Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Somalia: Are Hydrocarbons the Target?

by maracatu Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 03:23:59 PM EST

Greetings.  As my first diary at European Tribune, I would like to post one that was previously posted at Daily Kos.  While it didn't generate too much interest, a commenter urged me to cross-post it here as there would be people with a more intimate knowledge of the oil industry participating.

Another commenter drew my attention to a very important issue which, while I was aware of it, had not researched it thoroughly vis-a-viz the reported location of potential hydrocarbons in "Somalia".  I have thus added on a post-script which was not included in the original diary at Daily Kos.

Before hopping the bridge, I must stress that I am neither an oil industry expert nor a geologist.  I am just a concerned citizen who sees the current US incursion into Somalia as something more than merely an attempt to capture or kill three al-Qaida suspects under U.S. indictment for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.


On January 8, I posted a diary at Daily Kos based in part on an old "news" article (dated January 18, 1993) wherein it was claimed that Somalia has a high oil potential.  Applying that information to current events, it is hard to escape the notion that, just like in Iraq, the U.S. is currently not pursuing so much terrorists as it is pursuing control over oil resources.

The article also contained expressions by oil company executives and people from the administration of then President George H.W. Bush aimed at downplaying the oil factor in what was billed as a US sponsored humanitarian mission to Somalia:

But since the U.S. intervention began, neither the Bush Administration nor any of the oil companies that had been active in Somalia up until the civil war broke out in early 1991 have commented publicly on Somalia's potential for oil and natural gas production. Even in private, veteran oil company exploration experts played down any possible connection between the Administration's move into Somalia and the corporate concessions at stake.

"In the oil world, Somalia is a fringe exploration area," said one Conoco executive who asked not to be named. "They've overexaggerated it," he said of the geologists' optimism about the prospective oil reserves there.

Contrast that with the:

...highly successful exploration effort by the Texas-based Hunt Oil Corp. across the Gulf of Aden in the Arabian Peninsula nation of Yemen, where geologists disclosed in the mid-1980s that the estimated 1 billion barrels of Yemeni oil reserves were part of a great underground rift, or valley, that arced into and across northern Somalia.

Hunt's Yemeni operation, which is now yielding nearly 200,000 barrels of oil a day, and its implications for the entire region were not lost on then-Vice President George Bush.

In fact, Bush witnessed it firsthand in April, 1986, when he officially dedicated Hunt's new $18-million refinery near the ancient Yemeni town of Marib. In remarks during the event, Bush emphasized the critical value of supporting U.S. corporate efforts to develop and safeguard potential oil reserves in the region.

In his speech, Bush stressed "the growing strategic importance to the West of developing crude oil sources in the region away from the Strait of Hormuz," according to a report three weeks later in the authoritative Middle East Economic Survey.

Nevertheless, some people have criticised my conclusion to the effect that the current Somalia operation (by the US) is ultimately about oil.  They cite references, however, which actually take issue with the assertion by geologist Thomas O'Connor, contained in the article, I cited in my previous diary:

"It's there. There's no doubt there's oil there," said Thomas E. O'Connor, the principal petroleum engineer for the World Bank, who headed an in-depth, three-year study of oil prospects in the Gulf of Aden off Somalia's northern coast.

"You don't know until you study a lot further just how much is there," O'Connor said. "But it has commercial potential. It's got high potential ... once the Somalis get their act together."

O'Connor, a professional geologist, based his conclusion on the findings of some of the world's top petroleum geologists. In a 1991 World Bank-coordinated study, intended to encourage private investment in the petroleum potential of eight African nations, the geologists put Somalia and Sudan at the top of the list of prospective commercial oil producers.

There is additional information here.

Now, the nay-sayers feel they have put the "lie" to that, based on this:

Somalia has no proven oil reserves and only 200 bn cf of proven natural gas reserves, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

I have highlighted the term proven oil reserves, because that seems to be at the root of this controversy.  Let me reiterate that I'm no oil industry expert; nevertheless there are some issues surrounding the use of proven oil reserve figures.  Mainstream oil industry analysts, including the US Department of Energy, all use the proven oil reserve figures.  

However, geologists (presumably including Mr. O'Connor) and US Geological Survey (USGS) people, rely on a much broader definition of reserves that includes "unconventional" oil such as Venezuela's heavy crudes.  These unconventional sources include tar sands, oil shales, oil not recoverable with today's technology.  Hence the USGS people claim that the so-called proven oil reserves we often hear in public discourse actually underestimate total world reserves.  For more on this, see THE OIL RESERVE FALLACY: Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply:

The news media nearly always use the proven reserve figures and omit other categories because the Department of Energy and the oil industry publish reports that include only "proven" oil reserves -- as if that is all there is. Most people do not realize that other petroleum geologists -- most notably those at the USGS -- take a different view.

Nevertheless, if perhaps someone with proper expertise within the Eurotrib community (or someone with knowledge of the the hydrocarbon potential of Somalia) could perhaps enlighten us some more on this aspect in the comments section below, I would truly be grateful.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The other point I want to make however is that aside from the existence (or not) of large oil reserves in Somalia, the country has a strategic significance based on its geographic location.

The US government's Energy Information Administration identifies the [sp.] Bab-Almandab Strait as one of the most strategic "world oil transit chokepoints".

A quick glance at a map of the Red Sea Region is all that is necessary to realize the strategic importance of the strait of Bab-el-Mandeb (south eastern corner of the map near Djibouti). It links the Red Sea with the Indian Ocean via the Gulf of Aden (partially pictured) and hence controls access to the Suez Canal. A closure of this strait would have serious consequences, since it would force tankers to transit around the Cape of Good Hope. Djibouti, which sits on one side of the strait already plays host to a U.S. military presence:

Djibouti has already turned into one of the most important US military bases throughout the world. Here, US forces monitoring assumed terrorist groups in the Middle East, Africa's Horn and East Africa are headquartered. Located only 50 kilometres south-west of the Arabian Peninsula, stable and pro-Western Djibouti is also a major US military safety net in the region as their presence becomes increasingly controversial on Arab soil.

It was the U.S. base in Djibouti that provided the Air Force AC-130 gunship which recently struck southern Somalia.  My guess is we haven't seen the end of this.

Given "the growing strategic importance to the West of developing crude oil sources in the region away from the Strait of Hormuz,", as noted by Bush, and other developments like this, the location of Somalia near the strategic "chokepoint" appears to be of great value to Western powers along with its yet-to-be-quantified oil potential.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
P.S.  One very important consequence of the collapse of the government of Siad Barre (or perhaps more properly the short lived gov't of Ali Mahdi Muhammad, his successor) in 1991 was the formation of Somaliland in the area roughly encompassing the former British protectorate of Somaliland.  This unrecognized de facto sovereign state occupies the northern region of what was once part of Somalia which is precisely where it was "speculated" the oil was to have been (or is).  The Wikipedia entry for Somaliland (under "economy") makes this very interesting statement which sums up the implications for oil "prospecting" in the region:

It is believed that the coast of Somaliland contain large deposits of crude oil; due to this the economy of Somaliland could boom. Unfortunately, foreign companies cannot invest and benefit from this because the country is internationally unrecognised.

Furthermore, it is reported that when Siad Barre fled Somalia, he took with him the oil contracts.  According to this source:

Some of the old exploration concessions were in a part of northern Somalia that is now within the territory of Somaliland, which declared independence from the rest of Somalia in 1991. Somaliland, which is not recognised internationally, is also seeking to develop its energy sector but must try to avoid conflict with the earlier accords signed by the internationally recognised pre-war Somali government based in Mogadishu.

Despite this, I am still not convinced that the US did not have oil in mind when it decided to intervene (by proxy) in Somalia.  Somalia may still have oil in its territory (ie. Puntland).  However, given the ambiguous "status" of Somaliland, what is clear to me is that there is a potential powder-keg waiting to explode if Somaliland is able to confirm vast deposits of oil and proceeds to exploit them.

Display:
I certianly read the news about oil exploration in the past Us intervention. Accordign to what I recalled, ther esults were negative.
Besides, taking into account how difficutl to have a ceasefire and stability in Somalia I doubt the Busha dministration is looking for oil there.

Another compeltely different things is the relevance of Somalia as a country whcih is very close to a basic oil route.

It certainly makes sense that the US does nto want a war there where one of the elements has developed weapon technology. It is mcuh mroe better to ahve a peaceful coutnry or a limited war with limited weapons means.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 03:32:20 PM EST
Even if they were just going after "terrorists", as Eric Margolis says:

A handful of African Al-Qaida suspects in the 1998 bombing of US Embassies in East Africa may have been in Somalia, but going to war against a sovereign nation to try to assassinate or capture a handful of suspects is like using a nuclear weapon to kill a gnat and is sure to generate more anti-US violence. Air strikes by carrier-based US F-18's and AC-130 gunships killed between 50 and 100 Somali civilians but, apparently, no al-Qaida suspects. The real aim of the US air attacks was to destroy remaining fighting units of the Islamic Courts and clear the way for the US-imposed Somali figurehead government.

I suppose by that "logic", Cuba should send its MIGs to bomb Miami or wherever Posada Carriles is located in the USA!

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 03:48:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
US a rogue state' Us controling countries arund routes...or US goign after soem clear targets... welll

I woudl say that they try to ahve certainc ontrol over an sepcific area..a nd maybe is the christian.muslim stuff which envigorates Bushbase....

In anyc ase.. thanks for the diary!!! Hope to see youa round mcuh more!.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 05:23:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A handful of African Al-Qaida suspects in the 1998 bombing of US Embassies in East Africa may have been in Somalia, but going to war against a sovereign nation to try to assassinate or capture a handful of suspects is like using a nuclear weapon to kill a gnat and is sure to generate more anti-US violence.

I thought the US AC 130 attacks were in support of the legitimate government of Somalia and against the Islamic rebel group and al-Qaeda terrorists.  Did I miss something in the translation, or is it just common sense to call any US supported government a "figurehead", especially if there happens to be oil within the country?

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 11:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, sorry to be so impolite.  Welcome to the blog Maracutu.  Actually a very good diary.  Please don't take my sarcasm personally. I just represent a less liberal view than some and my enthusiasm occasionally gets the better of me.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 11:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Legitimate government", hmm. Depends on what your grounds for legitimacy are.

The Transitional Federal Government was formed in exile as a part of a reconciliation preocess that not all fighting factions wanted part of.

Wikipedia states:

The Transitional Federal Government (TFG) was formed in October–November 2004 in Nairobi, Kenya with the adoption of the following Transitional Federal Institutions (TFI), all accomplished by the end of the sessions:
  • Selection of 275 Transitional Federal Parliament (TFP) members
  • Approval of the Transitional Federal Charter (TFC)
  • Election of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed as President by the Parliament (October 10) as head of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and appointment of the Council of Ministers, including Prime Minister Ali Mohammed Ghedi (November 4).[19]

Wiki article

Being backed by traditional enemy Ethiopia was not unanimously supported either.

Following the success of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council in taking Mogadishu, and the alleged entry of Ethiopian troops into Somalia, members of the transitional government started to resign.

Wiki article

Of course you can view a selected parliament in exile as legitimate. It certainly had support of some foreign nations. But then I have to ask what your grounds for legitimacy is?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 08:22:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree with what you've pointed out.  When moving  from a situation where there has been no government to a transitional one there were bound to be disagreements, but I wouldn't go so far as to label the transitional government a "figurehead" and practically brand it a puppet of the US's quest for oil.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 11:39:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since I disagree with the notion that the US is one of the main players I agree that the transitional government is not US puppet. I think it is in many ways Ethiopias puppet.

To clarify, I think the transitional governement is now in a position where they are completedly dependent on ethiopian troops to defend them, which makes inable to act contrary to ethiopian interests. Which is what "puppet" often means. However, things were not always such. They were formed in exile from different groups in Somalia and thus held support from those groups. I think that the resignations signifies groups droping out of this coalition. Which would mean that their legitimacy on the ground is very weak.

And to clarify even further, the ethiopian government is a pretty ruthless dictatorship but is not a puppet of the US even though they have succedeed in positioning themselves as allies to the US. That gives Ethiopia guns, and the US some say in Ethiopias actions. The Ethiopian involvement in the Somali civil war predates their US support.

("Ethiopia" is here used to signify the ruling clique of Ethiopia, that is Meles and his crowd.)

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 02:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the welcome and the complement on the diary.  I learned a lot more from the comments (which, I must confess, was my original intent behind the diary in the first place)

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 04:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(I'm probably not going to tell you anything you don't know here, but this is my view...)

I'm sure the US keeps an eye on all potential oil producers these days, but I have to say I feel that the rationale for getting involved was something else.

To me, the magic words were "wanted members of Al-Qaeda." That was the basic political imperative. And as part of being seen to be chasing after these "wanted men" the US decided that the ICU was an obstacle and started looking for local allies in the Afghan conflict model. This led them to the Ethiopian government.

It's also worth mentioning that this was a good ground to try to recover some sense of "international unity" because there is a recognised government of Somalia who have been battling the ICU for a while.

Whether all this is a sensible action is of course an entirely different question.

However, I should end by conceding that the pattern of US interventions in the Bush-Cheney era has been that oil states and potential oil states get priority attention.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 03:46:58 PM EST
By the same logic, if only Cuba could muster enough fire-power to overthrow the Bush regime for harboring Posada Carriles!

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 03:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You might like this TNR article.
by MarekNYC on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 03:53:45 PM EST
I'm not convinced that there are large oil reserves in Somalia.  There's no oil in neighborhing Kenya, and the only oil exploration in Ethiopia is in Gambella province, over near the Sudanese border, where you'd expect it.  (Sudan's oil reserves are mostly in the south.)

Yemen, across the Gulf of Aden from Somalia, has modest oil reserves, and if Somalia has any oil it's likely to be in the same general area, e.g. coastal and/or offshore.  

But Yemen's proven reserves are only around three billion barrels or less.  Even if Somalia has another three billion barrels, that's not really enough to set the world on fire.

I'm sure the companies would like the chance to explore for oil in Somalia, but even they must not be terribly optimistic about finding the hidden stash that will save the world (or at least them) from Peak Oil.  It's just not likely that there's much there.

Of course, I'm not an oil analyst either.  Who knows.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 04:25:27 PM EST
Also... if anybody seriously threatened to cut off the Suez Canal, they'd have to deal with a very pissed off and heavily armed Egypt.  And Egypt has absolutely no problem killing people from further south on the continent.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 04:31:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi the stormy present,

JMHO but you might want to review the latest data of the oil reserves of Yemen. IMHO you will find that they have more than 3 Billion Barrels of Oil reserves. Please see the Yemen web site below and I think you will see that your numbers may be outdated. JMHO...

Please see the web site:
http://www.pepa.com.ye/Concession/concession.htm

Section fron the site:
More over, the oil reserves of the Republic of Yemen estimate at 9,718 billion barrels. It is worth noting that fresh information on sedimentary basins in Yemen indicates that there are many promising concession areas located at 12 sedimentary basins. At the time being, Yemeni oil production is only from 2 sedimentary basins out of the above-mentioned 12. Producing oil only from two basins gives us more inspiring and optimistic indicators. Other indicators are the 87 blocks, out of which only 12 produce oil. Yet, the size of a block differs from one to another. The average size of a block is 4 thousand square kilometers unlike Safer block whose area is 8 thousand square kilometer.
In addition, there is an orientation towards exploiting offshore blocks located at the Arab Sea, Aden Gulf, and the Red Sea. Historically speaking, an oil company carried out drilling operations between Al-Mukalla and Sayhout. The result was the discovery of 3 thousand barrels in one of the wells but because of political reasons, the well was closed down. That was a very simple indicator, so now there is an Australian oil company working on block 15. It would start exploration in January 2007. Promoting the offshore blocks would start at the beginning of 2007.
In addition, there is an orientation towards exploiting offshore blocks located at the Arab Sea, Aden Gulf, and the Red Sea. Historically speaking, an oil company carried out drilling operations between Al-Mukalla and Sayhout. The result was the discovery of 3 thousand barrels in one of the wells but because of political reasons, the well was closed down. That was a very simple indicator, so now there is an Australian oil company working on block 15. It would start exploration in January 2007. Promoting the offshore blocks would start at the beginning of 2007.

by Plato on Sun Jan 21st, 2007 at 12:13:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
First I want to thank you, Plato, for providing such important information.

Secondly, the stormy present says:

But Yemen's proven reserves are only around three billion barrels or less.

...to which you respond that:

...you might want to review the latest data of the oil reserves of Yemen. IMHO you will find that they have more than 3 Billion Barrels of Oil reserves.

My question is how much of this difference might be due to the nomenclature which I discuss in the diary: (ie. the difference between proven oil reserves and the US Geological Survey's broader definition of what constitutes oil reserves - that includes "unconventional" tar sands and oil shale sources?)

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Sun Jan 21st, 2007 at 11:12:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
nothing.

this one was about al qaeda/islamic fundies.

by HiD on Thu Jan 18th, 2007 at 04:29:31 PM EST
Welcome maracatu, and great first article at ET! Please post more of this kind of article! Thanks!

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 03:22:00 AM EST
Thanks for the diary, most appreciated.

Anecdotal : I was with someone just back from Djibouti a few days ago. Apparently, the situation is pretty calm, except for the US troops, which are no longer allowed to go out in town.
I'd have thought it would be because of fear of reprisals, but no, the story goes, for whatever that's worth, that there are too many fights between blacks and white (US troops)...

by balbuz on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 03:39:40 AM EST
I disagree on an other level. Though Ethiopia was supported by the US and even though the US participated in the war, I see this mainly as an escalation of a regional conflict that has been brewing for a long time.

I wrote this diary last summer when the first regular Ethiopian troops was reported in Somalia. The short version is that Ethiopia has been involved in the Somali civil war for a long time and when a non-ethiopian side was winning they steped up their intervention to regular army units with more heavy equipment.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 06:04:45 AM EST
Thank You.  I stand corrected.  Somehow I wonder if Ethiopia was encouraged, or even goaded, into invading by the US at this particular juntcture.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 05:51:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The day and week I am sure Ethiopia could let their great ally decide, considering that both sides has been arming and preparing themselves during the fall. The union of islamic courts got their guns from the middle east and their training from Eritrea. Or so claimed a UN report sometime around november.

Something I should add, is that in my view there is little reason to overthrow these governments to get their natural resources as the US (or anyone else) can buy them for shiny guns. The horn of Africa is home to some of the planets poorest countries in measurements such as food/capita. Their governments are poor and weak and no where near the mid-eastern ones. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea was part of the moral support section of the coalition of the willing. Ethiopia got the price of US backing. For now.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 10:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...there is little reason to overthrow these governments to get their natural resources as the US (or anyone else) can buy them for shiny guns.

No doubt.  Oil being fungible, I always understood the US wanted control over the resources instead of appropriating itself of them outright.

After absorbing the information from the commenters here, I believe I have answered my own questions.  I conclude the US is not intent on taking over what appears to be a limited reservoir in Somalia.  I take the US's paranoid claims at face value:  It is all about preventing Al Qaeda from getting a foothold.  But that does not negate that an underlying reason has to do with the overall security of oil routes, spillover into neighboring countries and possible impact on the wider middle east.

Furthermore, I agree that US and Ethiopian actions (aside from being illegal under international law) might have the opposite effect of fomenting (instead of discouraging) radicals.  Kind of like Iraq:

The Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, must have been studying the magnificent successes of the U.S. preemptive invasion of Iraq and Israel's recent foray into Lebanon. He has clearly decided to emulate them. His argument is exactly that which was given by George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert. We must attack our neighbor because we have to keep Islamic terrorists from pursuing their jihad and attacking us.

In each case, the invader was sure of his military superiority and of the fact that the majority of the population would hail the attackers as liberators. Zenawi asserts he is cooperating in the U.S. worldwide struggle against terrorism. And indeed, the United States has offered not only its intelligence support but has sent in both its air force and units of special troops to assist the Ethiopians.



"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 03:47:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Furthermore, I agree that US and Ethiopian actions (aside from being illegal under international law) might have the opposite effect of fomenting (instead of discouraging) radicals.

Well of course: there's nothing these people are good at except fomenting radicals. They need them in order to survive, in the same way  that the crazy Israelis need the crazy Palestinians and the men of violence in Northern Ireland needed each other. Their power comes from the existence of a simple enemy. Without them they would have no reason to exist.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 03:51:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just like Bushido, the armchair warrior:

Once, a group of travellers were on a perilous journey, in the course of which they had to cross a river. Unluckily, their guide forgot the location of the bridge, so the party had to ford the river, which, at the place they then found themselves, was shallow but very wide. After several minutes of wading through the icy water, the travellers began to grumble, "This guide is worthless! Let us abandon him and find another!" Sensing the discontent of his charges, the guide cleverly led them into a deeper part of the river [my comment: any resemblance to the current troop "surge" in Iraq is purely coincidental, mind you], where the current was stronger and the footing more treacherous. "Help us!" the travellers cried. "Esteemed guide, do not abandon us!"

The unenlightened believe it to be the height of felicity to have no enemies. The armchair warrior knows, however, that only a steady supply of enemies can assure him the loyalty of his friends. When so-called wise men warn him that in rashly slaughtering his enemies he is merely manufacturing more of them, he smiles.



"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 04:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Since the industrial revolution, competition for fossil fuels has driven practically every war, starting with the Franco-Prussian one, since Germany's plan to get to the oil in Mesopotamia and the coal in the Saar, since fossil fuels are finite, I am willing to entertain the idea that Somalia may be of more interest to Big Oil than we know.

In an era when tar sands, shales, etc., are going to be exploited because the abundant reservoirs of oil are rapidly being drained, then attention is bound to turn toward countries with promising geological formations.

It was during the Ford administration that Cheney and Rumsfeld and the other neocons began articulating publicly their position that it is in the best interests of the US to establish hegemony in parts of the world that provide oil so that we never again have to wait in line at the gas pump.

I am glad you have raised this issue and I look forward to some expert opinion on the topic.

by Plan9 on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 02:15:52 PM EST
Since the industrial revolution, competition for fossil fuels has driven practically every war, starting with the Franco-Prussian one, since Germany's plan to get to the oil in Mesopotamia and the coal in the Saar,

?

by MarekNYC on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 03:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems that many here have not researched the actual potential of "Oil" in Somalia mainly "Puntland".  Oil drilling will start in "Puntland" within the very near future via a J/V between Range Resources (Australian Company) and CanMex (Canadian company) via a "Production Sharing Agreement" (PSA) between them and the "Puntland Government".  Please see the information below.








by Plato on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 06:56:03 PM EST
Do you have a link for this presentation, or a source?

There may be some copyright issues to repriniting documents created by other without attribution, especially if you reprint them in full or close to that, so we usually prefer to quote smaller bits and link to the full document.

Very interesting in any case, but I'll note that 250 million barrels, while nice for a small company, is quite small in terms of global oil production (it's 3 days of current world production)

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 05:46:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Salut Jerome a Paris, Thank you for your reply. All the information that I have posted is in the public domain. My apologies for not referencing my source documents. I was running late for a flight connection. Please find below Range Resources web address that contains all the information that I have provided. If you have any other questions on the information please let me know. http://www.rangeresources.com.au/corp_pro.cfm BTW the projected reserves estimated for the Puntland project is closer to 20 Billion Barrels. Au Revoir, Plato
by Plato on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 06:58:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
20 Billion Barrels?
{:-O

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 10:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi maracatu,

Per discussions between Range and Hunt Oil (Yemen) on review of the Conoco data on Block 28 in Puntland, the Hunt people have stated that Block 28 in Puntland and Block 18 in Yemen are mirror images and that Block 28 in Puntland "Could" contain upwards of 20 Billion barrels recoverable oil.

Time will tell if these estimates come true once drilling is under way. Until then it is just an "Estimate".

Cheers,
Plato


by Plato on Sun Jan 21st, 2007 at 12:29:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For further information about Range Resources and Oil in Somalia, Please view these videos

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbzgP_7U39U

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19qI_vncg6U


Also, here please find a link to an independent report about the company:

Range Resources Limited Independent Expert Report David Archibald 14 November, 2006

by Hajda2 (damianhajda@hotmail.com) on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 07:17:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Could comment on this piece about the Iraq Oil legislation (we have discussed this in another forum):

It's All About The Oil...Is It?
by Armed Liberal at January 11, 2007 9:39 PM


"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 06:57:46 PM EST
This

http://www.eurotrib.com/?op=displaystory;sid=2007/1/17/7340/96846

is just dropping off the Recent Diaries.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 07:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks Much!  I see I made a good choice by joining this blog community!

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne
by maracatu on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 10:12:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi,

I read your comments, and whilst I accord to you the right to your own opinions, I beg to take a different position in some respects.

First, let me say, I am not Somali,or American and I have never set foot on the Horn Of Africa.

I do believe that when one enters discussion on such a topic as you have addressed, political leanings are instantly visible. But it is not sensible if political leanings are allowed to blind us to the genuine needs of people affected. With that in mind, I ask,

How many people in Somalia and the wide world stood to benefit from the threatened take-over of Somalia by the Union of Islamic Courts, which was truly representative of only a couple of Mogadishu Clans and aligned with Iran or at least captive to Iranian philosophies? I believe 'not many'.

If such a group controlled Somalia, would their stated intention of spreading jihad accross the borders of Ehiopia and Kenya, then be extended to Somaliland, Djibouti, Sudan and Chad? I think absolutely Yes!.

Bearing in mind that Somalia is Muslim and proud of it, why did the ICU wish to subjugate it? Was it to extend the influence of radical islam across the red sea and deep into East Arica? I think yes!

Given that there are large reserves of oil in East Africa and Yemen, if a power aligned with Iran gained control of East Africa, how likely would it be that at some stage in the next decade, they would collaborate to deny the west access to sufficient quantities of oil to keep prices at bearable levels, especially as burgeoning demand exists from China, india and Korea? I believe that is an objective of Iran and some other anti westrern groups.

In a circumstance of $100+/b oil, would ordinary people of Europe Asia and North America suffer? I belive millions would starve and some millions would freeze to death.

What will bring prosperity and freedom from oppression to Somalia? Will it be development in which Somali populace have a strong share? OR, the ICU aligned to Iran and turning off the wells for their own political agendas?

What one single factor will heighten the risk of nuclear attack in the Middle East? I believe access to uranium by Iran and aligned powers: Somalia has uranium!

I apologise for the length of this, but one last observation. East Africa has been dominated by several European powers, especially including USSR in recent decades. Did any good come of it for its populations? Absolutely not!

The first oil coming out of Somalia will be owned by Somalia and its Australian and Canadian partners. The US I think is comfortable with that because it will contribute substantially to the world's puddle of oil to which all will have access and it will create peace in a nation which is geologically and geographically crucial to peace in East Africa and the Middle East.

I am not exactly "pro American intervention" per se. I am vehemently opposed to political and economic colonialism, especially in Africa and I hope the world will never again see the kind of resource theft it witnessed in several continents in the last several centuries.

Let's set the Australian/Canadian kind of model for co-operative resource development now occuring in Puntland, as a world standard.

by avalonga on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 10:10:43 PM EST
There is only one answer I can offer you.  In my humble opinion, neither you nor I (and by extension, neither the USA, former USSR powers, EU, Ethiopia or anyone else for that matter) ought to have any say whatsoever in what happens in Somalia except for the people of Somalia!  If they happened to prefer the Islamic Courts, then so be it.  Just like the Palestinians wanted Hamas and the Shiite population (and others!) in Lebanon prefer Hizb'allah, they are (or should be) entitled to have them as their leaders.  Whether they are acceptable to me or you or anyone else that does not belong to the particular population in question is immaterial.  ...Or do you follow the Bush doctrine that says democracy is OK as long as you vote for what I want?!?

And by the way, to what you say here:

I do believe that when one enters discussion on such a topic as you have addressed, political leanings are instantly visible. But it is not sensible if political leanings are allowed to blind us to the genuine needs of people affected. With that in mind, I ask,

My response is that you might want to heed your own advice.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 10:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The UN imposed an arms embargo on Somalia and turned its back whilst the Islamic Courts shipped in arms from all over. ICU then marched through unarmed villages and declared its "victories". They threatened Jihad in Kenya and Ethiopia and surrounded the base of the UN recognised government. They began shelling government positions but when government and Ethiopian troops retaliated they ran back to Mogadishu, closed the schools and sent children out to fight with Eritrean weapons.

I am sorry my comments offended you but it is very important that we read everything available to form our opinions; otherwise we are in danger of becoming like Nazi or Stalinist "press button" revolutionaries with  "rent a crowd" mentality.

by avalonga on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 03:58:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The crucial question, I believe, is do the vast majority of Somalis prefer the Islamic Courts over the so-called "legitimate government" that is backed by the UN?  Since I am not Somali, I cannot answer that question.  I have to rely on journalists' news reports, but furthermore, I need to separate the propaganda that serves non-Somali interests from the real news reports that truly are reflective of what the Somali people want.  Not an easy task (neither for me nor for you).  I tend to lend credence to reports from people like Nir Rosen:

ROBERTS: Nir Rosen, what about that? I mean Somalia is the poster child for the words "failed state." Is there any way it's ever going to be stable?

ROSEN: It was getting stable. The Islamic courts were not radical. It actually succeeded in doing something amazing for Somalis, bringing peace to Mogadishu, getting rid of the warlords, letting people be able to walk in the streets at night without getting robbed or killed and they brought stability not only to Mogadishu, but it was spreading throughout much of the country. What we have done by focusing solely on this terrorism or radical Islam aspect for our foreign policy for an entire country is actually to destabilize the country, introduce foreign troops who invaded the country who are extremely unpopular. I think this is actually a horrible situation. The Islamic courts were the answer for Somalia. They managed to unite many different clans. They managed to provide stability. They had the backing of Somalis very important business community. They had the backing of many of the original powers and we've actually destabilized Somalia by allowing the Ethiopians to do this.

ROBERTS: So you think it was better off, before the Ethiopians backing up the warlords went back in there.

ROSEN: Well I was in Mogadishu when the Islamic courts took over and there were massive celebrations throughout the entire city, because neighborhoods had been closed off. Suddenly you can go throughout the entire city. Somalis were very, very happy. There were parades. There were festivals. Businessmen who had been exiled for many years came back. There was really a sense of optimism. The one fear people had is that the Ethiopians are going to come in with backing from America and ruin all of this and bring the warlords back and bring a government in name only. It's not really government, back into Somalia and this is indeed what happens happened. Now Somalia's destabilized where there was a little bit of hope a few months ago.

There are similar reports from other respected sources.  You obviously disagree, but then you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

"Beware of the man who does not talk, and the dog that does not bark." Cheyenne

by maracatu on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 02:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How many people in Somalia and the wide world stood to benefit from the threatened take-over of Somalia by the Union of Islamic Courts, which was truly representative of only a couple of Mogadishu Clans and aligned with Iran or at least captive to Iranian philosophies? I believe 'not many'.

In southern Somalia, I believe the answer is "many", thus there popular support. They replaced civil war with rule of law, and that is generally - almost no matter what law - perceived as beneficial. Now instead they have an ethiopian puppet regime that is not strong enough to ensure order.

If such a group controlled Somalia, would their stated intention of spreading jihad accross the borders of Ehiopia and Kenya, then be extended to Somaliland, Djibouti, Sudan and Chad? I think absolutely Yes!.

Sudan? Chad? No way, they were not even close to such powers. They would probably have battled Puntland at some stage and if they defeated Puntland maybe also Somaliland. I would however more guess that fighting with Puntland would have ended in stalemate. To see a strong faction in a civil war in a very poor country as being able to overrun their larger, richer neighbours is not very realistic. Conquering their neighbours neighbours? That is beyond unrealistic.

Bearing in mind that Somalia is Muslim and proud of it, why did the ICU wish to subjugate it? Was it to extend the influence of radical islam across the red sea and deep into East Arica? I think yes!

They wished to gain power and end the civil war by winning it. That can of course be seen as subjugating, but then the question arises why Lincoln wanted to subjugate USA?

Given that there are large reserves of oil in East Africa and Yemen, if a power aligned with Iran gained control of East Africa, how likely would it be that at some stage in the next decade, they would collaborate to deny the west access to sufficient quantities of oil to keep prices at bearable levels, especially as burgeoning demand exists from China, india and Korea? I believe that is an objective of Iran and some other anti westrern groups.

Aligned with Iran? Why would they, considering Iran is Shia and Somalia is Sunni?

In a circumstance of $100+/b oil, would ordinary people of Europe Asia and North America suffer? I belive millions would starve and some millions would freeze to death.

Well, then we better find some other ways to organise our socities then depend on oil, which after all is a limited resource. $100+/b oil is probably coming no matter what happens in Somalia.

What will bring prosperity and freedom from oppression to Somalia? Will it be development in which Somali populace have a strong share? OR, the ICU aligned to Iran and turning off the wells for their own political agendas?

Prosperity and freedom from oppression is very unlikely to follow from Ethiopian occupation either.

What one single factor will heighten the risk of nuclear attack in the Middle East? I believe access to uranium by Iran and aligned powers: Somalia has uranium!

Iran already has uranium. Can someone chim in and inform where it is mined?

I apologise for the length of this, but one last observation. East Africa has been dominated by several European powers, especially including USSR in recent decades. Did any good come of it for its populations? Absolutely not!

In fact, it has recently been used as a chess-board in the struggles between the US and USSR. And quite correctly it did not do them any good, much the other way around actually.

The first oil coming out of Somalia will be owned by Somalia and its Australian and Canadian partners. The US I think is comfortable with that because it will contribute substantially to the world's puddle of oil to which all will have access and it will create peace in a nation which is geologically and geographically crucial to peace in East Africa and the Middle East.

I think on the contrary that the local part will be owned by high Puntland officials. During civil war (which is likely to continue under new management) corruption is usually staggering.

I am not exactly "pro American intervention" per se. I am vehemently opposed to political and economic colonialism, especially in Africa and I hope the world will never again see the kind of resource theft it witnessed in several continents in the last several centuries.

But is not Ethiopia taking over in Somalia also a form of colonialism?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Fri Jan 19th, 2007 at 10:47:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
These rants are entirely predictable.
by avalonga on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 03:35:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Aligned with Iran? Why would they, considering Iran is Shia and Somalia is Sunni?"

But that's the whole point. Somalia is  Sunni but the ICU policies resembled Taliban.

Anyway, please read it all again. You will find that I am not an American apologist: I am an historian and I place little importance on "pro-US", "anti-US" dogmas. These things distort our thinking.

by avalonga on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 04:16:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Taliban means also sunni and allied with our friendly despots Pakistan and Saudi. Iran and the taliban hated each other's guts.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 04:22:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, I could say the same about your original comment, was it not for the fact that some parts was a bit unpredictable. But to head down that track would not lead us in any productive direction.

So I admit my reponse was snarkish at times. If you ignore the snarkish formulations, there is also a point-by-point rebuttal of your central points. If you like to, we can discuss the situation in Somalia instead of whose rantings are most predicable.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 08:54:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A bit late, but I found this map at wikipedia (it has been de-copyrighted) showing the political and military situation a month before the invasion:

bigger map at wikipedia

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jan 20th, 2007 at 07:02:00 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]