Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DoughtyOne

The article says the pipeline would run underwater from Turkey to Israel then overland to the Red Sea port. That route would mean it is fairly secure and would cut huge amounts of transit time for tankers on their way to the far east with this oil.


4 posted on 12/17/2006 9:24:34 AM PST by saganite (Billions and billions and billions-------and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: saganite

red sea port? you mean the northern tip of the gulf of aqaba, right between egypt and jordan, with saudi just a bit further down on the east?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1480000/images/_1481960_gulf_of_aqaba3.gif


5 posted on 12/17/2006 9:36:27 AM PST by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: saganite

There are two problems as I see it, and I do support the idea of the pipeline. I still see sabotage as an issue. I also see Israel's growing dependence on water and power from this pipeline, to open it up to blackmail or severe shortages as dependence grows and service interruption looms.


6 posted on 12/17/2006 9:38:22 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson