Michael Perelman wrote:
In case some of you have not seen this yet. I would be
interested in Gene Coyle's take on this.
Sorry to be so slow. I've been traveling and just catching up.
I didn't find this story credible. It conflates the Enron
headline-grabber with the already familiar oil
This wouldn't rule out an Enron role in the Oil pipeline, but there
were already enough giant companies fighting each other that letting a
new boy in doesn't make much sense.
Enron was such a mix of things that I think traditional journalism, however
earnest, is missing the forest for
I continue to have strong disbelief of the Enron and Afghanistan pipeline
story. The profits from such a pipeline would come from producing and selling
oil, not the investment in the pipeline per se. And I haven't heard anything
about Enron having a piece of the oil concessions. Enron,
. And I haven't heard anything
about Enron having a piece of the oil concessions. Enron, furthermore,
has had
for the last two or three years a strategy of not owning hard assets.
They had
been burned on almost all their investments -- water, electric power, etc.
Enron was more like the
If the facts of their timeline check out, then Enron was, true to its rootin
tootin Texas roots, even into exploration in Asia (though as has been noted,
they were dumping fixed assets to raise cash). Another interesting thread is
how Unocal has been interested in buying up Enron assets. And just
In case some of you have not seen this yet. I would be
interested in Gene Coyle's take on this.
http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=12525
AlterNet February
28, 2002
The Enron-Cheney-Taliban Connection?
By Ron Callari, Albion Monitor
