Friday, February 18, 2011

IS IT A BIRD? IS IT A PLANE? NO, IT'S THE ARMY'S LATEST $4MILLION SPY DRONE DISGUISED AS A HUMMINGBIRD, MEASURING JUST 16 CENTIMETRES

By Daily Mail Reporter 17th February 2011

A pocket-sized spy drone disguised as a hummingbird has been unveiled by a major Pentagon contractor measuring just 16 centimetres and weighing less than an AA battery.

The mini spy plane can fly up to 11 miles an hour and took five years to develop at a cost of $4million.

Army chiefs hope to use the drone’s tiny camera to spy on enemy positions in war zones without arousing detection and eventually deploy it into both rural and urban environments.

Unsuspecting: The tiny hummingbird spy drone has a wingspan of just 16 centimetres and propels itself like a real bird - just by flapping its little wings

Unsuspecting: The tiny hummingbird spy drone has a wingspan of just 16 centimetres and propels itself like a real bird - just by flapping its little wings

Experts hope the drone, which can fly just by flapping its wings, compared with current models which rely on propellers, will eventually be able to swoop through open windows and perch on power lines.

The demonstration by AeroVironment – one of the world’s biggest drone suppliers – lasted eight minutes and saw the new creation fly through a door into an building and out again, and withstand winds of five miles per hour.

Todd Hylton, Hummingbird programme manager for the Pentagon’s research arm said it ‘paves the way for a new generation of aircraft with the agility and appearance of small birds.’

Test: The $4million project has taken five years. The latest demonstration saw the drone fly into and out of a building at 11mph, and withstand 5mph winds for the eight minute flight

Test: The $4million project has taken five years. The latest demonstration saw the drone fly into and out of a building at 11mph, and withstand 5mph winds for the eight minute flight

Matt Keennon, AeroVironment’s manager on the project, said the milestone of building a machine inspired by nature pushes the limits of aerodynamics.

He added: ‘This is a new form of man-made flight’.

Two years ago the company showed off its first Hummingbird prototype, managing just 20 seconds. The latest flight lasted eight minutes, with engineers expecting longer flights as development continues.

AeroVironment already produces a number of different drones for the US Army.

Last year it had 2,182 orders from the army for its Raven drone, which weighs four pounds with a wingspan of four-and-a-half feet.

Current drones, like the $30million Global Observer, pictured, are shaped like planes - but the new hummingbird creation is aimed at going unnoticed behind enemy lines

Current drones, like the $30million Global Observer, pictured, are shaped like planes - but the new hummingbird creation is aimed at going unnoticed behind enemy lines

Around 86 per cent of its orders come from the Government, meaning last year it was paid a whopping $215million from the Department of Defense.

The company, based in California with 732 full-time employees, expects to sell even more drones to the Government once rules are relaxed to allow spying within America.

The unveiling of the Hummingbird comes just weeks after the same company launched its $30million Global Observer with a wingspan similar to a Boeing 747 which can survey an area as large as Afghanistan.

Chris Fisher, project manager at AeroVironment explained: ‘It gives the guy on the ground the opportunity to see what’s on the other side of the hill. There’s only so much you can see with binoculars. A small [drone] can get up and go over the hill. That gives the ground soldier a capability that is huge.

He added: ‘One of the things we benefit from is the average young person in the military has hours and hours of video games experience. They are attuned to holding these things in their hands; moving the joysticks around with their thumbs and that’s how our planes are flown. To an 18-year-old it’s extremely simple.’


FROM PRISON, MADOFF SAYS BANKS ‘HAD TO KNOW’ OF FRAUD

February 15, 2011 By DIANA B. HENRIQUES

BUTNER, N.C. — Bernard L. Madoff said he never thought the collapse of his Ponzi scheme would cause the sort of destruction that has befallen his family.

In his first interview for publication since his arrest in December 2008, Mr. Madoff — looking noticeably thinner and rumpled in khaki prison garb — maintained that family members knew nothing about his crimes.

But during a private two-hour interview in a visitor room here on Tuesday, and in earlier e-mail exchanges, he asserted that unidentified banks and hedge funds were somehow “complicit” in his elaborate fraud, an about-face from earlier claims that he was the only person involved.

Mr. Madoff, who is serving a 150-year sentence, seemed frail and a bit agitated compared with the stoic calm he maintained before his incarceration in 2009, perhaps burdened by sadness over the suicide of his son Mark in December.

Besides that loss, his family also has faced stacks of lawsuits, the potential forfeiture of most of their assets, and relentless public suspicion and enmity that cut Mr. Madoff and his wife Ruth off from their children.

In many ways, however, Mr. Madoff seemed unchanged. He spoke with great intensity and fluency about his dealings with various banks and hedge funds, pointing to their “willful blindness” and their failure to examine discrepancies between his regulatory filings and other information available to them.

“They had to know,” Mr. Madoff said. “But the attitude was sort of, ‘If you’re doing something wrong, we don’t want to know.’ ”

While he acknowledged his guilt in the interview and said nothing could excuse his crimes, he focused his comments laserlike on the big investors and giant institutions he dealt with, not on the financial pain he caused thousands of his more modest investors. In an e-mail written on Jan. 13, he observed that many long-term clients made more in legitimate profits from him in the years before the fraud than they could have elsewhere. “I would have loved for them to not lose anything, but that was a risk they were well aware of by investing in the market,” he wrote.

Mr. Madoff said he was startled to learn about some of the e-mails and messages raising doubts about his results — now emerging in lawsuits — that bankers were passing around before his scheme collapsed.

“I’m reading more now about how suspicious they were than I ever realized at the time,” he said with a faint smile.

He did not assert that any specific bank or fund knew about or was an accomplice in his Ponzi scheme, which lasted at least 16 years and consumed about $20 billion in lost cash and almost $65 billion in paper wealth. Rather, he cited a failure to conduct normal scrutiny.

Both the interview and the e-mail correspondence were conducted as part of this reporter’s research for a coming book on the Madoff scandal, “The Wizard of Lies: Bernie Madoff and the Death of Trust,” for publication this spring by Times Books, a division of Henry Holt & Company.

In the interview and e-mails, he also claimed he had been helping the court-appointed trustee who is seeking to recover lost billions on behalf of his swindled clients. In e-mails, Mr. Madoff said repeatedly that he provided useful information to Irving H. Picard, the trustee trying to recover assets for the fraud victims. He met with Mr. Picard’s team over four days last summer, he said. The e-mails were written in December and January, but he only recently agreed that they could be made public.

In prison, Mr. Madoff’s access to the outside world is both limited and monitored. All visitors must be approved by prison authorities, who also screen his limited collect calls and his incoming and outgoing e-mails and letters, though interviews with lawyers are less restricted and can be conducted in private.

Asked about his cell, he described a room about 12 feet square with a big window looking out on the grounds; he said he had a roommate, the second since he arrived at the prison.

It was clear from the e-mails and interview here that Mr. Madoff closely followed news related to his case in December, the second anniversary of his arrest. He lashed out at what he called some of the “disgraceful” coverage of the suicide of his son Mark on Dec. 11.

Disputing reports that he refused to attend any funeral services for Mark, he said the prison informed him it would not approve a request for him to attend a service because of “the public safety issue” and the limited time available to make arrangements. He concluded any funeral he attended “would be a media circus” and that it “would be cruel to my family” to put them through that, he wrote on Dec. 29.

Regarding his meetings with Mr. Picard’s legal team, Mr. Madoff asserted in an e-mail written on Dec. 19 that he had given Mr. Picard’s legal team “information I knew would be instrumental in recovering assets from those people complicit in the mess I put myself into.”

In a message 10 days later, he was even more explicit about what he told the trustee's team: “I am saying that the banks and funds were complicit in one form or another.”

Mr. Madoff’s claims must be weighed against his tenuous credibility. After deceiving federal regulators and supposedly sophisticated investors for at least 16 years, he would certainly be branded as a liar by defense lawyers if he appeared as a witness against any defendant in a courtroom — a fact he acknowledged somewhat ruefully during the interview on Tuesday.

Despite his many references to the complicity of others, he acknowledged in the Dec. 19 e-mail that he had not shared his information with the federal prosecutors working on criminal cases related to his fraud — although the trustee most likely would have done so, if Mr. Madoff’s information was relevant to the investigation.

Mr. Madoff wrote in an e-mail that while he was willing “from the beginning” to give prosecutors information “to help recover assets only, I refused to help provide them with criminal evidence.” In the interview he declined to discuss any of the criminal cases under investigation.

In the months after the Picard team’s prison interviews, the trustee’s law firm, Baker & Hostetler, filed hundreds of civil lawsuits seeking approximately $90 billion in damages and fictional profits withdrawn from Mr. Madoff’s scheme over the years. The defendants in those cases included the Wilpon family, the owners of the New York Mets; JPMorgan Chase, which served for decades as Mr. Madoff’s primary banker; and Sonja Kohn, the Viennese financier at the hub of a network of hedge funds that invested heavily with Mr. Madoff.

Mr. Madoff said about Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz, Mr. Wilpon’s brother-in-law and business partner: “They knew nothing. They knew nothing.”

There was no obvious sign that any of those lawsuits were based on evidence or guidance from Mr. Madoff. All the defendants have said they had no knowledge of the fraud and have denied the trustee’s claims that, as financially sophisticated investors, they should have been suspicious from the beginning.

Mr. Picard declined to comment on whether his team had interviewed Mr. Madoff and would not say whether information from him had contributed to the vast body of litigation filed since last summer.

In some e-mails, Mr. Madoff conceded that Mr. Picard’s team conducted its own investigation into the withdrawals made by some big clients, in the years before the Ponzi scheme collapsed, to determine who might have known what and when. Such withdrawals could indicate that investors could have been aware of the fraud, which could increase their liability.

However, Mr. Madoff added, “the facts are that I alone was present at certain meetings with these clients.”

To date, none of the major banks or hedge funds that did business with Mr. Madoff have been accused by federal prosecutors of knowingly investing in his Ponzi scheme. However, Mr. Picard in civil lawsuits has asserted that executives at some banks expressed suspicions for years, yet continued to do business with Mr. Madoff and steer their clients’ money into his hands.

All the financial entities facing civil lawsuits by Madoff victims and Mr. Picard have denied they had any knowledge of the fraud.

In a related e-mail on Jan. 12, Mr. Madoff cited out-of-court settlements that some banks and funds had negotiated with private Madoff investors over the last two years and claimed some settlements were made “to keep me quiet” about the role the institutions played in “creating my situation” and about the identity of the beneficial owners of some of their private accounts.

Mr. Picard has already recovered roughly $10 billion through asset sales and settlements with several foreign banks and a few significant Madoff clients, including the estate of a private investor, Jeffry Picower, and the family of Carl Shapiro, a philanthropist in Palm Beach, Fla.

While the Picower settlement had been under negotiation since at least the fall of 2009, the settlements with the Shapiro family and a Swiss bank, Union Bancaire PrivĂ©e, both came after lawyers from Mr. Picard’s firm visited the prison here in Butner. But because both settlements came before Mr. Picard had filed any public claims in court, it is unclear whether information from Mr. Madoff was a factor in those settlement talks.

Neither Mr. Shapiro nor the Swiss bank has been accused of any complicity in Mr. Madoff’s crimes, and Mr. Picard has publicly acknowledged their good-faith cooperation with his inquiries when he announced the settlement agreements, which totaled more than $1 billion.

The only people formally charged with complicity in Mr. Madoff’s crime are his former auditor and members of his own staff.

Although Mr. Madoff swore in court that he had carried out his elaborate fraud on his own, his accountant, David G. Friehling, and Mr. Madoff’s senior lieutenant, Frank DiPascali, have pleaded guilty and are cooperating with prosecutors. Five other former Madoff employees have been indicted; they have asserted their innocence and are awaiting trial.

While Mr. Madoff said he was determined to aid the trustee’s efforts to recover assets, he was also critical of the trustee’s reach, claiming that Mr. Picard was seeking far more money than was needed to resolve valid investor claims.

In addition to the customer claims for the cash losses and the paper wealth that vanished, the Madoff estate also faces claims by general creditors, like unpaid vendors and landlords, who cannot recover until all the valid customer claims are paid.

Mr. Madoff argued in several e-mails that Mr. Picard’s responsibility was to return only the $20 billion in out-of-pocket cash that investors lost in his scheme.

Given that Mr. Picard has already recovered roughly $10 billion, Mr. Madoff calculated that the lawsuits against major banks and hedge funds would produce more than enough to cover the rest of the cash losses without Mr. Picard having to pursue “clawback” litigation against some longtime investors who withdrew more from their accounts than they put.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 17, 2011

An article on Wednesday about Bernard L. Madoff, the imprisoned creator of a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, misidentified, in two passages, whom Mr. Madoff met with in what he said were efforts to help Irving H. Picard, a court-appointed trustee, recover assets for the fraud victims. As the article correctly noted elsewhere, Mr. Madoff met with members of Mr. Picard’s legal team, not with Mr. Picard personally. The article also gave an incorrect middle initial for Mr. Madoff’s accountant. He is David G. Friehling, not David H.

RESTORING ECONOMIC SOVEREIGNTY:THE PUSH FOR STATE-OWNED BANKS

BY ELLEN BROWN

“It is time to declare economic sovereignty from the multinational banks that are responsible for much of our current economic crisis. Every year we ship over a billion dollars in Oregon taxpayer dollars to out-of-state and multinational banks in the form of deposits, only to see that money invested elsewhere. It’s time to put our money to work for Oregonians.”

- Bill Bradbury, former Oregon Senate President and Secretary of State, quoted in The Nation.

Responding to an unfilled need for credit for local government, local businesses and consumers, three states in the last month have introduced bills for state-owned banks - Oregon, Washington and Maryland - joining Illinois, Virginia, Massachusetts and Hawaii to bring the total number to seven.

While Wall Street is reporting record profits, local banks are floundering, credit for small businesses and consumers remains tight, and local governments are teetering on bankruptcy. There is even talk of allowing state governments to file for bankruptcy, something current legislation forbids. The federal government and Federal Reserve have managed to find trillions of dollars to prop up the Wall Street banks that precipitated the credit crisis, but they have not extended this largesse to the taxpayers and local governments that have been forced to pick up the tab.

In January, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the Fed had ruled out a central bank bailout for state and local governments. The collective state budget deficit for 2011 is projected at $140 billion, a mere 1% of the $12.3 trillion the Fed managed to come up with in liquidity, short-term loans, and other financial arrangements to bail out Wall Street. But Chairman Bernanke said the Fed is limited by statute to buying municipal government debt with maturities of six months or less that is directly backed by tax or other assured revenue, a form of debt that makes up less than 2% of the overall muni market. State and municipal governments, it seems, are on their own.

Faced with federal inaction and growing local budget crises, an increasing number of states are exploring the possibility of setting up their own state-owned banks, following the model of North Dakota, the only state that seems to have escaped the credit crisis unscathed. The 92-year-old Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the only state-owned U.S. bank, has helped North Dakota avoid the looming budgetary disasters of other states. In 2009, North Dakota sported the largest budget surplus it had ever had. The BND helps fund not only local government but local banks and businesses, by providing matching funds for loans to commercial banks to support small business lending.

In the last month, three states have introduced bills for state-owned banks, following the North Dakota model. On January 11, a bill to establish a state-owned bank was introduced in the Oregon State legislature; on January 13, a similar bill was introduced in Washington State (discussed in an earlier article here); and on February 4, a bill was introduced in the Maryland legislature for a feasibility study looking into the possibilities. They join Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii and Massachusetts, all of which introduced similar bills in 2010.

Broad-Based Support

The bills are widely supported by small business owners. The Seattle Times reported on February 3 that 79% of 107 business owners surveyed by the Main Street Alliance of Washington supported the Washington bill. More than half said they had experienced a tightening of business credit, and three-fourths of those said they could create additional jobs if their credit needs were met.

A survey by the Main Street Alliance of Oregon produced similar results. Their survey, which covered 115 businesses in 28 communities, found that two-thirds of small-business owners had delayed or canceled expansions because of credit problems; 41% had been turned down for credit; and 42% had seen their credit terms deteriorate. Three-quarters of the business owners surveyed supported the Oregon bill.

Also supporting the idea of a state-owned bank is Oregon state treasurer Ted Wheeler, with this twist: He thinks Oregon can unlock additional lending capacity in partnership with existing institutions by creating a “virtual” bank. The state would not need to build new brick and mortar banks requiring hundreds of new employees to service them. The new tools afforded the state by being a “bank” could be arranged quickly and cheaply through a framework he calls a “virtual economic development bank.” In an OpEd posted on Oregonlive.com on February 9, he wrote:

This new model would consolidate Oregon’s various economic development loan programs in one place, and allow state government to step in as a new lending participant, which will help qualified Oregonians to secure additional financing. We also have strategic investment tools such as the Oregon Growth Account that could be better utilized as part of this framework.

Banks “create” money by leveraging their capital into loans. At an 8% capital requirement, they can leverage capital by a factor of 12, so long as they can attract sufficient deposits (collected or borrowed) to clear the outgoing checks. States give this leveraging power away when they put their deposits in Wall Street banks and invest their capital there.

State and municipal governments have assets tucked all over the state in separate rainy day funds, which are largely invested in Wall Street banks for a very modest return. At the same time, states are borrowing from Wall Street at much higher interest rates and have to worry about such things as credit ratings, late fees and interest rate swaps, which have proven to be very good investments for Wall Street and very bad investments for local governments.

By consolidating their assets into their own state-owned banks, state and local governments can leverage their own funds to finance their own operations; and they can do this essentially interest-free, since they will own the bank and will get the interest back. The BND contributed over $300 million to state coffers in the past decade, a notable achievement for a state with a population that is less than one-tenth the size of Los Angeles County.

The growing movement to establish local economic sovereignty through state-owned banks has been a grassroots effort that has grown spontaneously in response to unmet needs for local credit. In Oregon, the push has come from an active volunteer group called Oregonians for a State Bank working with the Working Families Party. In Washington, the Main Street Alliance has played a major role. The Alliance is a project of what is now called the Alliance for a Just Society (formerly NWFCO), a coalition of several northwest states’ Citizen Action Networks and others. The chief legislative champion in Washington State is Rep. Bob Hasegawa. In Maryland, the campaign was initiated by the Wisconsin-based Center for State Innovation (CSI), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Progressive States Network. Progressive Maryland is a prominent NGO supporter. Detailed analyses of the Washington and Oregon initiatives and their projected benefits have been done by CSI. For grassroots efforts in other states and for petitions that can be signed, see http://publicbankinginstitute.org/state-info.htm.

RAY McGOVERN DISCUSSES BRUTAL ARREST AT SECRETARY CLINTON'S INTERNET FREEDOM SPEECH

By Rob Kall opednews.com
On Tuesday, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke on issues of free speech at George Washington University, 71-year-old former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was assaulted, dragged from the room and double handcuffed causing profuse bleeding.

What had he done to elicit this treatment? He stood in "silent witness."

This was not the first time this former Army intelligence officer employed this form of peaceful, civil resistance. In 1992, McGovern who is a Roman Catholic, expressed his dissent of the church's position on women as priests by standing during Sunday Mass in what became a years' long protest. This civil protest ultimately resulted in media attention and a conversation with James Cardinal Hickey.

Ray explained that it was in this spirit that he chose to protest Clinton's policies and track record.
"Hillary is the driving force, together with a few others, behind the wars in Afghanistan. She's one of the big hawks in Iran. When I look at her and her husband that they don't know the first thing about war. I do and so do my fellow Veterans for Peace. I have to make clear that we Veterans for Peace think that her policies are an abomination to the nation, that they are at cross purposes to the country and not everybody should applaud and give her the idea that she's doing the right thing."
"I knew that Hillary knew, at the beginning of the war, that Hillary knew how things would go. There was a young lady who was working as Hillary Clinton's personal staff chief, when she was a senator in 2002 and 2003, was in a class I taught in DC and I'd ask her to give her boss articles I wrote. And she did give them to her. So I know that. She made a political calculation that she needed to be strong because she was a woman even though she knew from us that the unintended consequences would be catastrophic. She knew all that and made that calculation."
"The height of irony, of course, is that was her tragic flaw that let Obama beat her. She supported the war and Obama didn't. She is the height of hypocrisy. When people die because we have hypocrites at the top of our government, that compels me to make a statement in whatever way I can. It was not the theme of her speech that I was protesting. It was her war policies and support of Mubarak."

When Secretary Clinton walked into the room, the audience rose and applauded before sitting back down. All but Ray McGovern, just as he had done hundreds of times before in the Catholic church without incident. McGovern described what happened next.

"It was my symbolic way of saying not everybody agrees with her. I turned my back to her and stood [silently]. When she came in I not only remained standing but I turned my back to her."

This time things were very different. Ray commented, "I didn't think that would get me roughed up and arrested for disorderly conduct."

Screen grab from the under one minute video below which shows Ray as he is grabbed as Secretary Clinton continued speaking, undaunted, as an assault was taking place.
Ray explained that when he would stand in silent witness at the church, his daughter would be with him keeping an eye on things. This time there was no one to warn him that two large men were approaching him. Nor was there any warning issued by the men, according to McGovern, as they grabbed him and dragged him out of the room.

"They grabbed me and the shock wore off. There was a real struggle. I shouted, 'This is America.' Then I said, 'Who are you?' This is a mystery to me. Who were they? The guy in the suit was the one who did the damage. He was brutal."
"They took me outside, put two sets of iron handcuffs that pierced my wrists. The bleeding went all over my pants. One guy said, "I pricked my finger" like it was his blood."
"I was bleeding in the car so I said 'I think you need to put some gauze on me.' They handed me to the DC police and they told I was being charged with disorderly conduct. I was booked, fingerprinted, mug shot taken. They put me in a little cell -- must be the same size as Bradley Manning's-- about six by four feet."
"It was about three hours that they held me until they let me out. I had to take a cab to the hospital where they x-rayed me, treated me and dressed my wounds. Then the doctors told me that since this was an assault on me, I had to inform the police about who had assaulted me. A little humor helped then."
Image from JusticeOnLine

Four years ago, McGovern attended another speech and made national news. The speaker was Donald Rumsfeld and the talk was being broadcast live on CNN. During the Q&A, McGovern took his turn at the mic and asked the former Secretary of Defense why he had lied about weapons of mass destruction.

Security immediately approached McGovern, but Rumsfeld stopped them choosing instead to attempt to outwit the seasoned analyst. The exchange that ensued led to what Keith Olbermann would later call the "vivisection of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld."
Comparing the two experiences, Ray remarked:

"When Clinton started talking about how people beat up and arrested people in Iran, it gave some poetic justice, a great irony, to my standing there and what happened to me then, when she's talking about what happened in other countries and there I am being handled in a vicious way...God knows what would happen next. Maybe some senior would ask her questions [she doesn't take questions]. As bad as Donald Rumsfeld was, he let me speak. He let me speak and engaged me in dialog."
"At the same [Rumsfeld] speech, there was a courageous guy who stood with his back to Rumsfeld the entire speech. They left him completely alone and he walked out at the end, unbothered. Four years later, things have changed.

In response to the charges of disorderly conduct filed against him, he said, "There was a lot of disorderly conduct, but I wasn't responsible for it."

McGovern says he is not worried about the charges, commenting that "With all those cameras and photos there has to be someone who will come forward with pictures of me and what happened to me to prove I was attacked, I wasn't warned."

He concluded, "I'm sore, but I'm glad I did it." OpEdNews.com writer Cheryl Biren contributed to this report.

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)

Monday, February 14, 2011

WIKILEAKS - SAUDI ASKED US TO STOP OIL LAWSUITS

Wikileaks - Saudi asked US to stop oil lawsuits
Sunday, 13 Feb 2011
According to US diplomatic cables seen by Wikileaks, Saudi Arabia in 2007 threatened to pull out of a Texas oil refinery investment unless the US government intervened to stop Saudi Aramco from being sued in US courts for alleged oil price fixing,.

Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud deputy Saudi oil minister said that he wanted the US to grant Saudi Arabia sovereign immunity from lawsuits by ordering a Department of Justice statement of interest on its behalf.

The cable said that Prince Abdulaziz told us that King Abdullah specifically had raised the lawsuit issue with Vice President Mr Cheney during his May visit and that the Saudi government would judge the administration's willingness to file an SOI as a test of good faith.

It said that Prince Abdulaziz perceives the lawsuits as a threat right now, one that could derail the expansion of the Port Arthur refinery, possibly by the end of the summer.

Recently, Mr Ford M Fraker US ambassador told Prince Abdulaziz that Saudi request was receiving serious consideration. Prince Abdulaziz said that our final decision hinges on what reasons we have to pursue investment. We are facing daunting cases. We are pursuing the engineering but we need solid intervention from the USG to have the comfort we need for this project.

Saudi Aramco at the time was considering the doubling of capacity at the Motiva refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, JV with Shell. It approved the investment in September 2007 and the USD 7 billion expansion is due online in 2012.

Oil prices rose from USD 60 per barrels to USD 90 per barrel in 2007 and Saudi Aramco was taken to court in a number of US district courts on allegations of price fixing in concert with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

OPEC controls output by setting production targets for member countries and came under fire in 2007 and 2008 as oil prices set successive record highs. By 2008 it was pumping close to full capacity. Saudi Arabia is OPEC's biggest producer.

(Sourced from Reuters)

GREECE SLAMS 'UNACCEPTABLE' EU-IMF ASSET SALE CALL

On Saturday 12 February 2011, 22:32 EST

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou on Saturday accused EU and IMF officials of "unacceptable behaviour" over demands for a 50-billion-euro asset sale to ease Greece's crushing debts.

Papandreou's office said he had personally complained to International Monetary Fund director Dominique Strauss-Kahn over the "unacceptable behaviour" of European Union, IMF and European Central Bank experts monitoring Greece's economic reforms.

Papandreou also called EU economic affairs commissioner Olli Rehn, the prime minister's office said, and is also reportedly planning similar protests to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet.

After a quarterly audit found a revenue shortfall and reforms at risk of slowing down, the EU, IMF and ECB on Friday told Athens to start selling state assets and speed up reforms to keep its tortuous recovery on track.

"It is well known that there is huge potential for privatisation," European Commission representative Servaas Deroose told a news conference.

"A comprehensive plan through 2015 will be finalised... aiming at proceeds of 50 billion euros ($68 billion) between 2011 and 2015," he said.

Out of that total, to be used for debt reduction, 15 billion euros is to come in the next two years, the EU official said.

"The behaviour of the European Union, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank representatives... was unacceptable," government spokesman George Petalotis said in an earlier statement.

"We asked them to help and are fully meeting our obligations. But we did not ask anybody to meddle in the internal matters of the country," he said.

Greek newspapers and opposition parties were equally scathing but many also took a swipe at the ruling Socialists for bargaining with the EU, the IMF and the ECB, the 'troika' supervising Greece's recovery from near bankruptcy.

"The troika demanded and is taking away whatever it wants in (terms of) companies, water and land," said the centre-left Eleftherotypia daily while pro-government Ta Nea was headlined: "The 'bosses' have gone crazy!"

"State property on debt altar," commented the liberal Kathimerini daily while conservative Eleftheros Typos said that Greece was "On Sale".

The main opposition New Democracy party accused the government of "hypocrisy", noting that the finance ministry had initially released a document approving the 50-billion sale plan, and it called for the finance minister's removal.

The Greek government had originally planned to privatise state assets worth seven billion euros over three years.

It announced in November a sale list including four Airbus A340 jets and stakes in one of the country's top casinos and in public-owned defence, train and mining companies.

"We are in need but we also have limits," Petalotis said on Saturday.

"We will not bargain the limits of our dignity with anybody. We only take orders from the Greek people," he said, adding that no state land would be sold.

Greece's public debt stands at around 300 billion euros after years of large public deficits that in 2009 stood at 15.4 percent of output, more than five times the allowed EU level.

The government has already endured a wave of social anger over unprecedented wage cuts and tax hikes last year to reduce the public deficit by six percent of output, a huge correction by any standards.

Its objective is to bring the deficit to below three percent of output -- the level mandated under EU rules -- by 2014.

A planned extension of austerity reforms to 2015, two years after the government's current mandate, has prompted speculation that the government could call early elections.

According to Ta Nea, one key factor is an EU summit in March that will determine whether Greece will secure a repayment extension on its rescue loan.

"Early elections are high in Papandreou's agenda... Much will be decided in the next 45 days," Ta Nea said.