then, there are the downstream economic benefits such as industrial expansion, job creation, etc. Most important, Pakistan sees that TAPI heavily involves the US and its comfort level is high whenever Washington becomes a stakeholder in fostering the normalization of its troubled relationship with India.

As Susan Elliot, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State on South and Central Asian Affairs, put it: "The pipeline's route may serve as a stabilizing corridor, linking neighbors together in economic growth and prosperity. The road ahead is long for this project but the benefits could be tremendous and are certainly worthy of the diligence demonstrated by those four countries so far."

The TAPI pipeline is in actuality a Silk Road connecting Central Asia to the West via the Pakistani port of Gwadar. It makes Pakistan the US gateway to Central Asia. Pakistan rightly estimates that alongside this enhanced status in US regional strategy comes a US commitment to help the Pakistani economy develop and to buttress Pakistan's security needs in the long term.

US beckons, India follows....

India's "diligence" in TAPI also rests on multiple factors. Almost all the reservations that Indian government officials mouthed from time to time as reasons for lack of interest in IPI hold good for TAPI - security of the pipeline, uncertainties in India-Pakistan relations, cost of the imported gas, self-sufficiency of India's indigenous gas production, etc. But the Indian leadership is visibly ecstatic about TAPI.

First and foremost, powerful Indian business interests in the petrochemical industry are involved. An interesting feature of the project is that the four governments have agreed to "outsource" execution and management of the $7.6 billion project. That is a lot of pork.

India's energy-pricing policies are opaque and Delhi heavily subsidizes its private industry, which develops indigenous gas production. Now, Delhi will be negotiating its gas price separately with Ashgabat. That is certain to be the mother of all negotiations, involving two partners who are notoriously placed at the very bottom of the world ranking by Transparency International.

Indian Petroleum Minister Murli Deora is already grandstanding. At Saturday's ceremony in Ashgabat, he said: "Without doubt, pricing of gas is one of the most important issues. It needs to be appreciated that Turkmen gas would have to compete with other forms of gas in the markets of the buyer countries, including indigenous gas. Being at the tail-end of the project, India will incur the maximum risk with regard to safety of supply."

In strategic terms, India realizes that TAPI is a US-sponsored regional enterprise and, unsurprisingly, it is eager to participate in it. India would also weigh the advantages of a long-term US involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Any project that makes Pakistan a stakeholder in regional security and stability would interest India. To quote Deora, TAPI is the "new Silk Route between Central Asia and South Asia" and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has described it as a "peace pipeline" in the region.

Again, TAPI signifies a step forward for the Indian quest for access to Afghanistan and Central Asia via Pakistan. India will factor in that TAPI forms part of the US regional policy focusing on the stabilization of Afghanistan, and the realization of the project may incrementally persuade Pakistan to do course correction on its support to militant groups. The project certainly offers India useful avenues of bilateral interaction with Pakistan, which can lead to bigger dialogue processes.

Indeed, the doomsday predictions are that the security situation in Afghanistan does not give any scope for the realization of the pipeline. But this is also a chicken-and-egg situation. TAPI can as well be viewed as the missing link that fosters an India-Pakistan consensus over settlement in Afghanistan. But then, in order to grasp the complicated thought, we must also take note of other subtle shades in the big picture.

India-Pakistan back channels on Kashmir are being quietly revived under US watch, and with Pakistan holding off from stirring up the uprising in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, calm has been restored. The Indian interior minister has been emboldened to speak about a "Kashmir solution" in the coming few months. There is talk in the air about the next round of talks between the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers.

In sum, Berdymukhamedov is leading TAPI into the limelight against the backdrop of new stirrings. Who says he isn't a "very bright guy"? The calendar for the pipeline's completion coincides exactly with the 2014 timeline for the end of the US combat mission in Afghanistan.....

So welcome to Afghanistan, GI, and play your part in big-power chess. Remember: "Neither position serves American interests."

Another factor is the TAPI gas pipeline. On December 13, 2010 the presidents of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, along with India’s petroleum minister, signed an inter-governmental agreement pledging to construct a 1,735-kilometer natural gas pipeline connecting all four states.

The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline would supply 33 billion cubic meters of Turkmen gas a year from the Dauletabad gas fields to Pakistan and India via Afghanistan’s volatile southern provinces, according to the semi-official Turkmenistan.ru website. In doing so, Kabul could reap billions.

The TAPI Turkmenistan-India pipeline, by the way, will parallel the Herat - Kandahar highway which goes through Delaram, where the US Marines have a new base! How thoughtful. All of the area must "be controlled" for the benefit of India while elsewhere in Afghanistan US troops are mixing it up with Pakistan-supported resistance fighters.

That's why we fight, and it has nothing to do with al-CIAda which is but a minor distraction compared to the big-power strategies that involve the US, India and China, and natural gas....

The lure for USA's utterly corrupt moneyed class -- is clear.....

And these "opportunities" would go a long way toward explaining our pro-India tilt in the area. Really worth the lives of those naive Americans willing to unknowingly take a bullet for the Wall Street/military/industrial vampires.

The US no doubt is also wary of Pakistan providing an outlet and supply point for the growing Chinese navy in the Indian Ocean, and worrying them with an Indian pincers move would help a lot with that....


TAPI is in actuality a Silk Road project connecting Central Asia to the West via Gwadar, which will make Pakistan the U.S.'s gateway to Central Asia.

The significance of the signing of the intergovernmental agreement on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project (TAPI) on December 11 in Ashgabat cannot be overstated. It can only be captured if one says with a touch of swagger that TAPI has been the most significant happening in the geopolitics of the region in almost a decade since America invaded Afghanistan.

The heart of the matter is that TAPI is a Silk Road project, which holds the key to modulating many complicated issues in the region. It signifies a breakthrough in the longstanding U.S. efforts to access the fabulous mineral wealth of the Caspian and the Central Asian region. Afghanistan forms a revolving door for TAPI and its stabilisation becomes the leitmotif of the project. TAPI can meet the energy needs of Pakistan and India. The U.S. says TAPI holds the potential to kindle Pakistan-India amity, which could be a terrific thing to happen. It is a milestone in the U.S.' “Greater Central Asia” strategy, which aims at consolidating American influence in the region.

Washington has been the patron saint of the TAPI concept since the early 1990s when the Taliban was conceived as its Afghan charioteer. The concept became moribund when the Taliban was driven away from Kabul. Now the wheel has come full circle with the incremental resuscitation of the project since 2005 running parallel to the Taliban's fantastic return to the Afghan chessboard. The proposed commissioning of TAPI coincides with the 2014 timeline for ending the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's “combat mission” in Afghanistan. The U.S. “surge” is concentrating on the Helmand and Kandahar provinces, through which TAPI will eventually run. What stunning coincidences!

In sum, TAPI is the finished product of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Its primary drive is to consolidate the U.S. political, military and economic influence in the strategic high plateau that overlooks Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan and China.

TAPI capitalises on Turkmenistan's pressing need to find new markets for its gas exports. With the global financial downturn and the fall in Europe's demand for gas, prices crashed. Russia cannot afford to pay top dollar for the Turkmen gas, nor does it want the 40 bcm gas it previously contracted to purchase annually. Several large gasfields are coming on line in Russia, which will reduce its need for the Turkmen gas. The Yamal Peninsula deposit alone is estimated to hold roughly 16 trillion cubic metres of gas. But Turkmenistan sits on the world's fourth-largest gas reserves and has its own plans to increase production to 230 bcm annually by 2030. It desperately needs to find markets and build new pipelines.

Thus, Ashgabat is driven by a combination of circumstances to adopt an energy-export diversification policy. In the recent months, the Turkmen leadership evinced interest in trans-Caspian projects but it will remain a problematic idea as long as the status of Caspian Sea remains unsettled. Besides, Turkmenistan has unresolved territorial disputes with Azerbaijan. In November, a second Turkmen-Iranian pipeline went on stream and there is potential to increase exports up to 20 bcm. But then, there are limits to expanding energy exports to Iran or to using Iran as a “regional gas hub” — for the present, at least.

Therefore, Turkmen authorities began robustly pushing for TAPI. The projected 2000-km pipeline at an estimated cost of $7.6 billion will traverse Afghanistan (735 km) and Pakistan (800 km) to reach India. Its initial capacity will be around 30 bcm but that could be increased to meet higher demand. India and Pakistan have shown interest in buying 70 bcm annually. TAPI will be fed by the Doveletabad field, which used to supply Russia.

Ashgabat did smart thinking to accelerate TAPI. The U.S. encouraged Turkmenistan to estimate that this is an enterprise whose time has come. Funding is not a problem. The U.S. has lined up the Asian Development Bank. An international consortium will undertake construction of the pipeline. A curious feature is that the four governments have agreed to “outsource” the execution and management of the project. The Big Oil sees great prospects to participate. The Afghan oilfields can also be fed into TAPI. Kabul awarded its first oil contract in the Amu Darya Basin this week. The gravy train may have begun moving in the Hindu Kush.

On the map, the TAPI pipeline deceptively shows India as its final destination. What is overlooked, however, is that it can easily be extended to the Pakistani port of Gwadar and connected with European markets, which is the core objective. The geopolitics of TAPI is rather obvious. Pipeline security is going to be a major regional concern. The onus is on each of the transit countries. Part of the Afghan stretch will be buried underground as a safeguard against attacks and local communities will be paid to guard it. But then, it goes without saying Kabul will expect the U.S. and NATO to provide security cover, which, in turn, necessitates a long-term western military presence in Afghanistan. Without doubt, the project will lead to a strengthening of the U.S. politico-military influence in South Asia.

The U.S. brought heavy pressure on New Delhi and Islamabad to spurn the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project. The Indian leadership buckled under American pressure while dissimulating freedom of choice. Pakistan did show some defiance for a while. Anyhow, the U.S. expects that once Pakistanis and Indians begin to chew the TAPI bone, they will cast the IPI into the dustbin. Pakistan has strong reasons to pitch for TAPI as it can stave off an impending energy crisis. TAPI is in actuality a Silk Road project connecting Central Asia to the West via Gwadar, which will make Pakistan the U.S. gateway to Central Asia. Pakistan rightly estimates that alongside this enhanced status in the U.S. regional strategy comes the American commitment to help its economy develop and buttress its security needs in the long-term.

India's diligence also rests on multiple considerations. Almost all reservations Indian officials expressed from time to time for procrastinating on the IPI's efficacy hold good for TAPI too — security of the pipeline, uncertainties in India-Pakistan relationship, cost of gas, self-sufficiency in India's indigenous production, etc. But the Indian leadership is visibly ecstatic about TAPI. In retrospect, what emerges from the dense high-level political and diplomatic traffic between Delhi and Ashgabat in the recent years is that our government knew much in advance that the U.S. was getting ready to bring TAPI out of the woodwork at some point — depending on the progression of the Afghan war — and that it would expect Delhi to play footsie.

Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh found time to visit the drab Turkmen capital in a notable departure from his preoccupations with the Euro-Atlantic world. The wilful degradation of India-Iran ties by the present government and Dr. Singh's obstinate refusal to visit Iran also fall into perspective. Plainly put, our leadership decided to mark time and simply wait for TAPI to pop out of Uncle Sam's trouser pocket and in the meantime it parried, dissimulated and outright lied by professing interest in the IPI. The gullible public opinion was being strung along.

To be sure, TAPI is a big-time money-spinner and our government's energy pricing policies are notoriously opaque. Delhi will be negotiating its gas price “separately” with Ashgabat on behalf of the private companies which handle the project. That is certain to be the mother of all energy “negotiations” involving two countries, which figure at the bottom of the world ranking by Transparency International.

Energy security ought to have been worked out at the regional level. There was ample scope for it. The IPI was a genuine regional initiative. TAPI is being touted as a regional project by our government but it is quintessentially a U.S.-led project sheltered under Pax Americana, which provides a political pretext for the open-ended western military presence in the region. As long as foreign military presence continues in India's southwestern region, there will be popular resistance and that will make it a breeding ground for extremist and terrorist groups. India is not only shying away from facing this geopolitical reality but, in its zest to secure “global commons” with the U.S, is needlessly getting drawn into the “new great game.” Unsurprisingly, Delhi no more calls for a neutral Afghanistan. It has lost its voice, its moral fibre, its historical consciousness.

Finally, TAPI is predicated on the U.S. capacity to influence Pakistan. Bluntly speaking, TAPI counts on human frailties — that pork money would mellow regional animosities. But that is a cynical assumption to make about the Pakistani military's integrity.....

.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/17/the_zombie_war_in_afghanistan


US takes Greek path



http://www.leap2020.eu/GEAB-N-50-est-disponible--Crise-Systemique-Globale-Second-Semestre-2011-Contexte-europeen-et-catalyseur-US-Explosion-de_a5617.html


USA takes Greek path....
By Martin Hutchinson


The EU should copy Switzerland....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqB2Tbl8uWQ&feature=player_embedded

The insouciant approach which President Barack Obama and the US budget negotiators have taken to the federal deficit, adding around US$900 billion to deficits over the next two years with no countervailing spending cuts, has been greeted by a sharp rise in Treasury bond yields.

This brings into focus a very delicate question: at what point does the US government’s credit cease being the world's "safe haven" and become merely a much larger and more dangerous version of Greece?

For the past two years, anti-Keynesians such as this columnist have warned that massive federal deficits run the risk of crowding out the private sector, especially the small business private sector, which has the most difficulty accessing funding.....


http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/12/totally-busted-truth-about-goldmans.html


With dollar interest rates generally declining and Chinese and other foreign investors happily piling in to fund budget deficits of $1.3-$1.4 trillion, this had appeared a purely theoretical problem. However, with commercial and industrial loans (including small business, but also including the relatively active leveraged buyout sector) declining by 25% to $1.22 trillion in the two years since 2008, the problem has been a real one.

With the supply of long-term government debt so overwhelming, the yield curve between short-term and long-term interest rates has been artificially steep for over two years. Thus banks have been able to borrow in the short-term markets and invest in long-term bonds, picking up a 3% interest spread for doing so, which they leverage 15-20 times.

In normal markets, such a policy would carry a fearful risk of enormous capital losses as interest rates rose - the First Pennsylvania Bank, a very substantial institution, was bankrupted by such activity in 1980. However with Ben Bernanke chairman at the Federal Reserve, banks feel they can afford to take the risk - and after all, if it goes wrong, all the big banks will get in trouble simultaneously and taxpayers will have to bail them out.

As for small business, lending to this sector requires far too much effort and is not particularly profitable. Medium-sized and smaller banks, which would normally make the majority of such loans, are struggling with the remnants of their daft housing and real estate lending in 2003-07. Just as theory would suggest but by a somewhat different mechanism, small business is being crowded out of the financial markets.

After two years of stasis, the bond markets have recently begun to move. Bernanke's announcement on November 3 of the second round of quantitative easing - "QE2" - with an additional $600 billion of Treasury bond purchases, had a perverse effect: it pushed up Treasury bond yields, particularly at the long end of the curve. Fed purchases are being concentrated in maturities of less than 10 years, presumably to mitigate somewhat the gigantic principal risk on the Fed's balance sheet; so naturally Treasury bond yields at the long end of the curve have increased.

The second trigger to bond market movement has been the tax cut deal reached last week between Obama and congress. Not only does this extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which had been assumed repealed in 2011 by the Congressional Budget Office projections, it also adds a temporary 2% payroll tax cut and other tax reductions for corporations and middle-income individuals.

Together, these will add about $900 billion to the budget deficits in fiscal years 2011 through 2013, making deficits in 2011 and 2012 remain well above $1 trillion. While there is some likelihood of spending reductions from the incoming Republican congress after January, the reality is that those reductions will be small in 2011 and probably not much larger in 2012. Thus in the next two years both fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus are likely to be operating at full blast.

The short-term effect on the US economy should be quite beneficial. Fiscal stimulus that takes the form of lower taxes is much less damaging than additional government spending because it does not divert resources into unproductive uses. The Keynesian multiplier for fiscal stimulus, below 1 on almost all government spending and far below 1 when deficits grow to their current magnitude, is much closer to 1 for tax cuts, although the growth in deficits will continue to exercise a major drag through "crowding out".

If the tax cuts had taken the form of long-term supply-side cuts, such as a reduction in the tax on dividends (preferably through making them tax-deductible at the corporate level) and the deficit had been modest, the stimulus would have generated very substantial additional economic activity. Economic activity would also have been increased by a revenue-neutral tax change that increased incentives. For example, abolishing the home mortgage interest deduction and the charitable deduction - both of which divert resources into unproductive activities - and using the revenue for dividend tax reduction and a tax rate cut would be thoroughly beneficial.

In this case, the new tax cuts have no positive supply-side effect; they merely avoid the adverse supply-side effect of increases in marginal tax rates on high incomes, dividends and capital gains that would otherwise have happened on January 1.

Given the size of the budget deficit, they would without Fed "stimulus" result in further crowding out of small business, thus being no more than neutral in the short run. However, the net effect of the tax cuts and QE2 really should act to bring down unemployment, probably quite quickly, as the QE2 money creation will in the short run reduce the Treasury's net funding needs.

We are unlikely to get more than a modest reduction in unemployment in 2011, probably reversing in the latter half of 2012 as a double-dip recession looms, for two reasons. First, there is the combined effect of extended unemployment benefits and intensified competition from emerging markets - the latter factor tending to depress US wage rates ever since cellphones and the Internet came on stream in the 1990s. In the new world of easier outsourcing and more skilled emerging markets, wage differentials will narrow, and it is alas likely that much of that narrowing will come from downward pressure on US wage rates.

In a free market, such downward pressure would quickly be reflected in lower US wages, as those thrown out of work would be forced to adjust to the new reality. With prolonged unemployment benefits, adjustment to the new reality is delayed, at least for those unfortunates whose new equilibrium wage is close to the level of unemployment benefits.

Prolonged unemployment benefits (and higher minimum wages since 2007) may have only a modest effect on the equilibrium unemployment level in a thriving economy. However there can be little doubt that, in a US economy with high unemployment and strong downward pressure on wage rates, they will force unemployment to remain stubbornly high and new job creation to remain stubbornly low.

Second, our discussion so far has ignored the effect on the economy of the Fed's $600 billion money creation. With the new tax cuts, that money creation has not diminished the federal deficit as it would have without them. Hence Treasury bond yields will continue to be pushed up both by the continued demands of deficit financing and by the beginnings of resurgent inflation. The quite sharp run-up in Treasury bond yields we have seen so far will be only the precursor of a much larger reversal of the long-term bond bull market that has been in place since 1982.

Initially, this will merely make borrowing a little more expensive. The 10-year Treasury bond yield has approached 4% on a number of occasions in the past two years, and it is inconceivable that even the over-incentivized, testosterone-crazed denizens of Wall Street and the major banks have not made reasonable contingency plans for a modest run-up to this level. Since as I write 10-year Treasuries yield only 3.25%, there is some room for yields to rise before major adverse effects kick in, although as yields approach 4% there may well be some nasty reported losses on "bond trading" from those who have been too aggressive.

At some future date, almost certainly while the 10-year Treasury bond yield is between 4% and 5%, we will reach a break point. It must be remembered that the Modern Finance models of markets, assuming smooth trading and moderate price movements, are hugely in error. In reality markets move moderately only when they are between crises. In a crisis, the change in market behavior is analogous to that between the fluid dynamics of "streamlined flow" and "turbulent flow". Price movements become much larger, trading volume soars to astronomical levels and risk parameters move far out of their accustomed channels. When this happens, traders' belief systems about the market in which they work are destroyed, and they are forced to seek out another paradigm.

As 10-year Treasury yields move above 4%, there will at some point come a moment at which the comforting "safe haven" theory of US Treasury bond investment is exploded in the minds of traders worldwide.

Traders' view of US Treasuries will not then move to an intermediate level, in which Treasuries are regarded as only moderately risky. Instead, as in the markets for bonds of southern European governments, and in 2007 in the markets for subprime mortgage-backed securities, the traders' view will move with lightning rapidity from "safe haven" to "serious default risk".

At that point, even if US inflation still appears relatively benign, Treasuries will come to exhibit a substantial yield premium not only over risk-free debt such as that of Germany, but even over moderate-risk debt such as that of Colombia. Treasuries will trade as Greek-style junk bonds, in a market where the receptiveness to junk bonds has itself been markedly reduced.

The fiscal and monetary stimulus policies of November-December 2010 will thus impose a huge economic cost, not immediately but at some point, probably in late 2011 or early 2012, when there is a paradigm shift against US Treasury bonds in traders' worldview. When that happens, the US economy may well enter not merely a second dip but a chasm.....

Monday, December 13, 2010

Afghanistan to deploy 7,000 troops to guard TAPI pipeline

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/12/19/nato-trains-afghan-army-to-guard-asian-pipeline/

http://www.mediawitty.com/test/NewsDetail.aspx?group_id=43&folder_id=74&id=10604&Page_Title=TAPI%20gas%20deal%20to%20be%20signed%20today

http://www.bollyn.com/index.php#article_12617

KABUL: Afghanistan will deploy up to 7,000 troops to secure a major transnational gas pipeline slated to run through some of the most dangerous parts of the war-torn country, an official said on Sunday.

The pledge comes a day after Turkmenistan signed broad agreements with Afghanistan, India and Pakistan at a summit in its capital Ashgabat on the ambitious venture.

The 1,700-kilometer TAPI pipeline, Ashgabat’s dream project that first appeared in 1995, has been on hold for many years due to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The pipeline aims to transport over 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually from the Dauletabad gas fields in southeast Turkmenistan and could turn into a cash cow for Afghanistan in transit fees.

“This huge project is very important for Afghanistan,” Wahidullah Shahrani, the minister of mines and industries, told a press conference in Kabul. “Five thousand to seven thousand security forces will be deployed to safeguard the pipeline route.” The proposed Afghan section of the pipeline passes through southern Taliban heartlands including Helmand and Kandahar, where the central government has a tenuous grip on the territory....

India backs gas link across Afghanistan....
By Syed Fazl-e-Haider

KARACHI - Proposals to build a US$7.6 billion natural gas pipeline, known as TAPI, running from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India, have been rejuvenated with New Delhi throwing weight behind the scheme.

The four countries at the weekend signed broad agreements to move forward with the complex and high-risk plan to build the pipeline across rugged territory plagued by war and terrorism.

The 1,680 kilometer TAPI gas pipeline, scheduled to be completed by 2013-14, would bring 3.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (bcfd) from Turkmenistan's gas fields to Multan in Central Pakistan and end in Fazilka, an Indian city near the India-Pakistan border.

The route would go through insurgency-wracked areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but if it proceeds to completion the project is expected to bring millions of dollars in transit fees for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Kabul is confident that the pipeline will implemented, according to Afghan Mines Minister Wahidullah Shahrani. "We will be earning a transit fee of hundreds of millions of dollars each year that will create tremendous job opportunities," he said.

At the same time, Asian Development Bank president Haruhiko Kuroda recognized the difficulties that lie ahead. "This will not be an easy project to complete. It is mandatory that we guarantee the security of the pipeline and the quality of construction work," the Associated Press (AP) reported Kuroda as saying.

Though the TAPI project has won vocal support from the United States, analysts believe it will be a challenge to secure financial backing and firm bids from energy companies for a project so fraught with potential risks. At the same time, its prospects may be brighter than those for a proposed Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline project, which might also feed India. The US, which is seeking to isolate Iran due to concern that it may be seeking to develop nuclear weapons, has asked Islamabad to abandon this project and seek alternatives to meet its severe energy shortage.

The presidents of Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan on Saturday met for the first time in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, to discuss the TAPI project. India was represented by Energy Minister Murli Deora, filling in for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who was on a visit to Europe. They signed an agreement under which the four nations committed to providing government support, including security for the pipeline.

The contents of the document signed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Turkmenistan President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Deora were not immediately made public. While a Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement (GPFA) was signed, no deal was reached on future sales or the consortium for the construction tender.

The project was initially designed to provide Turkmen gas to Pakistan through volatile Afghanistan under an agreement signed in May 2002 in Islamabad. India was invited to join in April 2008. The gas will come from the South Yolotan-Osman and adjacent gas fields, after participating countries agreed in August to switch from an earlier proposal that the gas come from Douletabad and nearby fields.

Last month, US deputy Assistant Secretary of State Susan Elliott, speaking at an energy conference in Ashgabat, said the pipeline could boost stability across the war-torn region.

In Afghanistan, the pipeline would run from western Herat, near the Iranian border, through the southern Taliban heartland of Helmand and Kandahar, presenting the authorities involved with daunting security and economic challenges. While the cost of the project was previously estimated at $3.3 billion, it may run as high as $10 billion.

"Central to the agreement is the issue of security, with Turkmenistan apparently not liable for any shortfall or disruption in supply, which would infer that the onus is on each of the transit states to secure the pipeline," Reuters reported Goodbody Stockbrokers analyst Gerry Hennigan as saying.

The negotiations on TAPI project have been in progress for over 15 years. Turkmenistan, with the world's fourth-largest proven reserves of gas, is eager to find new markets, reducing its dependence on Russia, its traditional client.

Ashgabat has already increased gas supply to Iran and opened export routes to China, whose President Hu Jintao late last year launched a 7,000 kilometer pipeline to feed Turkmen gas to his country's burgeoning economy. Turkmenistan is also ambitious to build a pipeline that would feed Western Europe.

Under the TAPI deal, Afghanistan's share would be 500 million cubic feet per day (MMcfd), Pakistan 1,325 MMcfd and India 1,325 MMcfd. Turkmenistan would pump in around 33 billion cubic meters of gas per annum. The 1,680 kilometer pipeline includes 735 km across Afghanistan and 800 km through Pakistan, before culminating in India.

Pakistan's federal cabinet approved the GPFA in October this year. The country's demand for natural gas has increased by almost 10% over the past decade, until by mid-2009 demand exceeded available supply, with production of 4,528 MMcfd against a demand for 4,731 MMcfd, indicating a shortfall of 203 MMcfd.

Though Pakistani officials have hailed the agreement on TAPI, analysts say it may just be more wishful thinking, as the proposed pipeline would have to pass through not only Afghanistan - running alongside the Herat-Kandahar Highway - but also through Pakistan's insurgency-hit Baluchistan as it passes from Chamman and Zhob on the way to Multan.

Pakistan in September proposed to Turkmenistan that it supply gas via Iran, instead of laying a pipeline through war-torn Afghanistan. The proposed alternative western route could reduce the length of gas pipeline to 1,490 km from the 1,680 km of the Herat-Kandahar route.

Energy-deficient Pakistan wants quick implementation of the pipeline from Turkmenistan, particularly after the possibility of building the Iran-Pakistan link was reduced as a result of sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the US on Iran's energy sector due to concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Even so, on May 28, Islamabad and Tehran signed a sovereign guarantee agreement to start physical work on the IP pipeline, making effective a Gas Sales Purchase Agreement (GSPA) signed by the countries last year in Istanbul. Under the GSPA, Iran agreed to export 750 mmcfd with a provision to increase it to one billion cubic feet a day (bcfd) at the rate equal to 78% of crude oil for the next 25 years.

A senior diplomat attached to the Permanent Mission of India to the UN reportedly said on Saturday that India had not abandoned the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project and was seriously looking for courageous insurance companies to underwrite the project.

"Apart from what we see is happening in the world today, we need Lloyds or other major global insurance giants setting up a new division and undertaking the risk so that we can start the project," the Associated Press of Pakistan reported, citing an Indian television channel that quoted the diplomat.

India imports nearly 25% of its gas needs, which could rise to 50% by 2020 unless new domestic sources of energy are developed. It imports the bulk of gas in the form of liquefied natural gas from Qatar and Algeria. With the prospect of buying gas from Iran at present doubtful, India has been looking at options from Myanmar, Central and West Asian countries and Russia.....


So welcome to Afghanistan, GI, and play your part in big-power chess. Remember: "Neither position serves American interests."

Another factor is the TAPI gas pipeline. On December 13, 2010 the presidents of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, along with India’s petroleum minister, signed an inter-governmental agreement pledging to construct a 1,735-kilometer natural gas pipeline connecting all four states.

The Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline would supply 33 billion cubic meters of Turkmen gas a year from the Dauletabad gas fields to Pakistan and India via Afghanistan’s volatile southern provinces, according to the semi-official Turkmenistan.ru website. In doing so, Kabul could reap billions.

The TAPI Turkmenistan-India pipeline, by the way, will parallel the Herat - Kandahar highway which goes through Delaram, where the US Marines have a new base! How thoughtful. All of the area must "be controlled" for the benefit of India while elsewhere in Afghanistan US troops are mixing it up with Pakistan-supported resistance fighters.

That's why we fight, and it has nothing to do with al-CIAda which is but a minor distraction compared to the big-power strategies that involve the US, India and China, and natural gas....

The lure for USA's utterly corrupt moneyed class -- is clear.....

And these "opportunities" would go a long way toward explaining our pro-India tilt in the area. Really worth the lives of those naive Americans willing to unknowingly take a bullet for the Wall Street/military/industrial vampires.

The US no doubt is also wary of Pakistan providing an outlet and supply point for the growing Chinese navy in the Indian Ocean, and worrying them with an Indian pincers move would help a lot with that.....

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/12/17/the_zombie_war_in_afghanistan


Thursday, December 9, 2010

True US Federal Debt Passes $71 Trillion...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&feature=player_embedded&v=aMp22y9OUHA

December 2010

http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/documents/us-congressional-record-1940-british-israel-world-$1.pdf

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/cheat-sheet-where-the-feds-trillions-went.php


This chart (from Jeff Berwick's Dollar Vigilante) of true US federal government debt under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) shows current US debts about 5 times higher than officially stated ($71 trillion):

With a population of about 310 million souls, that means each American (man, woman, child) owes roughly $229,000 dollars on behalf of the federal government alone. As on and off-balance sheet state and municipal debts run about $700 billion (source: New York Times - last week; CATO estimates perhaps 3 times that much), you can add another $2,250 to that. Then there is personal and household debt, which I'm not going to add in to our calculations today - but it is still quite large (roughly $2.4 trillion)!

You get the picture, though.... It's at least $230,000 per individual just to manage government obligations related to money already spent (or promised to be spent)!

Let's assume that half of all Americans are active income earners (155 million Americans were employed in 2008). Well, all they need to pay (after taxes for current government operations and expenses, personal expenses, etc.) is then something over $460,000 or so - apiece. I'm just ballparking it here...

So how does this get paid off?

You guessed it, by currency devaluation or default.

http://www.silver-investor.com/charlessavoie/cs_dec04.pdf


Take your pick!

Investing in gold....!
Gold has just set an all-time record high price two days in a row. However, in both cases, it pulled back after setting a new record high - today, sharply.

How have gold mining stocks responded? Yesterday they climbed modestly - that was underwhelming.

Today they are down sharply, to a lower level than where they started yesterday.

Does this look like a top in a bull market?

The answer: Not hardly!

Bull markets top out with over-enthusiasm, not fear.

I'm sorry, but this fear is excessive in response to such obvious signs of strength in the gold bull market.

Bull markets are maddening - but this crazy and irrational stuff is what they do. We are still climbing a mountain of worry....

But take my word for it. Don't fight the bull market!

Where are we now? Once again - and we've been here many times before - we're cleaning out the "premature eradicators." This stage involves brief but sharp drops as nervous holders of gold and gold equities "abandon ship," in this case, as the port is in sight! Today's sellers are simply selling too soon....

Gold's new record highs are a sign of strength, not weakness. This is hardly the time to be selling gold OR gold stocks!!!

http://vodpod.com/watch/2170123-the-fourth-world-war?pod=



It makes no difference whether we know about what Congress does, or not. We the people cannot stop any of their crimes, especially when it comes to what the Con-rats do for Israel. There is no peaceful solution to this governments' complete sell-out of Americans and their destruction of our country. The wealthy and powerful do as they please, confidant that they hold the reigns of military power to squash any active dissent. I don't believe either discontent military personnel, nor individual Americans are willing to risk abuse, imprisonment, or death to make any necessary governmental changes. With only one life to live, staying alive in slavery and poverty is more important than resistance. Only if Americans actually become brutalized victims, might there arise a true resistance just to save themselves and their loved ones. Already there are many Americans who will gladly do any abusing necessary to get the benefits denied to the rest.....



Azerbaijan adds gas to gas


Azerbaijan adds gas to gas.....
By Robert M Cutler

http://www.japanfocus.org/-M_K-Bhadrakumar/2613

MONTREAL - Rarely a month goes by nowadays without game-changing news from Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea energy front. In the past two weeks, three events have occurred, two of which are in natural gas and either of which would be bona fide game-changers by themselves. The third is in oil and also has the potential to be of comparable significance .....

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/10/08RIYADH1619.html

International energy company BP, which has a strong presence in the country, is directly involved in two of these three. In the first instance, BP-Azerbaijan president Rashid Jevanshir announced last week his company's intention to build a gas pipeline with a capacity of 16 billion cubic meters per year (bcm/y) in addition to the existing 8 bcm/y pipeline. "This is necessary, for gas export under full-scale production at Shah Deniz," he said, as quoted by



Reuters. The first gas from Shah Deniz Two is currently expected in early 2017.

Rovnag Abdullaev, president of Azerbaijan's main energy company, the state-owned SOCAR, has said that of the 16 bcm/y from Shah Deniz Two, Turkey would receive 6 bcm/y while Europe would receive 10 bcm/y. This would seem to indicate plans of dedicated volumes, making good on earlier statements by industrial and political figures in Azerbaijan (at a time when the industry publicly expected only about 8 bcm/y from Azerbaijan) that the country was prepared to dedicated as much as 16 bcm/y to the proposed Nabucco pipeline intended to transport gas from the region to Europe.

Nabucco negotiators expect the first gas in 2015, before Shah Deniz Two comes on line, which means that they expect it to come from Iraq, where they have been negotiating intensively for some time, even if contracts for subsequent delivery are first signed with Azerbaijan next year.

The first phase development of the Shah Deniz deposit, already under way for some time, is expected to produce 7.8 bcm of gas this year, peaking later at 8.6-9.0 bcm/y. This means that total production of the Shah Deniz deposit may reach 25 bcm/y as the second phase of development ramps up. This new pipeline with capacity of 16 bcm/y can then be doubled as more gas comes online to meet Nabucco's projected final capacity of 31 bcm/y when completed.

The Nabucco pipeline was originally planned to take gas from the Caspian Sea basin to Austria's Baumgarten hub for distribution throughout the European Union, via Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. Recently, however, Azerbaijan has been bargaining hard for the right not only merely to supply gas to Central Europe but also to sell its own gas to countries in Southeast Europe en route, which could interconnect their national systems to the Nabucco pipeline with relatively little effort. It has been in talks with nearly two dozen consortia and companies seeking to purchase Shah Deniz Two gas, and anticipates concluding negotiations by the middle of 2011.

That the aforementioned statements are not mere words is indicated by reports from Azerbaijan that the technical preparations for the second stage of the field development are well under way, notably including the expansion of the gas section of the Sangachal oil terminal.

This implies actual capital investment by BP-Azerbaijan in the physical plant, which would be extremely rare if the company was not as certain as possible that it is warranted. Field development is already planned to include constructing two new platforms, drilling 30 new wells, and laying 500 kilometers of new offshore pipe. Total investment is estimated at US$20 billion.

The manager of BP-Azerbaijan's Caspian-region gas marketing has specified that they "[have] determined the direction of exports, [which is] to Europe via Turkey, and are choosing the most suitable route". Representatives of the Nabucco pipeline consortium (referring to ongoing negotiations between the Shah Deniz consortium and potential European gas buyers who would like to use Nabucco for transit) have stated their expectation that gas supply contracts will be signed in the first half of 2011.

The head of the EU Delegation in Azerbaijan has told assistants to President Ilham Aliev that, taking into account not just Shah Deniz Two, but also the Apsheron and other offshore deposits, Europe is looking forward to 18 bcm/y of Azerbaijan's natural gas while the country continues to export in other directions as it wishes.

Publicly noting that "Europe's demand for gas will increase dramatically in 2016-2020", he told representatives of the press in Baku, still more significantly, that the EU's adoption of its "Third Energy Package" in 2009 signifies support for implementing a Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline (TCGP) from Turkmenistan, in which case "Azerbaijan will turn into not only supplier but also a transit country which will bring much benefit to it". (The two countries are continually discussing the TCGP project in various forums nowadays, most recently in the wake of the five-way Baku heads-of-state Caspian Sea summit, again in their bilateral Intergovernmental Commission on Economic and Humanitarian Cooperation.)

The EU's representation in Baku undoubtedly had in mind the report to the European Commission released the following week on the shortcomings in implementation of the Trans-European Networks for Energy program, which was declared to have "neither the resources nor the flexibility to make a full contribution to the delivery of the ambitious energy and climate goals."

As a result, the European Commission plans in mid-2011 to propose a new financial instrument that will support defined priority projects during the 2014-2020 budgetary period. It explicitly identifies the Southern Gas Corridor as such a priority project.

The European Parliament's resolution of November 25 concerning the EU's proposed "Energy Strategy for Europe 2011-2020" adds the qualification "specifically the Nabucco project" while also "welcom[ing] the work on a Caspian Development Corporation".

Mentioning the need to integrate energy issues into "the dialogue on the EU Strategy for the Black Sea region," the parliament elsewhere in its resolution stresses the need to "extend financial support, including by the European Investment Bank and other financial intermediaries, to the implementation phase of projects".

This language is about as clear as one can get about the intention to put real money on the table for definite projects, and it is especially auspicious in view of how the timing of the EU budgetary and planning cycle complements the current development pace of pipelines and gas deposits under the Caspian Sea and in the South Caucasus.

BP is involved not only in the Shah Deniz gas project but also in the oil production from the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli (ACG) field. This is the so-called "Contract of the Century" from the 1990s that contributes the lion's share to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline to Turkey's East Mediterranean coast via Georgia.

Plans are in the works to increase the BTC's volume. In this connection it bears noting that, as part of this second major recent development, the circumstances are finally ripe for Azerbaijan to increase production from ACG of both oil and associated petroleum gas (APG). Already ACG has produced 2.5 bcm of associated gas in 2010 alone, and plans are under way to expand APG extraction in deepwater Guneshli.

In 2010, the BTC oil pipeline is transporting about 750,000 barrels per day (bpd) of ACG oil, which is on track to produce almost 850,000 bpd this year. The additional 100,000 bpd goes into the still functioning Baku-Novorossissk oil pipeline, ending in the Russian Black Sea port, from where it is shipped through the Turkish Straits to world markets. According to Azerbaijani government sources, the BTC's pumping volume is expected to grow over the next four years to fill the present 1.2 million bpd complete capacity. The country's energy and industry minister, Natik Aliev, indicates that Azerbaijan expects to be able eventually to provide this quantity itself.

The BTC has also carried oil from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan that is shipped across the Caspian Sea on barges. Earlier this year, Kazakhstan stopped supplying oil to the BTC without a public explanation. However, subsequent remarks by the country's oil and gas minister, Sauat Mynbaev, suggested the disagreement was over how to apportion Kazakhstan's oil (which reaches Georgia's Black Sea coast by overland transportation) between the Batumi port, in which his country's state energy company KazMunaiGaz has a majority interest, and the terminal not far away at Kulevi, owned by the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijani Republic (SOCAR). Signing of a new maritime oil transport agreement was planned for the Baku summit last month.

In the meantime, in place of oil from Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan has been shipping oil from Turkmenistan through the BTC: yet another indicator of the improved relationship between these two countries, and their readiness to cooperate despite the longstanding territorial disagreement over where to delimit their contiguous Caspian Sea national sectors for subsoil rights to natural resources. The BTC pipeline's throughput would later be upgradeable to 1.6 million bpd to receive oil from the second phase of development of Kazakhstan's offshore Kashagan deposit later in the decade, first by barge or tanker across the Caspian Sea and then, as Kashagan ramps further up into its third phase, via an undersea oil pipeline.

The third major development in the last two weeks in the Azerbaijan energy realm is the announcement of the discovery of gas at the Umid offshore deposit, with reserves officially said to be second only to those at Shah Deniz (which is estimated to hold 1.2 trillion cubic meters), but possibly greater.

The first public estimate of Umid's reserves is 200 bcm, but this is likely to increase as more exploration is conducted (SOCAR carried out the work by itself without foreign assistance), particularly as Azerbaijani public estimates tend to the conservative side, in the first instance to preserve strategic state secrets and also the better to enhance its bargaining position later.

After many years of waiting and careful preparation, natural gas production and pipeline projects in the South Caucasus are finally beginning to come to a head. However, as the Umid discovery suggests, there are likely still many interesting developments ahead in coming years, not least in the prospective interconnection of the two shores of the Caspian Sea, creating an energy thoroughfare from Central Asia to Central Europe.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Does Benshalom Bernanke Look Like a Man Who is Confident About the State of the Economy and the Prospects for Recovery?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5418-us-military-prepares-for-economic-collapse

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-20024635-10391709.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

There is a lot to say about Ben Shalom Bernanke's comments on 60 Minutes today.

Bernanke's statement that unemployment is the biggest impediment to economic recovery is ironic, given that Bernanke's policies have increased unemployment. See this and this.

Harry Blodget notes that Bernanke implied that inequality is destroying America. Tyler Durden hones in on Bernanke's statements that the economic recovery may not be self-sustaining, and that the Fed may buy even more bonds. Daily Bail picks on Bernanke's claim that the Fed is not printing money.....http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/24-signs-that-all-of-america-is-becoming-just-like-detroit-a-rotting-post-industrial-post-apocalyptic-wasteland

There are certainly a lot of interesting things to say about Bernanke's words....

http://agorafinancial.com/reports/OST/NewWar/OST_NewWar2010AR_1p.php

But I think the real story is how nervous Bernanke appears.

Listen to his voice, and watch his lips quaver:


Ignore his words ... does this look like a man who is confident about the state of the economy and the prospects for recovery?

Does this sound like a man who is sure that history will judge his actions kindly?

However, as Barry Ritholtz notes:

Pro Publica has been maintaining a list of bailout recipients, updating the amount lent versus what was repaid.

So far, 938 Recipients have had $607,822,512,238 dollars committed to them, with $553,918,968,267 disbursed. Of that $554b disbursed, less than half — $220,782,546,084 — has been returned.

Whenever you hear pronunciations of how much money the TARP is making, check back and look at this list. It shows the TARP is deeply underwater....


Mendacious Bernanke
By Michael Pento

This past Sunday on the CBS program 60 Minutes, Americans received a massive dose of mendacity from Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke.

Bernanke's shaky delivery, and even shakier logic, may cause faith in America's economic leadership to evaporate faster than the value of our dollar. In particular, Bernanke delivered two massive distortions:

Lie #1 - The Fed isn't printing money.

Bernanke stated: "The amount of currency in circulation is not changing ... the money supply is not changing in any significant way. What we're doing is lowering interest rates by buying Treasury securities."

Given that it is the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, not the Fed, that actually prints paper money, his statement is technically correct while substantively false. However, Bernanke is buying bank assets with Fed credit. With such an arrangement, printing becomes unnecessary.

According to gentle Ben, credit created to buy something should not be considered money and has no affect on asset prices? But if that's true, why is he concentrating his buying in the middle of the Treasury yield curve. His stated purpose is to boost bond prices and lower yields in order to stimulate borrowing and aggregate demand. So pushing up bond prices is an act of inflation. Bernanke similarly contradicts himself by saying that he isn't creating inflation, while at the same time claiming that his easing campaign is designed to boost asset prices to combat the phantom of deflation.

And by the way, the Fed is causing money supply to increase significantly. The compounded annual growth rate of M2 is over 7% in the last quarter. Apparently in the eyes of the Fed chairman, a 7% annualized increase in the broad money supply isn't considered significant.

Lie #2 - Bernanke is "100 % confident" that, when necessary, the Fed can control inflation and reverse its accommodative monetary policy.

He stated, "We've been very, very clear that we will not allow inflation to rise above 2%. We could raise interest rates in 15 minutes if we have to. So, there really is no problem with raising rates, tightening monetary policy, slowing the economy, reducing inflation, at the appropriate time."

He failed to mention that the Fed doesn't have the will to drain money from the system, without which all tools are useless. The Fed has consistently demonstrated its unwillingness to take the appropriate actions when necessary. In claiming he is 100% confident in his ability to control inflation, Bernanke ignores the record that during his tenure he has misdiagnosed the economy.

In June 2006, Bernanke culminated his inflation fighting efforts by raising the Fed Funds target rate to 5.25%, after CPI inflation reached 4.2%. But that interest rate was enough to help burst the housing bubble and to spark an international credit crisis. Bernanke was completely unaware that the Fed's actions had created an economy that had become completely addicted to artificially produced low interest rates and inflation.

Shortly after the collapse of the real estate market and the ensuing truncated deflationary-depression, Bernanke took interest rates to near zero percent. But if the Fed was ever really serious about unwinding excessive leverage, the time had clearly arrived. Instead, the US economy has become more addicted to free money than at any other time in our history.

Commodity prices are soaring once again and the real estate market, banking sector, and the overall economy cling precariously on the arm of government induced bailouts and low interest rates.

Even worse, our government has massively increased its level of debt, which now stands at just below US$14 trillion. Once the rate of inflation eclipses the Fed's 2% target rate, which appears likely, how then will the Fed raise rates to contain it? Could the economy then withstand an increase in the cost of home ownership? Most importantly, when will Bernanke find it politically tenable to dramatically increase debt service payments for the Federal government? In truth, there is never a convenient time to have a severe recession or a depression. Unfortunately, reality can be extremely inconvenient.

Bernanke was accurate in saying that the economy is not expanding at a sustainable pace. Of course, his prescription was the same as it always is; print more money in the misguided belief that inflation will lead to growth. As such, he indicated that it's possible that the Fed may actually expand bond purchases beyond the $600 billion announced last month. (Remember that the $600 billion comes after the $1.7 trillion that has already been printed, which failed to produce anything much beyond a weaker dollar). Therefore, the country can look forward to yet more inflation, continued anemic economic growth, a poorer citizenry, and a vastly lower standard of living.

On the bright side, the next segment on 60 Minutes outlined some of the new social networking capabilities being created by Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. In other words, although our economic misery will likely increase, it should become much easier to share the bad news with friends .....


A lot of people still haven't heard that the economy cannot recover until the big banks are broken up.

But as everyone from Paul Krugman to Simon Johnson has noted, the banks are so big and politically powerful that they have bought the politicians and captured the regulators.

In addition, as Fortune pointed out last February that the only reason that smaller banks haven't been able to expand and thrive is that the too-big-to-fails have decreased competition:

Growth for the nation's smaller banks represents a reversal of trends from the last twenty years, when the biggest banks got much bigger and many of the smallest players were gobbled up or driven under...

As big banks struggle to find a way forward and rising loan losses threaten to punish poorly run banks of all sizes, smaller but well capitalized institutions have a long-awaited chance to expand.

So the very size of the giants squashes competition.

Small banks have been lending much more than the big boys. And the giant banks which received taxpayer bailouts actually slashed lending more, gave higher bonuses, and reduced costs less than banks which didn't get bailed out.

JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley together hold 80% of the country's derivatives risk, and 96% of the exposure to credit derivatives. Experts say that derivatives will never be reined in until the mega-banks are broken up.

As I pointed out in December 2008:

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is often called the "central banks' central bank", as it coordinates transactions between central banks.

BIS points out in a new report that the bank rescue packages have transferred significant risks onto government balance sheets, which is reflected in the corresponding widening of sovereign credit default swaps:

The scope and magnitude of the bank rescue packages also meant that significant risks had been transferred onto government balance sheets. This was particularly apparent in the market for CDS referencing sovereigns involved either in large individual bank rescues or in broad-based support packages for the financial sector, including the United States. While such CDS were thinly traded prior to the announced rescue packages, spreads widened suddenly on increased demand for credit protection, while corresponding financial sector spreads tightened.
In other words, by assuming huge portions of the risk from banks trading in toxic derivatives, and by spending trillions that they don't have, central banks have put their countries at risk from default.
Now, Greece, Portugal, Spain and many other European countries - as well as the U.S. and Japan - are facing serious debt crises. See We are no longer wealthy enough to keep bailing out the bloated banks. We have serious debt problems. See this, this, this, this, this and this. By failing to break up the giant banks, the government is guaranteeing that they will take crazily risky bets again and again and again, and the government will wrack up more debt bailing them out again. (Anyone who thinks that Congress will use Dodd-Frank to break up banks in the middle of an even bigger crisis is dreaming. If the giant banks aren't broken up now - when they are threatening to take down the world economy - they won't be broken up next time they become insolvent, either. And see this).

Moreover, Richard Alford - former New York Fed economist, trading floor economist and strategist - recently showed that banks that get too big benefit from "information asymmetry" which disrupts the free market.

Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted in September that giants like Goldman are using their size to manipulate the market:

"The main problem that Goldman raises is a question of size: 'too big to fail.' In some markets, they have a significant fraction of trades. Why is that important? They trade both on their proprietary desk and on behalf of customers. When you do that and you have a significant fraction of all trades, you have a lot of information."

Further, he says, "That raises the potential of conflicts of interest, problems of front-running, using that inside information for your proprietary desk. And that's why the Volcker report came out and said that we need to restrict the kinds of activity that these large institutions have. If you're going to trade on behalf of others, if you're going to be a commercial bank, you can't engage in certain kinds of risk-taking behavior."

The giants (especially Goldman Sachs) have also used high-frequency program trading which not only distorted the markets - making up more than 70% of stock trades - but which also let the program trading giants take a sneak peak at what the real (aka “human”) traders are buying and selling, and then trade on the insider information. See this, this, this, this and this. (This is frontrunning, which is illegal; but it is a lot bigger than garden variety frontrunning, because the program traders are not only trading based on inside knowledge of what their own clients are doing, they are also trading based on knowledge of what all other traders are doing).

Goldman also admitted that its proprietary trading program can "manipulate the markets in unfair ways". The giant banks have also allegedly used their Counterparty Risk Management Policy Group (CRMPG) to exchange secret information and formulate coordinated mutually beneficial actions, all with the government's blessings.

Again, size matters. If a bunch of small banks did this, manipulation by numerous small players would tend to cancel each other out. But with a handful of giants doing it, it can manipulate the entire economy in ways which are not good for the American citizen.

No wonder so many independent economists and financial experts are calling for the big banks to be broken up, including:

  • Dean and professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School, and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, R. Glenn Hubbard
  • The leading monetary economist and co-author with Milton Friedman of the leading treatise on the Great Depression, Anna Schwartz
  • Economics professor and senior regulator during the S & L crisis, William K. Black
  • Professor of entrepreneurship and finance at the Chicago Booth School of Business, Luigi Zingales