Foreign News and Analysis Since April 2005 -- formerly China Confidential -- What's Happening in the WorldForeign Confidential ™
Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Rail Remains Viable Option for Domestic US Oil Industry
The Association of American Railroads reports the number of rail tankers carrying crude oil and petroleum products in the United States increased more than 35 percent during the first six months of the year when compared with 2011. After the U.S. Energy Department, in its report, noted the lack of pipeline infrastructure in North Dakota, British supermajor BP announced it was considering rail to bring oil from the Bakken formation there to its refinery in Washington state. In terms of the environmental footprint, meanwhile, rail deliveries account for less than 1 percent of the total emissions from the transportation sector. These findings come even though rail shipments are three times more expensive than pipeline deliveries
The AAR finds that 241,000 rail tanker cars hauled oil during the six-month period ending in June, a 38 percent increase over the same period in 2011. For June, rail deliveries increased 51 percent over their 2011 levels for the month. Each rail tanker carries around 700 barrels of oil, meaning June deliveries translated to nearly 1 million barrels per day. The U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration attributes much of the increase in rail deliveries to the oil boom under way in North Dakota, which in March became the second-largest oil producing U.S. state. Oil producers in the region, however, rely on rail to get oil out of the region and BP this week said it was considering a rail project to bring Bakken crude to its 225,000-bpd refinery in Washington. The permitting process could begin as early as next month.
Rail deliveries, however, cost, on average, $15 per barrel compared with the $5 per barrel for deliveries through pipeline systems. On the other hand, the rail system is getting less energy intensive. While the transportation sector accounts for about 25 percent of the global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, rail represents a minor fraction of that total. Across the board, emissions for transportation are increasing in every sector except rail, which accounts for less than 1 percent of total CO2 emissions for the sector.
When completed, the entire Keystone oil pipeline network could carry about 1.1 million bpd compared with the same approximate total for the entire United States for rail. The 3,100-mile Enbridge Pipeline System, which stretches from the Athabasca oil sands facilities in Alberta to oil refineries in the Midwest, can carry, on average, 1.4 million bpd. Last week, however, more than 1,000 barrels oil spilled from a section of that pipeline in Wisconsin. While Enbridge said much of the release was contained, the incident occurred one day after the two-year anniversary of the costliest onshore crude oil spill in U.S. history from a section of the same pipeline network. Though in terms of volume, pipeline transportation has proved its merit, the move by BP in the Bakken formation suggests rail transit remains a viable option for the industry.
Daniel J. Graeber is a senior analyst at Oilprice.com .Monday, August 06, 2012
More on Obama's Murky Syria Policy
Good Jihadists, Bad Jihadists …
By Clare M. Lopez
The Syrian revolt—and the U.S. role in it—just seem to get more confusing by the day.
The Muslim Brotherhood is fighting to oust the minority Alawite regime of the Bashar al-Assad clan. HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood's terrorist offshoot that rules Gaza, joined the fight to topple Assad. And now it is reported that Al-Qaeda fighters are bolstering the ranks of the rebellion as well.
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are all Sunni majority countries, and so it is understandable that they support the Muslim Brotherhood's battle to oust what many consider a bunch of heretics (the Alawites) from Damascus. Besides, Assad is allied with the Shi'ite mullahs' regime in Tehran that is perceived as a growing menace across the region. Al-Qa'eda and HAMAS are also Sunni outfits (even though both have acted in the past as Iranian terror allies). Sunni or Shi'a though, they all support jihad in the way of Allah to spread Islam, destroy Israel and enforce Islamic law (sharia). They just have different ideas about who should be in charge. When they fight each other like this, in civil strife within Islam, as Sunnis and Shi'ites have for centuries, it is called fitna. So far, so good. This much is clear.
Things begin to get murky, however, when trying to understand official U.S. policy towards these not-so-very-different players: Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and Syria.
The U.S. Department of State released its 2011 Country Reports on Terrorism on July 28, 2012, and as in years past, declared Iran the leading state sponsor of terrorism and Al-Qaeda a leading terror threat to U.S. national security. Ambassador Daniel Benjamin, head of the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, noted with some concern at a press conference that day that, although Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is no more, Al-Qaeda affiliates have "increased their overall operational ability," including in places like Syria.
Al Qaeda Fighters in Syria
In fact, some of the Al-Qaeda fighters now joining the Syrian uprising are the same ones their former sponsor in Damascus supported against the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq a few years ago.
Benjamin was quick to add, though, that "We believe that the number of Al-Qaeda fighters [and] Al-Qaeda-related fighters who are in Syria is relatively small…" (Does this remind anyone of the "flickers of Al-Qaeda" in Libya in early 2011? Of course, in the end, it was precisely Al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies who toppled Muammar Qaddafi and took over the country.)
In any case, Benjamin told reporterson that "We've spoken with the Syrian opposition groups and warned them against allowing such fighters to infiltrate their organizations. They've assured us that they are being vigilant and want nothing to do with AQ or with violent extremists. And I should add that the Free Syrian Army has issued several statements urging foreign fighters to leave Syria." OK, so that ought to take care of Al-Qaeda in Syria. They're bad actors, but the "good" rebels have the situation under control.
Rebels Dominated by Muslim Brotherhood
Except that the ranks of the anti-Assad rebels favored by the Obama administration, many of them organized under the Turkey-based Syrian National Council (SNC), are dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Muslim Brotherhood is fighting for the same thing Al-Qaeda is: To spread Islam, destroy Israel and enforce sharia. For instance, the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi', actually declared war (jihad) against the U.S., Israel and Arab rulers in a late September 2010 sermon.
Upon his election, the new Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, wasted no time vowing to "liberate" Jerusalem, establish ties with Iran, and recite the Brotherhood motto:
"Allah is our Objective
Muhammad is our Prophet
The Quran is our Law
Jihad is our Way
And dying in the way of Allah is our highest aspiration"
He also promised to free Omar Abdel Rahman (the "Blind Sheikh"), who is serving a life sentence in U.S. federal prison for his role in Islamic terror plots against the World Trade Center and New York City landmarks.
But in spite of the obvious overlap between Al-Qaeda and Brotherhood objectives, the Obama administration is increasing aid to "the rebels," providing communications training and equipment plus "some intelligence support" "to help improve ... [rebel] combat effectiveness."
The New York Times reported in July 2012 that CIA operatives were in southern Turkey to help channel weapons across the border to Syrian opposition fighters, ostensibly to "help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups." But how to tell them apart?
The Muslim Brotherhood, already closely identified with the Syrian National Council (SNC), openly announced at the beginning of this month the formation of a new militia called "The Armed Men of the Muslim Brotherhood," whose stated objective is to "raise awareness for Islam and for jihad."
Two European journalists were kidnapped by rebel forces in Syria and held for a week during July 2012, during which time their captors talked about jihad and sharia and threatened them with death unless they converted to Islam. The kidnappers reportedly were all non-Syrians, but included many who spoke British English. They only let the journalists go when Free Syrian Army (FSA) soldiers arrived in their camp and ordered their release. The nature of the relationship between the kidnapper jihadis and the FSA fighters remains unclear.
Syrian Christians Terrified
Syrian Christians are terrified of what will happen to their small community when Assad, who protected them from Muslim oppression, goes down. Thousands already have fled their homes because they fear reprisals from their Muslim Brotherhood neighbors for having sought the Assad regime's protection over the last decades.
A graphic amateur video posted online on July 31, 2012, shows the brutal execution of a group of Assad supporters in Aleppo by rebels from the Free Syrian Army who chanted "Allahu Akbar" as they blasted the prisoners with automatic rifle fire.
Yet, it emerged in early August, 2012, that President Barack Obama had signed an Intelligence Finding authorizing U.S. support for Syrian rebels battling the Assad regime. In mid-July, 2012, the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) issued a waiver to the Syrian Support Group, permitting it to provide logistical and financial support to the Free Syrian Army -- the same FSA that has the relationship with the journalists' kidnappers, the same FSA that executed POWs to the rhythm of the jihadi war cry.
Here is a question journalists should ask at the next White House press conference: Why are Al-Qaeda rebels who fight for the purpose of jihad to spread Islam and defeat Bashar al-Assad "bad," while Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis who fight to spread Islam and defeat Assad "good" and deserving of the full backing and support of the U.S. government?
If the reporter is allowed a follow-up question, here it is: Why don't Syrian Christians, Druze and Kurds who are not jihadis -- and do not want to see Islamic law enforced in Syria -- get that kind of support?Who's Doing What to Whom in Syria
Understanding the Nightmare
Joseph A. Klein writes:First, there is the religious and political battle being played out between Shiite Iran and the Sunni Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Iran is eager to maintain its sphere of influence in Syria through its alliance with Assad (who is affiliated with a Shite minority sect known as the Alawites ruling Syria). Saudi Arabia and Qatar aim to roll back Iran’s ambitions for hegemony in the region and are supporting the Sunni majority in Syria in their revolt against Assad and the Alawites. Hence, Iran is beefing up Assad’s regime with arms and the support of its Revolutionary Guard. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are funding and providing arms for the opposition.
Second, al Qaeda is using the chaos in Syria to establish another Islamic jihadist beachhead. As the New York Times recently reported, “Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists are doing their best to hijack the Syrian revolution…The evidence is mounting that Syria has become a magnet for Sunni extremists, including those operating under the banner of Al Qaeda.”
Third, Turkey, under the Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is serving as a transit point for the flow of arms to the opposition, including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles known as MANPADs. Erdoğan is evidently trying to revive Turkey’s Ottoman caliphate heritage by offering a seemingly “moderate” alternative to al Qaeda and other fundamentalist groups in leading the regional Sunni battle against the increasingly isolated Assad regime.
Fourth, there is the revival of U.S.-Russian Cold War-like rivalries. President Obama’s policy of trying to push a re-set button in the relationship between the two countries has backfired. As evidenced by its intransigence at the United Nations, Russia is protecting the Assad regime to thwart the West and its NATO ally Turkey in their efforts to extend their reach through regime change in a region where Russia believes it has vital strategic interests.
Read the whole article.Iran Set to Chair 120-Nation Nonaligned Movement
Another 'Believe it Or Not' Moment in International Diplomacy
Astonishing as it may seem, Iran is about to assume from Egypt the chairmanship of the 120-nation Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
The transition will take place in Tehran in three weeks.
Iran sees a golden opportunity for itself in "presiding" over this large bloc of nations.
For well over a decade, AJC has consistently called the world's attention to the true nature of the Iranian regime and its nuclear program. The organization's leaders and representatives have traveled the world repeatedly to engage in literally thousands of diplomatic meetings to address the global danger posed by Iran.
"We have used all the communications tools at our disposal, in multiple languages and countless countries, to do the same," says AJC Executive Director David Harris.
His blog on Iran and NAM represents part of that ongoing AJC effort.
Wednesday, 8 August 2012
Posts
