Posted on 03/04/2002 6:22:39 PM PST by dubyaweluvya
Wingnut...Listen up and listen up good...Enron was not, is not, and will never be a oil producing company you moron....Take your leftist dribble and leave.
Now...Listen up again...they traded futures contracts on various energy sources and other commodities...some recongnized others not...you are as transparent a Daschle press confrence.
Can you truly be so ignorant as to NOT see it?
We MADE them rich with our money, our investment in their nations, which is also why we were so quick to defend them in the gulf war... the RIGHT thing to do, by the way. But to deny that they take their profits from the sale of oil, and use them to finance their operations worldwide is insanity.
It is a clear, plain and simple FACT. Whether you consider the enron conglomerate an OIL company per se, ignores the overall picture... our use of middle eastern oil is the weapon they are using against us NOW. Without developing our own resources, as in ANWR, or off the coast of california... we remain at THEIR mercy...
We continue to invest American dollars in the drilling and refining of oil that belongs to THEM, that THEY get the money from, and that THEY send to their partners in terror, worldwide.... What? You actually believed it was from the teenage girl down the street? Oh... you did. How pathetic.
When america stops paying mid east sheiks for their oil, the war will be over. Game. Set. Match.
Getting our own oil supply is part of the Bush strategy... in case you don't know... wingnut. I must admit, the liberal leftist accusation was pretty much of a hoot though.. lol.
AS to me being some kind of liberal posting here... try remembering your own "newbie" profile...
|
|
. Pathetic attempt at a smear anta... now go back whence you came. |
Under my previous nick I have ponied up over 3000 grand in support of this joint, counted votes in Florida, and rallied conservatives in communist Kaliforna.
Your pathetic attempt to refute the facts by admonishing my member status undercuts your position. Move along, these arent the droids your looking for.
ENE is not an oil producing company, despite your wish it was. Obviously you never bothered to research the facts before spewing your postion.
Its core business was making and selling bets, through complex "derivative risk management products," against the potential profits and losses of other companies. Much of the selling part of this business occurred at EnronOnline, where customers logged in and traded.
For example, Enron sold a financial product that protected companies against weather vagaries. An energy utility could insure itself against an unusually warm winter with an Enron derivative, based on "degree days" (the daily temperature deviation from 65 degrees Fahrenheit). A utility would calculate (along with Enron consultants) how much money it would lose for each degree of deviation on the warm side. It would then pay a cash premium to Enron for a "floor" below which Enron pledged to make up the loss in cash.
However, if the winter turned colder and the utility started raking in extra cash, it would have to pay Enron cash for each degree of deviation on the cold side.
This same pattern was repeated for all kinds of things that go up and down unexpectedly in price or availability: electricity, natural gas, media advertising, oil, petrochemicals, steel, water, wind energy, even Internet broadband and long-distance minutes.
Once these bets had been turned into tradable paper, investors were allowed to get in on the deal, hoping to make money on the value of Enron's bets.
It is a very dicey business, but one that will probably continue to thrive. That's why another healthier business, UBS Warburg, grabbed this part of Enron for several billion dollars. Fundamentally, it is an extremely fast-working information business conducted electronically - a dot.com service industry.
Now...Listen up again...they traded futures contracts on various energy sources and other commodities...some recongnized others not...you are as transparent a Daschle press confrence.
Enron was also involved in the Czech Republic's nuke facilities. Zeman got lots of money from Enron. Ex-communists don't die they just get bought off.
Enron's behaviors are being scrutinized pretty heavily up here in the North West... Gray out davis, seems to be involved... and of course, our northwestern utility giants... The power (not real) shortage this summer in WA, OR and CA... related to Enron? Dollars to donuts....
Enron has played a major role in power issues worldwide INDCLUDING things related to big oil. The nation that created the computer network in every home, runs on power (enron) and telecommunication (global crossing). Looks like they have positioned themselves very well to take advantage of the world's need for power, and to distribute, prop up and assist, folks who in reality are NO FRIENDS of America.
Apparently this was all well underway BEFORE bush was even president, and goes back to the Clinton administration.
You got any more links?
Post em please... that is good data.
We KNOW about our drained MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars in Oregonian retirement accounts. that they were involved in paying the taliban millions for an OIL pipeline, to be used for moving OIL, as a business investment vehicle, may mean to folks like you that they are NOT in the oil business,but to the rest of us its kinda a no brainer. DUH...
If you define big oil narrowly enough, maybe they were not building the REFINERY or involved directly in the actual PRODUCTION of oil products in their own facilities... but the person who owns the pipeline gets his profit from what goes through it... Oil, Natural Gas, refined products... et al. And of course you have pointed out that they had some type of insurance deal on facilities production too... but that does not make them directly related to "big oil" right? Guess I just cannot see the distinction.
YOU strained at MY definition of big oil... alright, granted enron is not exxon, or arco or bp... But, it probably sells them tankers and pipeline access, insures their production, or does related thingw with their suppliers... in other words, they are part and parcel of big oil in one way or another... and big energy, without a doubt.
Heads are gonna roll, for what has been lost up here in the northwest. News stations up here have reported that enron is invested in big oil companies... they are wrong too no doubt...
I guess it should come as little surprise to you then that many of us who lost big money up here, find it NO STRETCH of the imagination to surmise from reports that enron is up to its keister in dirty deals with big energy and big oil and big gas and big nuke...
I am NOT anti big any thing. I AM anti corrupt organizations that might have financed terrorist attacks on 9-11 through direct dealings with taliban, however, and that makes this thread very interesting indeed.
Could it be a member of the corrupt and failed clinton administration? nah... surely not.
DEVELOPMENT-NEPAL: Enron's Retreat May Be Strategic
By Suman Pradhan
KATHMANDU, April 24 (IPS) - Enron Corporation's decision, early this month, to withdraw from a huge hydroelectric project in Nepal could be a carefully timed move to win major concessions, analysts here say. The point was first broached by former Water Resources Minister Pashupati Shumsher Rana accused of delaying Enron's request for a license. In his first public statement after the withdrawal, Rana said, ''I am certain Enron's decision to withdraw is only a bargaining chip to win more concessions. I have a gut-feeling the company will come back again.''
The US gas and energy giant, which has substantial interests in India and Bangladesh, withdrew its application for a license to survey the 10,800 megawatt Karnali-Chisapani hydroelectric project on April 9 citing changing conditions in the regional power and financial markets.
Located in this Himalayan nation's western region, the Karnali project is not just the crown jewel of Nepal's hydropower sector but is also one of South Asia's largest infrastructure undertakings.
Enron had proposed investing US 6-9 billion dollars to develop the project and export the Karnali power to India and China, with Nepal earning millions of dollars annually in royalties and taxes from the exports.
But two weeks after the initial shock of Enron's pullout from the project, analysts here are beginning to question the US multinational's motive. Many argue, Enron is only bargaining to extract major concessions from the government of impoverished Nepal.
What Enron has done is a classic example of big business bargaining with a threat of withdrawal to force a small poor country to give more than it intends to give, they say.
''A threat to pull out from a project can send local politicians into a tizzy,'' says Himesh Dhungel, an energy analyst who works for a Fortune 500 US energy company. ''Local politicians then make hasty decisions and give significant concessions that can ultimately undermine the interests of the economy.''
The signs are already there. Just a few days after Enron's pullout became public in Nepal, politicians from every party were clamouring to bring back the US multinational. The new government that came to power only a couple of days after Enron's withdrawal vowed to request Enron to reconsider.
Finance Minister Dr Ram Sharan Mahat said, ''We will try to find out why Enron withdrew. And if the possibility exists that Enron can be brought back, we will explore all those possibilities to try to convince them to come back.''
In a country which has an estimated potential to generate 83,000 megawatts of power from its rivers, such talk is immensely popular. Nepal presently produces only 280 megawatts of power, and is one of the poorest country in the world with a per capita income of only 200 dollars.
Many here see water resources cascading down its perennial Himalayan rivers as the nation's only major natural resources which can be exploited for economic development.
Successive governments have played on this theme to propose grand power schemes, such as the ill-fated, Arun-III, and the controversial Pancheshwar Project signed with India in early 1996 as part of a Mahakali River deal.
But Arun-III collapsed in August 1995 after the major financier, the World Bank, withdrew in the face of heavy criticism from environmentalists and rights activists.
Talks with India on Pancheshwar have been bogged down since last year when differences cropped up on sharing the Mahakali waters. In this scenario, Enron's proposal for Karnali-Chisapani ''was the only hope for Nepal to showcase its potential, say Enron's supporters.
Says Pradip Rana, Enron's local promoter in the Karnali project. ''Enron itself was bringing billions of dollars in investment, and its entry in Nepal would have encouraged other international investors to follow suit.'' he said.
Others argued just the opposite. Like its predecessors, Karnali- Chisapani has also been opposed by environmentalists, human rights activists, and economists. They say the earth-quake-prone fragile Himalayan mountains would always pose a threat to the Karnali high dam.
And the huge reservoir envisaged by the project would flood a large area of Nepal's middle hills requiring thousands of families to be resettled elsewhere.
But the strongest argument against Enron comes from economists. Before Enron announced its decision to withdraw from Karnali, Bikash Thapaliya, an economist formerly with the National Planning Commission, had argued that such a large project would turn Nepal's economy upside down.
Enron itself, in its proposal, said that the investments on Karnali would occupy 43 percent of Nepal's Gross National Product (GNP). ''Such huge investments in a country which does not have mechanisms and institutions to absorb large investments will lead to massive inflation and turn the economy on its head,'' Thapaliya said.
Dhungel, advances the argument further. ''I am afraid that, with little or no homework and even less understanding of the larger economic issues involved, Nepali bureaucrats and technocrats will be at a loss when negotiating with a sophisticated entity like Enron.''
He further says that this is not the first time Enron has employed this tactic. It has already done so in Angola, winning major concessions on its terms.
''If Enron could negotiate with basket case economies like Angola on a gas deal, it can easily win concessions from the Nepali government, especially when politicians here are keen to cash in on the success of the project for their own political gains,'' argues Dhungel.
But Unocal remains! Perhaps that pipeline will get built after all.
Like Ernest and Shermy, I want to see a pipeline built here to enable this new country to have an income source besides raids and poppies!
Like most demron history, I keep asking these questions that I posted on reply #10 to this thread. Here are those questions again:
If this is possibly true, would someone please help an old Grampa's fading memory.
Who was our President in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999?
So while X42 was wasting cruise missiles on camels and $10 Rei tents in Afghanistan, he, the CIA, and the Talibaners were real cozy?
Calling Ms Hilldebeast, please stop hugging Mrs Arafatty and return all the campaign funds from The American Muslems and then tell us you knew nothing about this!
If true, Demron strikes again. What were Leaky Leahy and Tommy Da$$hole doing during this time. Probably filling up huge suitcases of money from both sides!
Paging Joey LIEberman, Jino, senator, please investigate this while you are at it!
I wonder if North is being considered for the next head of the CIA, he's one of the few that hasn't cashed his check yet.
Enron began as an energy company but was transformed into a derivatives trading firm. That was the reason for the bankruptcy. The problem was, Enron never reported to their investors the energy interests were a front for a derivatives trading firm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.