Thanks for the link Don:

Bush's Homeland Security Pipeline
March 29, 2002
By Harry Neville

From which we get the following

"But what kind of homeland security do we have when a president can create an administration populated by former employees and investors in Enron, an energy-trading company that used numerous schemes to raise the cost of energy it sells to various California utilities. Among those schemes was the act of clogging up electrical lines to create rolling blackouts for a phony energy shortage."

So former Enron employees should not be allowed to find other jobs within the energy sector? Investors in Enron, who lost money when that company crashed, and who had nothing to do with the running of that company should be marked down as unsuitable and unemployable for life? The world and it's uncle, have for years realised that fuel prices in America are too low when compared to consumption, and have been for decades. Get used to it, consume it at the rate at which you are doing now and the prices are going to go through the roof.

"Bush could then use this alleged shortage to justify drilling for oil in regions previously regarded as unfeasible by the U.S. Government. Among those regions is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Caspian Sea
near Afghanistan."

The US government declares whether or not regions outwith the US are feasible? Don't think so. The involvement of international oil companies in the countries surrounding the Caspian Sea go back to the final days of Soviet Russia.

"Bush gave us additional homeland security by having Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton--an oil drilling company--meet with Enron as part of the Energy Task Force." Of course, Bush refuses to disclose what was discussed in those meetings with Enron."

Is that the same Dick Cheney whose,

" career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.

When Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in August 1974, Mr. Cheney served on the transition team and later as Deputy Assistant to the President. In November 1975, he was named Assistant to the President and White House Chief of Staff, a position he held throughout the remainder of the Ford Administration.

After he returned to his home state of Wyoming in 1977, Mr. Cheney was elected to serve as the state's sole Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was re-elected five times and elected by his colleagues to serve as Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987. He was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference in 1987 and elected House Minority Whip in 1988. During his tenure in the House, Mr. Cheney earned a reputation as a man of knowledge, character, and accessibility.

Mr. Cheney also served a crucial role when America needed him most. As Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993, Mr. Cheney directed two of the largest military campaigns in recent history - Operation Just Cause in Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. He was responsible for shaping the future of the U.S. military in an age of profound and rapid change as the Cold War ended. For his leadership in the Gulf War, Secretary Cheney was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush on July 3, 1991."

Oh well then, that confirms it – this guy is totally unsuited to public office – hasn't got a clue – hell they could have plucked anybody off the street and found someone with ten times this guys experience and ability. Don't think so.

Halliburton – oil drilling company – drilling is one tiny part of what is the largest oil service company in the world.

Energy Task Force – created by Dick Cheney when? At the time of its creation were Enron in business? If they were then it would only seem logical that they would come into contact and be involved with the Energy Task Force.


"Of course, Bush refuses to disclose what was discussed in those meetings with Enron.

Perhaps the reason is that the proposed Afghanistan oil pipeline was the topic of discussion. After all, recently released correspondence between Ken Lay and Bush reveals that Lay, former CEO of Enron, "confirmed a meeting with Bush and Uzbekistan's ambassador to the United States." This seems odd because Uzbekistan is a key territory for development of the Afghanistan oil pipeline."

I believe that discussions relating to the proposed TAP predate the current US administration and Enron by quite a few years. As does that particular projects demise, but more on that later.

"What should make us all feel insecure about our newfound homeland security is that Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, bought H.C. Price Company (now called Bredero-Shaw http://www.bredero-shaw), a Texas-based oil company that supplies anticorrosion coatings for oil pipelines and is a joint partner of the Saudi Bin-Laden Group http://www.sbg.com.sa, a construction company that is owned by the Bin-Laden family and builds crude-oil pipelines."

Halliburton's acquisition of Bredero-Shaw/Bredero-Price came about through the Halliburton merger/take-over with/of Dresser, one of Halliburtons main competitors as a major oil service company. It was not acquired specifically for their expertise in their particular field. It is totally logical, and reasonable business practice, that a company that coats pipelines has joint venture partnerships and frame contract agreements with companies that design and build pipelines.

"Logic would indicate that the Bin-Laden Group has the heavy equipment in the region near Afghanistan that would facilitate the building of the pipeline through Afghanistan. And, Halliburton--Cheney's old oil-drilling company--can drill for the oil that is to be fed through the pipeline. Is that pipeline and a possible role in it by the Bin-Laden family the kind of security we seek?"

Yes it is logical, it is equally logical that there are others who fall into this category who are better placed both geographically and logistically to support pipeline operations aimed at piping oil from Afghanistan. It is also logical that the shortest pipelines are laid to tie-in with existing infrastructure. That means the pipelines run to the north and to the west from Afghanistan – that is what is actually going to happen – the proposed TAP is not. Why is the TAP not going to go ahead? – Logic takes a hand in the reasons for this:

1. Success of the TAP relied on the gas being sold to India – India will not ever rely on energy sources routed through Pakistan, as the TAP would have to do. An alternative for India is a subsea pipeline from southern Iran, this pipeline has been under discussion since 1994, declarations of intent have been signed, by both governments – that effectively killed the proposed TAP.

2. In general the West pays more for energy, which makes them a better customer. Transport royalties for use of existing Russian pipelines were reduced which made the export of oil and gas from Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, etc, more financially attractive to the governments of those countries – that effectively killed the proposed TAP.

3. Pipeline routes – north and west, not so many problems, existing infrastructure and a ready market – South through Afghanistan and through Pakistan, politically unstable (at the time of discussion) with a government only recognised by Pakistan. The pipeline would have to run through the Hindu-Kush, very mountainous very expensive, the product then has to be transported further afield to reach it's market, which would have to be won.

The bin-Laden family are implicated with the activities of their son? Or is that just a case of "collective responsibility", or "guilt by association", being totally acceptable because it happens to suit the particular conspiracy theory being built?

"Next in Bush's quest for homeland security comes Unocal, an oil company that builds oil and gas pipelines. Bush recently appointed a former advisor to UNOCAL as a U.S. envoy to Afghanistan. This might not raise a few eyebrows if it weren't for the fact that UNOCAL has long sought a pipeline that would stretch from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan and would tap the enormous oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea region near Afghanistan."

Now why on earth would you route a pipeline from the countries bordering the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan, when there are numerous export pipeline networks already in existence, that serve better paying customers at a fraction of the cost?

"UNOCAL was so motivated to get this pipeline that it met with representatives of the Taliban in Texas in 1997. I don't know about you, but that sure makes me feel secure."

Does Afghanistan need pipelines? Yes of course it does, TAP was not, and never has been, the only option, and by the time the discussions referred to took place, TAP was becoming less and less likely to proceed. Unocal, by the by, does not build pipelines, it pays others to build them on their behalf. They then operate the pipelines. In the case of TAP, ownership of the sections of the pipeline running through the three countries was to be handed over to the governments of those countries after a set time limit.

"So, if I were really cynical about homeland security, I'd say that the Saudi Bin-Laden Group would provide UNOCAL with the heavy equipment needed to build the Afghanistan pipeline."

Possible, provided the logistics and costs were right. A Saudi pipeline construction company would certainly be more politically acceptable to the governments of at least two of those countries – in other words good business sense on the part of Unocal. They (Saudi Bin-Laden Group) would not, however, be the only contenders for this work that would satisfy such sensitivities.

"I'd then take a great mental leap and say that Halliburton would do the drilling to feed the pipeline."

The fields are already in existence, little or no drilling required. Would probably have got involved with reservoir technology and wellhead injection equipment to extend life of existing fields.

"And I'd top off my cynicism by saying that Enron--an energy trading company--would bid up the price of the oil and natural gas to sell it at high cost to neighboring countries such as India, home of Enron's Dabhol natural gas power plant.

Keep in mind that Unocal's pipelines can carry gas, and Enron badly needed the gas reserves from the Caspian Sea for a pipeline that would route natural gas to its Dabhol power plant in India. In "The Enron-Cheney-Taliban-Connection," an article that appeared on the Web site, AlterNet.org, writer Ron Callari says: "the Vice President's energy task force changed a draft energy proposal to include a provision to boost oil and natural gas production in India in February of last year." Callari says this proposal was meant to help Enron with its Dabhol power plant.

The article linked to refers to an alternative proposal under consideration by the Indian Government to get gas from Qatar. That fell through, there is no mention of any negotiations between India and Iran, ongoing since 1994, with declarations of intent signed in 1998. Also take a look at the map in that link and find the shortest distance between Iran and Enron's Dabhol power plant – subsea pipeline from Bandar Abbas.


"In a 1996 Telegraph article entitled "Warring nation holds key to oil riches of Central Asia," writer Christopher Lockwood says that UNOCAL had been negotiating with the Taliban for a natural gas pipeline that would stretch through Afghanistan and end in Pakistan. From there, it's only a short hop, skip and jump away to Enron's natural gas Dabhol power plant in India. What a surprise?"

It would be one hell of a surprise to the electorate of India if their government went for an energy scheme that meant Pakistan had its hands very much on the supply of energy required by India. The proposal is a total anathema to the Indian government and electorate.

"Of course, I like to feel secure. And, if I felt Bush were drafting energy legislation to help oil companies exploit Afghanistan, then I'd have to say he allowed 9/11 to happen. 9/11 essentially cleared the way for Halliburton, UNOCAL, Enron, and other oil and gas entities to make the Afghanistan pipeline possible. And, 9/11 enabled Bush to send U.S. troops to Afghanistan to clear away militant Taliban forces that are hostile to this pipeline project."

Now discussions relating to TAP, and other pipelines in the region have been going on for at least 12 years – Bush is DRAFTING energy legislation – He's a bit bloody late in the day for that isn't he? By at least ten years - He's only been in office since 2000.

The Taliban were overthrown by Northern Alliance forces, with the assistance of American air power and a few forward observers.