Last edited Fri Sep 26, 2014, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Iran has the second largest amount of Natural Gas in the World, the first being Russia. The largest Natural Gas field NOT associated with Oil is off the coast of Qatar, in an area Qatar shares with Iran. This has produced two plans for competitive Natural Gas Pipelines
Side note: There is two ways to transport Natural Gas, pipeline or as Compressed Natural Gas. Do to the fact Natural Gas is a gas −162 °C (−260 °F) at sea level, it requires the energy equivalent to about 1/3 of the resulting liquefied natural gas to compress it to make it liquid. The costs, independent of liquefaction, of shipping natural gas is cheaper by pipeline then by ship (through the up front cost of liquefaction is much lower). Thus, unless they is a reason you can NOT lay down pipe (such as the depth of the Atlantic Ocean), it is at least 1/3 cheaper to build a pipeline to move natural gas then to compress it into liquefied natural gas for shipment by rail or ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquefied_natural_gas
Thus, oil being a liquid can be shipped by ship economically, it is cheaper to ship natural gas by pipeline.
Given the location of the above huge natural gas field, two proposed pipeline had been proposed. The First is from Iran opposite Qatar then through Iran to Iraq, then through the Shiite areas of Iraq to southern Iraq, which is nothing by desert. Then to the desert region of Syria, and its lack of population to either the Christian sections of Lebanon OR the Alawite controlled coastal area of Syria (The Assad family is of that area and faith). Then, by underwater pipeline to Cyprus, then to Athens, then either Serbia or Romania to Europe.
The second pipeline would start in Qatar, then through Saudi Arabia, then through the deserts of Syria to the Sunni Areas of Syria, then to Turkey, then to Romania or Serbia via Bulgaria.
Notice the Iran-Iraq-Greece routes bypass Sunni Areas of the Middle East and the Qatar-Turkey-Bulgaria route bypasses the Shiite areas of the Middle East. ISIS was funded by Saudi Arabia and no one objected to its actions till it moved into Iraq AND declared itself the Caliphate. Saudi Arabia then decided it was time either to crush its creation OR go through the motions to look like it had, wither way explains Saudi Arabia's support for the US Bombing if ISIS.
On the other hand, the lack of troops, from Turkey (the big power in this region) or Saudi Arabia indicates they do NOT want to Destroy ISIS, just direct where it is to attack i.e. areas where the Iran-Iraq-Greece pipeline would go.
The Kurds being attacked by ISIS is also explained by this, for the Kurds have long been funded and allied with Greece against Turkey.
The only area where the two proposed pipeline overlap is in the deserts of Southeastern Syria, an area of low population, mostly traditional goat herders and as such NOT a threat to either pipeline, unlike the higher population areas where farmers live.
In simple terms, the present fighting is over WHICH pipeline gets built. Iran can build its today through areas of low population (deserts) OR population allied with Iran (i.e. Shiite, Christian or Alawite). Qatar and Saudi Arabia can NOT for it needs the eastern part of Syria or Western Iraq, two areas with high populations but presently under ISIS control but Sunni in background. ISIS was to get control of this area and prepare it for the pipeline, but it appears ISIS had other plans and Qatar and Saudi Arabia is willing to crush it to further they own plans.
Turkey is NOT innocent in this fight. Right know Turkey is dependent in Iranian Natural Gas and sees the Qatar pipeline as a way to get independent of Iran AND gain control over the transportation of Natural Gas to Europe. Thus Turkey does NOT technically support ISIS, but has NOT really done anything to oppose ISIS EXCEPT when Qatar and Saudi Arabia agreed to oppose ISIS.
This also has some implication as to the Ukraine. Russia Natural Gas goes through the Ukraine. Russia is building two pipeline to bypass the Ukraine, one through the Baltic to Germany, the other through the Black Sea. Under the Rules of the Sea Treaty Countries control out to 200 miles from its coast, EXCEPT where it overlaps the control of another nation, then the halfway point between those two nations. In the case of the Black Sea it is all within 200 miles of some coast thus it is 100% covered under the control of the countries that border the black sea.
On the other hand, while resources can be restricted under the Rules of the Sea, transportation remains under the older 12 mile coastal border. Thus Russia does NOT need the permission of any of the other countries of the Black Sea to build an undersea pipeline under the Black Sea. This Black Sea pipeline would provide additional natural gas for any pipeline going via Romania to Europe. The Chief reason for the objection of the Russian take over of the Crimea seems to be tied in with the fact such a take over permits Russia to move the pipeline closer to the Crimea and thus reduce the cost of building that pipeline.
Turkey has objected to the building of the pipeline through the Black Sea for it bypasses Turkey and could be adjusted to take Iranian Natural Gas to Europe. Iran then could turn off Turkish Natural Gas WITHOUT having to worry about Turkey grabbing gas sold to Europe for its own use (which is what the Ukraine has done in the past as to Russian Natural Gas, refused to pay, then stole the natural gas, leaving Italy short of Natural Gas it had paid for).
Yes, energy is a weapon. People ignore the fact that Germany lost WWII, not do to having a weaker Military, or bad generalship, but through a lack of access to oil. A German Infantry Division by 1942 had to make do with just 10% of the oil it used in peacetime (and with this restriction Germany fought the battle of Stalingrad). Germany lost WWII more do to a lack of oil then any other factor. Everyone knows this and thus why the fight is over ENERGY, in this case Natural Gas. Everything else you hear or read of is more of an excuse then the reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq-Syria_pipeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/attack-on-syria-competitive-shia-sunni-gas-pipelines-politics/
European pipelines and dependence on Russia for Natural Gas:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/energy-geopolitics-and-the-u-s-mission-in-iraq-and-syria/
The Natural Gas Field mentioned above, while off Qatar with Qater hold SOME of the field, most of the Field is in Iran or Iranian waters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/milad-jokar/war-in-syria-geopolitics-_b_2378683.html
Map of the two proposals:
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read