User talk:Robbygay

Oil in China From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia under the heading Current situation and future plans states:- China’s oil relationship with other countries has shifted from a world exporter to a world importer. This shift to dependence on foreign oil has changed the exploration and acquisition policies of China. China’s oil need overwhelms its internal capabilities. Oil acquisition is now a process of investment in foreign lands and a creation of an internal oil reserve in case of emergency[5]. China has taken steps to alter its security polices in places in the world that are rich in oil. China National Petroleum Corporation is invested in producing, marketing, and supplying oil in China[6]. This company supports internal sources of oil production and reserves. Domestic oil production supplies only two thirds of the countries oil needs and it is estimated that China will require 600 million tons of crude oil by 2020[7]. This statistic is horrifying considering that most of the oil fields in the world are already claimed. It is a statistic that has required China to take drastic measures with its internal oil reserve programs. A purely importation driven oil plan would leave China vulnerable to market fluctuations and more susceptible to international oil conflicts due to their dependence.

To combat this dangerous position of foreign dependence China is investing in its first national oil reserve bases a program beginning in 2004. There are three different providences that they are focusing on. The first Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province, was build by Sinopec, China's largest oil refining company. The storage space is 5.2 million cubic meters says the National Development and Reform Commission[8]. Zhejiang was originally a commercial oil transfer base. Its coastal position makes it convenient and at the same time vulnerable to offshore violence. The next reserve of interest In Huangdao or Qingdao, Shangdong Province and the final Dalian, Liaoning Province. All of these reserves are coastal and with their creation comes an analysis of how vulnerable they are to Eastern Asian countries possible attacks. These stock piling strategies as well as international acquisition companies are state run companies to combat supply disruption. In 1993 after China became a net importer of oil. It was presented that these stockpiling sites would be filled with domestic oil yet this assumption has not been yet fulfilled these stock piles of acquired oil are attempting to create a reserve for 90 days of oil[9].

Another Wikipedia reference applicable here :-

When considered against IEA page headed International Energy Agency also from From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Under the heading of Energy efficiency reads:-

from that article Pasted here:-

At the Heiligendamm Summit in June 2007, the G8 acknowledged an EU proposal for an international initiative on energy efficiency tabled in March 2007, and agreed to explore, together with the International Energy Agency, the most effective means to promote energy efficiency internationally. A year later, on 8 June 2008, the G8 countries, China, India, South Korea and the European Community decided to establish the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation, at the Energy Ministerial meeting hosted by Japan in the frame of the 2008 G8 Presidency, in Aomori. [4]

Conclusions I draw from the two above Wikipedia Stories suggests:- This might explain why oil prices last year 2008 ran so high as $110 a barrel, as China and other G8 members sought to meet their IEA agreements, and once closer to the desired reserves the crude prices returned to the more sustainable norms of earlier 2007-8 ranges.

Whatever one thinks this may also be why China is Rumoured to again be seeking to negotiate oil serarch in the area of the earlier Joint agreements with Philippines and Vietnam for mutual development cooperation etc.

In that instance Tedder kindly advised the following to me a beginner here:-

using the talk page

Hi, when you edit articles, please put content on the article page and comments ABOUT the article on the talk page. For instance, comments like this should go on the talk page. Let me know if you have questions. tedder 04:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My genuine thanks were thus conveyed, good advice Tedder newboys need your help so kindly offered07:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)07:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Tedder, I will now try again to study the pages I have save on one note to try to Understand your requirements. --[

Hi again Tedder, I hope this gets to you, I read your page and noted a lot of nasty remarks I do not support or condone in any way. Your comments on my attempted article amendments helped, and I did get a few minor points past scrutiny. However I really have lost interest in trying to help Wikipedia contributors, many just want their own point made and no help or scrutiny. Not to worry with quality administrators mostly keeping Wikipedia a main research resource for me, one that I find very consistent and accurate and above all reliable for my work betterment.

Now as I mentioned before I live in a foreign State and don't want to appear to be siding with divergent opinion of pre-war expatriates now abroad, but their somewhat authoritative former State, and/or people, would dispute the opinions claiming authority. Therefore as I have a problem with a Wikipedia story that needs scrutiny, because it has got past administrators, with a controversy biased argument of National consequence etc.

In fact the subject article uses 6 footnotes to justify it’s admission, but the reference footnotes are non-sites and certainly the linked reference is not, as the visible words claim, authority for statement of the article. Two of the sites may exist but are Nationally sensitive, or controversial to the extent they are blocked within my residence country, the other 4 references are to unrelated advertising an 1 is to a site registration promotion.

How can I report the impropriety without exposing myself to retribution. --Robbygay (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Furst Source was;- http://www.worldcrunch.com/beijing-does-not-fear-vietnam-or-washington-south-china-sea-dispute/3340 title "Beijing Does Not Fear Vietnam – Or Washington – In South China Sea Dispute" author Zhang Guoqing published by 经济观察报E.O./Worldcrunch on July 7th 2011

Second Source was:- http://www.eeo.com.cn/ens/2011/0706/205469.shtml Titla "China and US Will Remain Close" author Li Meng published by Observer, page 46 on July 6th 2011

Third Siurce was:- http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.com/article/20110706/OPINION02/107060310/South-China-Sea-most-dangerous-waters-Asia title South China Sea: the most dangerous waters in Asia author Xiaosiong Yi published by www.zanesvilletimesrecorder |July 6th 2011

Rob might add June 27, the US Senate unanimously passed a motion condemning "the use of force by naval and maritime security vessels from China in the South China Sea. China, on the other hand, has stated that it will not use force to resolve disputes in the South China Sea.

Source from:- "Wikinews 3rd July 2011 Archives." Title "Philippine Foreign Secretary Del Rosario to visit China amid South China Sea territorial dispute" Author Wikinews approved unnamed. Published Wikinews archives. Date is automatic when posted. Pasted <http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Philippine_Foreign_Secretary_Del_Rosario_to_visit_China_amid_South_China_Sea_territorial_dispute>

Rob may yet also add:- Chinese spokeswoman Jiang Yu said "China has taken note of the announcement. We believe the death of Osama bin Laden is a milestone and a positive development for the international anti-terrorism efforts."

Source from Wikinews may 3rd 2011 China Archives. Title "World leaders react to death of Osama bin Laden" Author Wikinews approved unnamed. Published by Wikinews Archives. Date automatic when posted Pasted from <http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/World_leaders_react_to_death_of_Osama_bin_Laden>

For now I let that rest, but I doubt they have the courage to review approve it today July 7th 2011.

Earlier I said:- Well to User Tedder and interested editors, I think my earlier raising of the issue was well justified, and since I lack the Wiki experience to deal with this complicated matter perhaps someone smarter can do a job as nice as the Madoff article on that equally complicated legal matter.

At that time I also commented So here's what I just said on the South China Sea name debate talk page as above, for others to consider. --

My earlier Comments stand:- Since that time, diplomacy has been going in circles as most claimants and influential Nations have argued for multi-lateral adjudication to seek solutions, but China insists they will only respond to bi-lateral settlements between themselves and the claimants of a disputed area.[10] As of June 2011 the most persuasive arguement against wars developing in the area, have come from the Dr. Donald K. Emmerson, Director of the Southeast Asia Forum at Stanford University. [11]

Essentially explaining the relative considerations as being:- Despite analysts stated belief, that an ongoing deluge of strongly worded condemnations, accusing Vietnam of threatening Chinese autonomy in the region, China is likely to stand by its promise of detente. "There is a way to measure how likely things are to lead to military confrontation," said Dr. Donald K. Emmerson, Director of the Southeast Asia Forum at Stanford University. [12]

Emmerson attended the 2011 Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore, after Chinese ships cut cords on PetroVietnam's survey ships late last month. Then, China's tone was conciliatory, until another subsequent attack on June 9, when another Chinese vessel cut cords on another PetroVietnam ship, in what Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Phuong Nga said was a "premeditated" offensive. "China relies increasingly on the import of fuels from the Middle East. Those fuels come from the Malaca Straight, into the South China Sea. If China were to wage a war in the primary transit area for fuels, that would be an unwise decision," Emmerson said, That's one reason not to go to war over the South China Sea.

He also mentioned, points suggesting the most convincing safeguard agaist a China war with SRV, or ASEAN Nations is that they would soon see their fuel arrivals attacked and depleted crippling China's main income sources of Industry. Add to that the estimated War direct cost eatimates of $12.7 bn (nearly the sum they collect from SRV each year in trade balances favoring China) there simply is not the incentive to war. One must conclude that even if their bravado scare tactics don't bluff SRV into a bilateral swap for about half the area each, China must back down.

On the other hand SRV certainly will not back down, to do so the VCP would loose all credibility and likely loose power, or face internal rebellion an even worse cost.

Whilst SRV currently enjoy at least token verbal support of USA and UN and NATO, (those support voices defer to diplomatic waffle in order to appear impartial and hold China relations as now). Notwithstanding, the areas of China claims lately disputed are 400kn to 900km seadistance from China, against ASEAN claims of 30 to 150km in the same areas doesn't persuasively "hold water" when it comes to seeking world support for China's arguments.

Some writers of repute argue, another reason for the Southeast Asian nations and territories laying claim to the sea (there are six in total, including Vietnam, the Philippines and Taiwan) not to engage China militaristically would be to preserve geopolitical stability in the region."The border states realize that a full-scale war with tankers being blown up at sea would be so dangerous to the countries concerned," he said, explaining that the international economy would be greatly shaken by the disruption of the key shipping route.. Not to mention fish deaths from the pollutant spills.

Half of the world's merchant fleet by tonnage sails through South China Sea every year, Emmerson said. "That's a huge artery of global trade. Although it's true that the South China sea is [the] main passage way, there are more costly alternatives, moving eastward through Philippines and Indonesia." Unlikely so for China supplies of most needed supplies, land routs are useless till they gain the high speed rail links and those could equally fail if ASEAN stands against them. Other sea routs past Japan are double the transport costs to China, and that would overprice them competitively, destroying their industrial economic successes, and they are what would have to finance such a challenge.

As far as solutions, both Emmerson and Global Insight's Behravesh see cooperatios in China's future with its ASEAN business partners to the South. And there's precedent. Emmerson explained that in July 2005, a joint marine seismic undertaking was founded by China, the Philippines and Vietnam -- the signatories included companies like PetroVietnam -- not the foreign ministers or prime ministers. It was in the name of joint work between the companies -- to begin finding out how much oil was beneath the seabed.. "They at first wanted joint exploration and then joint exploitation. Then the project lapsed in 2008," he added.

Where China clearly stands to benefit from an increased oil supply in its endless drive to fuel its growing economy, Vietnam also stands to benefit. "I certainly think Vietnam has the capability through joint ventures to exploit the reserves," said Behravesh, explaining that a win-win partnership on the oil could help cool geopolitical heat in the region and allow for the joint exploitation of the region's resources.[13]

---

Wikipedia does have a page dealing with these disputed South China Seas and Islands claims, but it is rather incomplete. Hence in Wikinews, I had 24th June 2011 offered a proposed News Article I hope summarizing the case enough for Wikipedia Editors to develop that for inclusion in a suitable main article of Wikipedia to reflect an up to date War Risk (one that could easily escalate into a WW III scenario we all would despise) Here is what I submitted and they posted as a Template of Short News for a few days, but no one chose to make a full story of it and eventually it was dumped I guess, bowever it is still an appropriate summary to that date. :-

Wikinews Shorts: June 24, 2011 From Wikinews, the free news source you can write! Unchecked Jump to: navigation, search

Template: South China Seas Disputes Expanding Faster Day By Day World News in dozens of recent press debates, internet and TV reports in the past weeks report a groundswell opinion against Chinese expansionism in the East Sea Vietnam and the West Sea Philippines, with massive rallies for several days lately. Vietnamese media this past week, reports many citizens challenging China outside the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi and public streets of Hochiminh city.

This argument heated during the past week when China warned of their "Possible Military Response in South China Sea" [1][2][3] Reliable press news late June 2011 quote Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario on increased Chinese actions in the Spratly Islands disputed territorial areas, including areas of Philippines Sovereignty, and that USA officials recently agreed Washington would respond if Philippine forces are attacked in the South China Seas. He also quoted the 1951 defense treaty that would be soon discussed with US Secretary of State Clinton. The American Embassy spokesman Alan holt went as far as saying “As a strategic ally, the US honors our Mutual Defense Treaty with Philippines” but wouldn’t discuss hypothetical scenarios. The treaty that came into effect in 1952 defines an attack as an assault on “the metropolitan territory of the parties" or their "armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific." There has been some debate if an attack in the Spratlys area (now declared by them as the “West Philippine Sea” the “South China Sea” as China calls it and "East Sea" as Vietnam calls it) would constitute such a case in USA view, some think it would. The same source quotes Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tian Kai as warning that “Washington risks getting drawn into a conflict should tensions in the region escalate further”. Cui Tien Kai added, USA might best involve by counseling restraint among nations that have been taking “provocative actions”. On the same case this press reports that the Philippines claims China has intruded 6 times in Manila-claimed teritories near the Spratlys since February. Among the most serious was a reported firing by a Chinese navy vessel on Feb. 25 to scare away Filipino fishermen from the Jackson Atoll.[4]as reported on the Internet Yahoo News. [5][6][7][8]

Meanwhile recent press articles are claiming Vietnam is resisting Chinese claims after incursions in the Spratleys. Michael Richardson, a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South-East Asian Studies in Singapore, confirmed claims coming out of Philippines suggesting that if correct are that “Chinese vessels unloaded construction materials on unoccupied Amy Douglas reef in the Spratlys between March 21 and 24, while General Liang was in Manila for talks to defuse tensions, it would be a serious breach of the Declaration of Conduct on the South China Sea signed by ASEAN and China in 2002” furthermore that Vietnam Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung has entered the fray publicly saying that “Vietnam's sovereignty over the Chinese-occupied Paracel Islands and over the widely-scattered Spratlys - some of which are garrisoned by China, Taiwan, the Philippines and Malaysia, as well as Vietnam - was incontestable and would be defended by the armed forces.”[9][10]

This whole situation is escalating to a point where “China Warns Vietnam of Possible Military Response in South China Sea” whereas just a few days earlier and repeatedly for some time China has insisted it will not act Militarily in expanding territories or settling disputed territories.[11][12][13][14][15]

In Washington, U.S. Senator John McCain said the United States must help Southeast Asian nations boost their maritime forces to counter China's "unsubstantiated" claims in the South China Sea. McCain, speaking late Monday, said he is troubled over Beijing's increasingly assertive maritime actions, especially in waters claimed by members of the regional block known as Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN.[16][17].

1.↑ Source June 21, 2011 bbc.co.uk 2.↑ Source VOA News June 21, 2011 3.↑ The Global Times China http://globaltimes.cn/ June 20th 4.↑ Source AAP June 22 2011 writer Jim Gomez 5.↑ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/ap_on_re_as/as_south_china_sea_dispute 6.↑ source AAP writer Charles Hutzler in Beijing contributed to this report AAP June 22 2011 writer Jim Gomez 7.↑ htttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110623/ap_on_re_as/as_south_china_sea_dispute 8.↑ Source Vietnam Mounts Artillery Drill Amid Tensions With China, June 13, 2011 www.voanews.com 9.↑ Source China asserts its own Monroe Doctrine in SE Asia June 16, 2011 www.iiss.org 10.↑ source Vietnam signs order on military eligibility, mysinchew.com HANOI, June 14, 2011 (AFP) 11.↑ Source June 21, 2011 bbc.co.uk 12.↑ The Global Times Chinese English language daily June 20th & 21st. http://globaltimes.cn/ 13.↑ Source AFP June 14, 2011 14.↑ Source VOA News June 21, 2011 15.↑ The Global Times China http://globaltimes.cn/ 16.↑ Source VOA June 21st 2011 17.↑ Source June 21, 2011 bbc.co.uk

I am hopeful a Wikipedia Editor can sort this into a good Wikipedia article update in the South China Sea Dispute article and with links in the South China Sea and Spratly Islands main articles, to record the difficulties at this stage as a historical encyclopedic entry.--

Now the last important point I noted was the USA Senate near unanimous condemnation of Chinese force exerted in that Sea arena. US Senate resolution condemns Chinese use of force Washington, Jun 14 (PTI) Two key US lawmakers have introduced a resolution in the Senate, condemning the use of force by Chinese government in the South China Sea ... the most reliable reference being </ref/>news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5208337 dated 14/6/2011 saying:- "US Senate resolution condemns Chinese use of force - Washington, Jun 14 (PTI) Two key US lawmakers have introduced a resolution in the Senate, condemning the use of force by Chinese government in the South China Sea.

Introduced by Senators Jim Webb and James Inhofe, chair and ranking member of Senate Foreign Relations East Asian and Pacific Affairs Subcommittee, the resolution called on all parties to seek a peaceful resolution to dispute.

It also supports the continuation of operations by US Armed Forces to assert and defend freedom of navigation rights in international waters and air space in the South China Sea.

The resolution has been introduced in the wake of the May 26 incident wherein a maritime security vessel from China cut the cables of another exploration ship from Vietnam in the South China Sea, in waters near Cam Ranh Bay."

Many other reliable sources picked up on the same item and timeframe see yahoo references:- Influential senator condemns China's assertive action in South ... Influential senator condemns China's assertive action in South China Sea, urges US reaction ... in Vietnam, which says Chinese boats ... saying that shows of force only ... </ref>ca.news.yahoo.com/influential-senator-condemns-china-assertive-action-south-china...<ref?> on Google and then Google:- Influential senator condemns China's assertive action in South ... ... condemns China's assertive action in South China Sea, urges US ... force and push for multilateral negotiations to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea ... Senate ... </ref> www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5iilW-lFfpfxumn5fWQHY6aDuaA_w?... there are dozens more.----Robbygay (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Potsdam Conference may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• shore actually including the parallel. It was around a hundred kilometers north of the city of Huế.) --[[User:Robbygay|Robbygay]] ([[User talk:Robbygay|talk]]) 10:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)for the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2015

Hello, I'm OluwaCurtis. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Documentary (disambiguation) has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 22:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)