Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Lundin Oil (LOILY, LOILB Sweden) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tomas who wrote (2372)	5/8/2001 10:54:12 PM
From: Tomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2742

Somaliland: oil exploration to start! Text of report by the Somaliland newspaper Mandeeq, in Somali Somaliland signs oil prospecting contract with Chinese company The Ministry of Water and Natural Resources of the Republic of Somaliland signed an oil prospecting contract with Continental and Petroleum Engineering Corporation [CPEC] of China on 7 May 2001. According to the assistant minister in the ministry, Yusuf Isse Tallabo, the contract will last for a year after which the company will stop operating if no oil is found. Mr Tallabo cited the exploration areas as Block 35, 36 and M-10A which are all located in the eastern part of Berbera. The assistant minister added that the company will start its operations within the first three months of the year and that the agreement allows either of the two parties to withdraw during this period if they find it necessary. ______________________________________________ My comment: Lundin Oil owns 20% of the above mentioned blocks, see: lundinoil.com My guess is that the Chinese company became operators after buying BP Amoco's 50% stake. The Chinese company is probably = China Petroleum Engineering & Construction Corporation (CPECC), a subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC). CPECC have subsidiaries in Sudan and Kazakhstan, and they built the pipeline in Sudan.

To: Tomas who wrote (2372)	5/8/2001 11:32:48 PM
From: Tomas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2742

Conoco spurns fears over future of Libya fields - Dunham calms talk of company's concessions being sold off. Libya leader Muammar Gaddafi waits to discover whether the US will lift its unilateral sanctions against the country Upstream, May 9 Conoco chief executive Archie Dunham has rejected fears that the US giant's Libyan oilfields would be sold off, despite claims that some managers at the country's national oil company appeared to back the move. "We feel very strongly that the Libyan national oil company will do nothing to diminish our ownership in that concession," said Dunham, who added that advocates of any such initiative did not appear to be in the majority in Libya. Conoco, Marathon and Amerada Hess were forced to abandon their oil and gas fields in the North African country 15 years ago following the unilateral introduction of sanctions by the US over accusations Libya was sponsoring terrorism. However, Libya continued to recognise the US oil companies' ownership of the assets and Conoco, a leading opponent of US sanctions against Libya and Iran, has said it hopes to return to both countries. The current Iran-Libya Sanctions ACT is due to expire in August. ______________________________________ Conoco CEO sees no threat to ownership of Libya assets HOUSTON (Reuters) May 8 - Conoco Inc. Chief Executive Officer Archie Dunham said Tuesday some managers at Libya's national oil company appeared to favor selling oilfields Conoco was forced to abandon 15 years ago because of unilateral U.S. sanctions against the North African nation, but he said he did not expect this to happen. "We feel very strongly that the Libyan national oil company will do nothing to diminish our ownership in that concession," Dunham told reporters Tuesday in response to questions about the possible sale of oilfields owned by U.S. companies in Libya. Conoco, Marathon Oil Co. and Amerada Hess Corp. were forced to abandon oil and gas properties they owned in Libya in 1986 when the United States implemented sanctions against the country, which it accused of sponsoring terrorism. However, Libya continued to recognize the U.S. oil companies' ownership of the assets and Conoco, a leading opponent of U.S. sanctions against Libya and Iran, has said it hopes to return to both countries if and when sanctions are lifted. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that German oil company Wintershall, a unit of chemical company BASF AG , was seeking permission from Libya to drill in fields owned by the U.S. oil companies. Dunham said the United States was likely to take a negative view of any action that amounted to confiscation of U.S. assets, and added that advocates of any such initiative did not appear to be in the majority in Libya. "I think there are probably segments of the management of the Libyan national oil company that are frustrated with the lack of action by the United States government on lifting the unilateral sanctions," he said. Dunham said he remained optimistic that the Bush administration and Congress would agree to lift unilateral sanctions preventing U.S. companies from investing in Libya and Iran or doing business with them, though he recognized that some members of Congress wanted to keep the sanctions in place. The current Iran-Libya Sanctions ACT (ILSA) is due to expire in August. Dunham said Conoco, the fourth-largest U.S. oil company, was especially keen to play a role in the development of Iran's huge Azadegan oil field which has estimated recoverable reserves of five to six billion barrels of oil. "We are extremely interested in that opportunity and I feel optimistic that we will have the chance to invest in that opportunity longer-term," he said.

To: Tomas who wrote (2372)	5/9/2001 8:28:19 PM
From: Tomas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2742

`Rogue state' a policy-stifling term The Los Angeles Times, May 9 By ROBERT S. LITWAK Under the Bush administration, we once again have ``rogue states.'' This term, wisely if belatedly abandoned by the Clinton administration last June, would better have been left dead as a policy designation. Now, instead, it seems to be a lead factor in the Bush administration's move to establish a ballistic missile defense. In diplomacy, words shape policy. ``Rogue state'' is a lazy convenience that has obscured our understanding of the countries branded with the rubric. Worse, by typecasting the countries with whom we should have no dealings as pariahs, it distorts our policy toward them. It was no mere obsession with language that led the Clinton administration to change this term to the infelicitous but less constraining ``states of concern.'' Until last summer, the Clinton administration had asserted that ``rogue states'' constituted a distinct category of nations in the post-Cold War world. Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Libya were the core members of this rogues' gallery. Yet, because this label had no standing in international law and was quintessentially political, its usage was selective and contradictory. Syria, a state that possesses weapons of mass destruction and has sponsored terrorism, was omitted from the rogue list because of its importance to the Middle East peace process. Cuba, on the other hand, which no longer poses a real security threat, was occasionally included because that played well to the Cuban-emigre community. In addition, the Clinton administration discovered that the term used to mobilize political support for one policy could be turned against it on another, as when a GOP critic called for the cancellation of a presidential visit to China because it was a ``rogue state.'' By lumping and demonizing a disparate group of countries, the Clinton administration was pushed toward a generic strategy of containment and isolation. This constricting approach came up against hard political realities, first with North Korea in 1994, when the acute danger posed by the North's advanced nuclear-weapons program necessitated negotiation, and then with Iran in 1997, after the election of a reformist president created an opportunity for U.S. diplomacy to influence, albeit marginally, that country's political evolution. When the president's foreign-policy team realized that the ``rogue state'' stamp had straitjacketed them, they formally dropped the term. The revival of ``rogue'' rhetoric is linked to the Bush administration's efforts to drum up support for a national missile defense. The ``rogue'' label carries the dubious connotation of a ``crazy'' state not susceptible to traditional deterrence of the kind that worked during the Gulf War even with the ruthlessly expansionist, but not irrational, Saddam Hussein. Critics wrongly condemned the Clinton administration's dropping of the ``rogue'' term as political spin to rationalize an engagement policy toward odious regimes. To the contrary, jettisoning this flawed category allowed us to differentiate between cases; it did not commit us to blanket engagement. The Bush administration should continue to develop a repertoire of country-specific strategies and not revive a generic policy with significant liabilities. The administration should focus on state behavior -- anywhere -- that violates established international norms; it should not base policy on a unilateral American political concept. ___ Robert Litwak, a former National Security Council staff member, is director of international studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center.