Talk:Bolivian Gas War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Redundant edits 2 Name 3 Request for map 4 Merge with 2005 Bolivia protests 5 Um... Translation? 6 US military airport at Mariscal Estigarribia (DR LUIS MARIA ARGANA INTL) 7 Edits 8 EVO MORALES IS RIGHT 9 Price of gas

[edit] Redundant edits

Im not sure if my edits were redundant or not-- I chopped them down on the second edit.戴&#30505sv 20:11, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Steve, why did you rename this page? I realize that it is not a "war" in the literal sense (something I indicated in the first sentence) but this is the term with which people are referring to the matter. If you do a search on Google, you will find not a single reference to "Bolivian Gas Conflict". We are not *always* the ones to label things. -- Viajero 00:10, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Viajero raised a good point on my talk page just now. Googling doesn't turn up anything for "Bolivian gas conflict"; precious little for "Bolivian gas war" either (in English, and Wikipedia gets the #1 hit for that phrase). However, Spanish (guerra) and French (guerre) sources seem to be calling it a "gas war", so perhaps it would be best left there (at least until such time as other English-language resources pick up on it). (Or is there a third alternative entirely that I'm missing?) - Hephaestos 00:32, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I dont think it matters. Take the Iraq disarmament crisis article-- which I came in and gave its final name-- its an infamous example of name-waffling: Originally, (as I recall) some ansy guy named it US-Iraq war well before it was a war (maybe December ;) -- then someone added a date (2003) and...well it was a mess. Finally, I called it what it was. When hostilities started, the article led to a war article and this was how it was done. Once it was re-named people understood it and complimented me on the move.

It doesnt matter that the name for a thing isnt exactly as the Google search says -- whats important is that our redirect links to, and that Google's spider will click through the redirect (which it does). Google also has good enough semantic weighting to place a conflict article (from Wikipedia) high enough. (Given we have both, right?) We should add "also called the "Bolivian Gas War" (Spanish:"Guerra de Gas en Boliviana"). Etc. 戴&#30505sv 01:34, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am not entirely convinced. Sure, we can sprinkle lots of redirects around, but they just clog up the search results. I would have appreciated if you had discussed the matter first here before jumping and unilaterally taking the decision to rename it. I had been following the conflict for a long while; I knew how people were referring to it. If an obvious alternate label had emerged in the Anglophone media (which is not yet the case), then would have been the logical moment to to rename it. -- Viajero 12:01, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Request for map

One really nice addition to this article would be a map of Bolivia/Chile/Peru with the proposed routes of the pipeline, ports, etc. marked. Anyone gifted at editing gifs? There's one on Bolivia that might do the job. Hajor 01:57, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Shortly before leaving office, in July 2002, Quiroga postponed the decision in this highly contentious issue, leaving it for his successor, allegedly because he did not want to jeopardize his chances to be re-elected president in the 2007 elections. (em. added)

Who alleges this?

Ummm, no one, in a literal sense, hence the passive voice. I was in Bolivia at the time and this was reported in the newspapers as the most likely reason for him postponing the decision, but this wasn't -- obviously -- something he declared in so many words.

The US government declared that it would no support a government that wasn't "democratic" and would not tolerate "interpupations in the constitutional order of Bolivia."

First, does interpupation mean interruption or is it a word I'm unfamiliar with (not trying to be facetious)? Second: where did this statement come from? Could we link to the whole thing? It's not really good to include short quotes like this, because: third, the first half of the statement is ambiguous. I take it to mean that they support the current president, but it could just as easily be taken to mean they opppose him. DanKeshet 14:07, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

1. Should be interruption. Fixed.
2. It came from news report on a Spanish-language website. That was the only text quoted. If I find more, I can add it.
3. Ambiguous? Do you really think the US would support the people barricading the streets? This is not the kind of "democracy" the US wishes to see in its vassal states.

-- Viajero 14:54, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

1. Thanks!
2. OK. Did you retranslate back from the Spanish or were those the original words in English?
3. I know that. You know that. But it's an encyclopedia and we can't assume that readers know that.

DanKeshet

Nevermind, here's the statement from the US Dept. of State [1]:

"The American people and their government support Bolivia's democratically elected president, Gonzalo Sanchez De Lozada, in his efforts to build a more prosperous and just future for all Bolivians.

"We call on all Bolivians to reject confrontation that could lead to violence and injury. The international community understands and supports the legitimate interests of all the Bolivian people, and we urge them to express and promote those only through democratic and peaceful means.

"All of Bolivia's political leaders should publicly express their support for democratic and constitutional order. The international community and the United States will not tolerate any interruption of constitutional order and will not support any regime that results from undemocratic means."

DanKeshet

[edit] Merge with 2005 Bolivia protests

2005 Bolivia protests should be merged here. As Wikipedia is not Wikinews, nothing forces us to categorize our pages according to events. Anyway, it is obvious that this Gas War, which has been going on for quite some time, includes the 2005 Bolivia protests. As the problematic remains the same (neoliberal governemnent, refusal from the trade unions and campesinos, led by Evo Morales & Felipe Quispe, of the exportation of the gas without previous processing and distribution in Bolivia), the article should include both. Not merging them means that arguments will be splitted up and repeat themselves on both pages, which would be a mistake. A merge would be lot more useful to people who never heard about a gas conflict in Bolivia, and don't understand what exactly is at stakes. Tazmaniacs 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea for a merge is relevant though the 2005 protests had alot of importance placed on the forming of the Constituants Assembly and calling of Autonomy Referendums aswell. Flacuchi 20:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um... Translation?

I saw that "Carajo!" wasn't translated. I find it interesting that someone translated the entire phrase... besides carajo. I'm not thinking that Carajo is too hard to translate. It means "Damn it" to the best of my knowledge. Not really that offensive I do believe. Anyone object to me changing the subtext of the picture so that it has carajo translated?Pvt Mahoney 01:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Carajo" is "damn it" but also "cock". Doidimais Brasil 22:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US military airport at Mariscal Estigarribia (DR LUIS MARIA ARGANA INTL)

I dont believe that a reference to Mariscal Estigarribia Airport belongs in the Santa Cruz autonomy movement section. A reference is usually added to support an assertion made relating to the topic. This fact is just thrown out there. Also "The creation of a US military base" is inaccurate. The military of Paraguay built it in the late 70s and early 80s, its one runway is only 40 meter widelink DR LUIS MARIA ARGANA INTL not 80 wide like the refernce says and because it has only minimal navigational equipment it can only be used during the day. I suppose that this tid bit of info could go in its own section, but it isnt especially connected to Santa Cruz, even more after you click on the link and follow the reference to find out that there is only going to be 400 soldiers over 2 years in Paraguay with none staying longer than a few weeks and with them being stationed all over. Nor does the link provided "U.S. Military Moves in Paraguay Rattle Regional Relations" even mention Santa Cruz. This seems more an attempt by the US to buck up the military in Paraguay.--Ortloff 08:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get this "10-20" people? Where do you get that it's a "false attribution"? It was all over the Argentinian press... Tazmaniacs 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it false? Because the media organizations that covered it had to know it was not true. Aside from the question of were the troops would come from, the assertion that the airport can recieve B-52s is not credible. Old B-52s require a 150-148 foot width for runways and after the modifications in the ninties 175 feet is required link GlobalSecurity.org & link Rand The width of DR LUIS MARIA ARGANA INTL is 40 meters(131 feet) ( link DR LUIS MARIA ARGANA INTL. If you wanted to land a B-52 in Paraguay you would land at Asuncion - Silvio Pettirossi International Airport is 151 feet in width. link Silvio Pettirossi Or more for the more skilled pilots : Guarani International Airport, Paraguay at 147.6 feet in width. link Guarani Intl They ALL are long enough. This information is easily available for every airport online from multiple sources. Yet people make up false facts that are easily verifable.

On top of that the paper initially reported in June 2005 that 20,000 us troops are to be housed in an airport at Mariscal Estigarribia. Then reported 400-500 troops would be based at the airport. A reduced number. Then corrections appeared around December that it would be 400 troops in Paraguay over 18 months consisting of 13 detachments numbering less than 50 U.S. military personnel. link Americas link Brazzil-Mag The articles blamed the US for not being clear enough, though I dont see how they rationalize the B-52 thing. Or the fact that the Paraguayan chancellor Rachid said that there never was plans to use that airport as a base for us troops, and that there would be no base in paraguay link UltimaHora. The President said the same thing. link Mexico Or how about this from the US Embassy in Paraguay in July 2005 link US-Embassy-Paraguay . "U.S. personnel in small numbers, generally between 10 to 20 people, will train with their Paraguayan military colleges during periods from two to six weeks," the statement said. "The U.S. soldiers will not be deployed for extended periods of time and there will never be more than a few dozen U.S. service members in Paraguay for more than 45 days." More mentions link IRC-Online link Alternet

If people were worrried that this could be a prelude to something greater they should have said so. With only few dozen soldiers allowed in Paraguay for a max of 45 days, I guess does not sound dramatic enough.

--Ortloff 10:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)*

note that I took into account your mention according to which it should'nt belong in Santa Cruz autonomy movement. Although I could also look for sources why it was included there in the first places... Tazmaniacs 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

"The Bolivian Gas War was a social conflict in Bolivia". Was? Is. Doidimais Brasil 22:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a tendency to talk in the past tense on Wikipedia. Faz lo k tem que facer! Tazmaniacs 22:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EVO MORALES IS RIGHT

STOP PETROBRAS MAFIA AND EUROPEAN DOMINATION. THE BOLIVIA FOR MILENAR INDIGENANS! IF BRAZIL SURRENDED FOR FOREIGNERS DOENST MEAN BOLIVIA NEED SURRENDER TO PETROBRAS MAFIA STOP PRESS INDIGENAN CULTURE WE ARE HERE SINCE 100 A.D.

Very solid contribution, very encyclopedic. Doidimais Brasil 23:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Price of gas

I think it is misleading to start a discussion of gas prices by citing a spike in gas prices in 2002 at 12 to 14 dollars /MMBtu then compare that price to a ninties price Bolivia got at $2/MMBtu. The current price in the US for gas is not in dispute. You can look it up every day. link NYMEX Its what every large buyer in the US pays. ($6-$7/MMBtu) If we were going to choose any price we could choose the price from 1996 link DOE at $2.17. Also, the link I had cited for Bolivia's current price was from Petrobras $3.15 US$ to 3.60/MMBtu. I would think this is more accurate than the LeMonde article since they choose such a self-serving price for the current cost of gas, peak price in California in 2002.

Now, since the agreement was that Petrobras pay half the US price for gas, a good question could be did they pay half the $12 dollars? But I dont see anything on that.

--Ortloff 11:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You lift some good questions and it is nice to have you around. However, be careful with Wikipedia:No Original Research: it is quite interesting of you to point out that Mariscal's airport wouldn't be able to handle B-52, for technical reasons, but that falls under OR. It is better to find some news article or embassy statements, as you did, and add them to the current text (instead of deleting it claiming it's false: you may consider the US embassy a better news source than El Clarin, but that is your POV). Beside, you can of course contest the validity of the gas prices. However, please do not delete sources, even if you don't find them relevant — your opinion is not necessarily shared by everyone. The Californian price was stated in the Le Monde article which is considered as France's newspaper of record: you may think it is misleading, Le Monde apparently doesn't. Beside, I recall you that 2002 was just a year before Goni's fall, that is, in the midst of the Gas War; and the project itself was, as you know, to export the gas through Chile to California, both US and Baja California. SO it is totally relevant. Concerning the question about Petrobras, feel free to improve the article. Just do not delete sources, this is not considered really suitable to Witiquette. Regards, Tazmaniacs 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I like most of the article, I simply have a problem with a few parts. The my source for the price of gas is not original research. It is the primary source when you are referring to the US price of gas. The Le Monde article would have had to go and check the US market to find a US price, so it is a secondary source. When speaking about what Bolivia pays for gas to Argentina and Brazil, besides the previous source I gave, another source link Businessweek this is a very current article. To clarify how gas is sold in the US and why the market price is definitive: This is how gas is sold. No one pumps gas then asks for buyers. You need to know the sale price before you pump so that you know that its worth while. So what you do is go to the futures market and sell a contract that expires on a date that you can deliver the gas. It is also necessary for industry and utilities which use gas. They buy these contracts so that they know their costs, and are able to set a stable price. Quote:"According to Le Monde, Brazil and Argentina pay US$2 per thousand cubic meter of gas, which costs between $12 to $15 in California [5]. " This is in present tense, therefore demonstratably inaccurate. Look at the primary source. This is why I put in a current price with a date. I also had left in the le monde reference mentioning that it was several years old. I didnt delete it. As I had said previously you could mention the $12 spike an question whether Bolivia got its just share in that instance, but what is written is simply not accurate.

Actually I looked at the wikipedia reference and Le Monde is ONE of France's Papers of Record. The meaning of the term simply means that it is permitted to carry public or legal notices. Though the cited article is not one of those.

Also here are a couple of sources which discuss the reasons for the higher price that Californians are paying for gas than other states. In short the reasons are the lack of pipeline capacity which is harder for California to solve, and electricty outages which were solved and caused the spike in prices to drop. Neither of these problems help Bolivia, as they are internal price increases from lack of capacity to transport the gas within and to California. This is what got California upset with Enron. The souces for this part: link DOE & link GOC.

I see a compaint about removing sources, yet you removed my source and my mention of the fact that the US claims only a few dozen people (generall 10-20) will be in Paraguay at once. Also please consider that this is not the US Emassy's assertion against the Clarin. I provided other references which state the same facts. (no one seems to be still saying 20,000). Also notice that by November Clarin no longer maintains the 20,000 soldier number they are using mine soldiers comming in shifts. A later Clarin article fits in with my other sources: (solider coming in small groups with 400 soldiers the total) the same facts in my references. link Clarin The Wiki wants to be an encyclopedia, I think it works to mention the stuff from Clarin, but we have to mention when newspapers are in conflict with the facts. I presentented sources that show that the B-52 needs 148-150ft to land. And sources that show the actual width of the runway. These are primary sources. I know we all rely on alot of popular publications for facts in wiki, but I think an obvious technical problem with the Clarin's story should alter our presentation. They were impressed with the long runway, but didnt realize that (as I referenced before) width is the big problem with these planes because they have wheels at the end of their long wings to hold up the heavy engines and feul in the wings. In addtion to the previous references here is a picure link B-52 Picture.

--Ortloff 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Le Monde, it is the French equivalent to the NYT more or less, which positions itself between Liberation center-left and Le Figaro conservative newspapers. Its credibility is not in doubt. Now, concerning your points, I understand them. However, have a look at Wikipedia:NOR especially concerning the use of primary sources and you will understand why it would be preferrable for you to look up for a secondary source stating what you are trying to show, instead of relying on primary sources (they are very good reasons for which Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources, although everybody knows that we can't always trust the media in particular in some tight, details cases, like that). Tazmaniacs 23:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about using secondary sources and I will add the New York Times source from below to the NYMEX source, but it just didn't make sense to me to elevate the Le Monde article above sources with more detailed information. This is what I was thinking: The writer at Le Monde didn't mention the time for the two prices(US & Bolivia). It looks like the US price was from 2002 and the Bolivian price was from the mid nineties, although the article was from January of this year. I'm guessing based on the prices they list. In our article when we cited the LeMonde prices it was in the present tense, which makes us misleading too. That bothered me. Especially since its so easy to check. link New York Times Also, I think that the Le Monde journalist got confused about how gas is sold. The internal price of gas (delivered) is different than the price you get as a producer like Bolivia. Bolivia would get the market price, because they don't deliver the gas all the way to the consumer. Bolivia does not have an analog of Citgo like Venezuela. Venezuela makes money all the way to the local store. They own their refineries, 14000 Citgo gas stations and more in the US. So when because of internal tranportation issues, the price of gas is up in one part of the US, and if Citgo can deliver there, they make more profit. Of course Venezuela has literally invested hundreds of billions into the US to do that. Suppliers like Bolivia would just get market price. --Ortloffa 21:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)