http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/libya-not-a-war-for-oil.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+juancole%2Fymbn+%28Informed+Comment%29

 Libya not a War for
Oil<http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/libya-not-a-war-for-oil.html>

Posted on 06/14/2011 by Juan

The allegation out there in the blogosphere that the United
Nations-authorized intervention in Libya was driven by Western oil companies
is a non-starter. The argument is that Muammar Qaddafi was considered
unreliable by American petroleum concerns, so they pushed to get rid of him.
Nothing could be further from the truth. *Bloomberg details the big lobbying
push by American oil companies on behalf of
Qaddafi*<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/qaddafi-coddled-by-u-s-oil-companies-whose-hearts-are-where-the-money-is.html>,
to exempt him from civil claims in the US.

The United States in any case did not spearhead the UN intervention.
President Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, along with the
Pentagon brass, considered the outbreak of the Libya war very unfortunate
and clearly were only dragged into it kicking and screaming by Saudi Arabia,
France and Britain. The Western country with the biggest oil stake in Libya,
Italy, was very reluctant to join the war. Silvio Berlusconi says that he
almost resigned when the war broke out, given his close relationship to
Qaddafi. As for the UK, Tony Blair brought the BP CEO to Tripoli in 2007,
and BP had struck deals for Libya oil worth billions, which this war can
only delay.

Not only is there no reason to think that petroleum companies urged war, the
whole argument about UN and NATO motivations is irrelevant and sordid. By
now it is clear that *Qaddafi planned to crush political dissidents in a
massive and brutal
way*<http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/12/libya.war/>,
and some estimates already suggest over 10,000 dead. If UN-authorized
intervention could stop that looming massacre, then why does it matter so
much what drove David Cameron to authorize it?

An argument you sometimes here is that the new Transitional National Council
in Benghazi will be pliant toward Western interests. But Qaddafi himself had
come back in from the cold and all sorts of deals were being struck with him
by Western powers.* Those who more or less support Qaddafi and wanted to let
him roll tanks on civilian protesters has weaved itself into a pretzel with
all these conspiracy theories, while conveniently managing to leave out of
the account ordinary Libyans, so many of whom are willing to risk their
lives to bring about the end of Qaddafi’s murderous and mercurial regime.*

*----------------------*
Qaddafi Coddled by U.S. Oil Companies Whose Hearts Are Where The Money Is
By Judy Pasternak, Jim Snyder and Nicole Gaouette -  Jun 13, 2011 9:01 PM PT


   -
   -
   - inShare <javascript:void(0);>10
   -
   - 
More<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/qaddafi-coddled-by-u-s-oil-companies-whose-hearts-are-where-the-money-is.html#share>
    - Business 
Exchange<http://bx.businessweek.com/api/add-article-to-bx.tn?url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-14/qaddafi-coddled-by-u-s-oil-companies-whose-hearts-are-where-the-money-is.html>
      - Buzz 
up!<http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?targetUrl=http://bloom.bg/mNZKhW&headline=Qaddafi%20Coddled%20by%20U.S.%20Oil%20Companies%20Whose%20Hearts%20Are%20Where%20The%20Money%20Is&summary=The%20week%20after%20U.S.%20oil%20executives%0Ain%20Libya%20received%20tongue-lashings%20from%20%20Muammar%20Qaddafi%20%20and%20one%0Aof%20his%20lieutenants%20in%20February%202008%2C%20%20Occidental%20Petroleum%20Corp%20.%0Ahired%20an%20additional%20lobbyist.&tags=news>
      - 
Digg<http://digg.com/submit?url=http://bloom.bg/mNZKhW&title=Qaddafi%20Coddled%20by%20U.S.%20Oil%20Companies%20Whose%20Hearts%20Are%20Where%20The%20Money%20Is&bodytext=The%20week%20after%20U.S.%20oil%20executives%0Ain%20Libya%20received%20tongue-lashings%20from%20%20Muammar%20Qaddafi%20%20and%20one%0Aof%20his%20lieutenants%20in%20February%202008%2C%20%20Occidental%20Petroleum%20Corp%20.%0Ahired%20an%20additional%20lobbyist.&topic=business_finance>
   - 
Print<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-06-14/qaddafi-coddled-by-u-s-oil-companies-whose-hearts-are-where-the-money-is.html>
   - 
Email<?body=The%20week%20after%20U.S.%20oil%20executives%0Ain%20Libya%20received%20tongue-lashings%20from%20%20Muammar%20Qaddafi%20%20and%20one%0Aof%20his%20lieutenants%20in%20February%202008%2C%20%20Occidental%20Petroleum%20Corp%20.%0Ahired%20an%20additional%20lobbyist.%0A%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fbloom.bg%2FmNZKhW&subject=Bloomberg%20news%3A%20Qaddafi%20Coddled%20by%20U.S.%20Oil%20Companies%20Whose%20Hearts%20Are%20Where%20The%20Money%20Is>
   - <http://bloom.bg/mNZKhW>

 [image: Qaddafi Beloved by U.S. Oil Whose Hearts Are Where Money Is]

U.S. oil companies rallied on behalf of Muammar Qaddafi, according to
formerly secret State Department cables published this year by WikiLeaks and
lobbying records. Photo: Victor Sokolowicz/Bloomberg
 [image: Ex-Central Bank Head Bengdara on Qaddafi's Finances]

Play Video <http://www.bloomberg.com/video/70820616/>

June 14 (Bloomberg) -- Farhat Bengdara, who ran Libya's central bank before
defecting, talks with Bloomberg's Lara Setrakian about Muammar Qaddafi's
finances and regime outlook. They spoke yesterday in Dubai. (Source:
Bloomberg)
 [image: Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s onshore Goldsmith field]

Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s onshore Goldsmith field in the Permian Basin,
near Midland, Texas. Source: Occidental Petroleum Corp. via Bloomberg

The week after U.S. oil executives in Libya received tongue-lashings
from Muammar
Qaddafi <http://topics.bloomberg.com/muammar-qaddafi/> and one of his
lieutenants in February 2008, Occidental Petroleum Corp.
(OXY)<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=OXY:US>hired an
additional lobbyist.

Hogan & Hartson, one of Washington <http://topics.bloomberg.com/washington/>’s
oldest law firms, had one mission, according to documents filed by
Occidental: To get Libya exempted from a law signed the previous month by
President George W. Bush
<http://topics.bloomberg.com/george-w.-bush/>letting American
terrorism victims seize assets of countries found liable.

The dictatorship was an explicit target of the legislation. Qaddafi had
taken responsibility for the 1988 crash of a Pan Am flight in Lockerbie,
Scotland, that killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. Courts in France,
Germany and the U.S. also had linked his regime to a 1989 blast that downed
a Paris-bound flight in the Sahara, killing 171, and a 1986 attack at a
Berlin disco that killed two American soldiers and a Turkish woman.

U.S. oil producers nonetheless rallied on behalf of Qaddafi, according to
formerly secret State Department cables published this year by WikiLeaks and
lobbying records. The six U.S. oil companies, including Occidental, and two
U.S. units of foreign companies doing business in
Libya<http://topics.bloomberg.com/libya/>,
boosted lobbying expenditures 63 percent to $75.8 million in 2008, when they
were pursuing the waiver for Libya, filings show.

Congress voted in July 2008 to spare Libya from the terrorism measure in
exchange for its promise to create a fund for victims. The companies’ wooing
of U.S. lawmakers and officials seemed to have paid off.
February Uprising

Then came the uprising in February that triggered the civil war now ravaging
Libya. The U.S. oil companies have largely abandoned production and pulled
their employees out of the country, underscoring the futility of their
actions to help Qaddafi and, in the view of critics, their dubious
propriety.

“I don’t understand where the corporate citizenship comes in,” said
Senator Frank
Lautenberg <http://topics.bloomberg.com/frank-lautenberg/>, the New Jersey
Democrat who sponsored the amendment that incurred Qaddafi’s wrath. “In many
cases, their hearts are where the money is,” he said in an interview.

Lautenberg, who had singled out Qaddafi in introducing his amendment,
ultimately co-sponsored the waiver for Libya because of the victims’
compensation fund.

The oil companies’ efforts for Qaddafi and their own profits enriched a
repressive regime, said Arvind Ganesan, business and human rights director
in the Washington office of Human Rights
Watch<http://topics.bloomberg.com/human-rights-watch/>.

Welcome Relief

“Instead of pushing for short-term stability in business, these people
should have been pushing for more accountability” by the Libyan government,
said Ganesan, who has studied and written about Africa’s oil industry. The
current upheaval shows “what happens when you don’t,” he said in an
interview.

For the companies operating in Libya at the time -- Occidental,
ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corp.
(XOM)<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=XOM:US>,
Marathon Oil Corp. (MRO) <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=MRO:US>,
Hess Corp. (HES) <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=HES:US>, Chevron
Corp. (CVX) <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=CVX:US> and the U.S.
subsidiaries of BP Plc and Royal Dutch Shell Plc
(RDSA)<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=RDSA:LN>-- the
exemption was a relief.

It meant a continuing opportunity to tap Libya’s coveted light, easily
refined crude and to solidify ties with a country that has the largest
proven reserves in Africa. In 2008, U.S. companies were accounting for 30
percent of the 1.7 million barrels of oil Libya produced daily, a cable from
the U.S. embassy in Libya said on Aug. 29 of that year. Marathon in 2008
generated 22 percent of its net worldwide production in Libya, according to
Sam Hanna, an analyst for Englewood, Colorado-based IHS Inc.
(IHS)<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=IHS:US>
Lobbying Success

The companies’ waiver quest gained urgency after Qaddafi’s demand that they
get Libya off the hook or else, according to interviews and State Department
cables examined by Bloomberg that were posted by WikiLeaks on its website.
Qaddafi chose executives of two companies with successful lobbying track
records in Washington to convey his message.

On or about Feb. 24, 2008, the dictator summoned ConocoPhillips Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer James J. Mulva to Sirte, Qaddafi’s hometown in
northern Libya. Mulva endured “a half-hour ‘browbeating,’” according to a
March 12, 2008,
cable<http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/03/08TRIPOLI214.html>written
by Chris Stevens, U.S. charge d’affaires for Libya.

Qaddafi “threatened to dramatically reduce Libya’s oil production and/or
expel” U.S. oil companies, and told Mulva to “engage members of the U.S.
Congress and The Administration” on the issue, Stevens wrote.

On Feb. 25, Shokri Ghanem, chairman of Libya’s state-owned oil company,
“chastised” Phil Goss, Exxon Mobil’s country manager, for almost an hour,
Stevens wrote. U.S. companies had to “‘tell Washington’” that “Libya was
serious,” about slashing production in retaliation, according to the Stevens
cable, which is among thousands of State Department documents published
since January by WikiLeaks.
Court Ruling

John Roper, a spokesman for Houston-based ConocoPhillips
(COP)<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=COP:US>,
declined to comment on the reported meeting. Patrick McGinn, a spokesman for
Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil, said in an e- mail, “We do not comment on
media reports, speculation or classified documents.” Stevens declined to
comment in an e-mail from Benghazi, Libya, where he is now a special envoy
to the Libyan opposition.

A U.S. District Court ruling two weeks before Bush signed the bill with the
Lautenberg measure illustrated its threat to oil companies. The court
ordered Libya and government officials to pay $6 billion to the families or
estates of six American victims of France’s UTA Flight 772 that crashed in
1989. More than two dozen other suits had been filed by the injured and
families of those killed in attacks linked to Libya.
Risks to Contracts

The companies were worried that their Libyan holdings were at risk, with
their contracts threatened if payments to Qaddafi’s government were
channeled to terrorism victims by courts or potentially worthless if Qaddafi
ordered them out of the country.

“We felt that using our assets as collateral in finding a solution to the
Lockerbie funding was extremely unfair,” Don Duncan, who was ConocoPhillips’
top lobbyist at the time of the Qaddafi meetings, said in an interview.

Oil companies in Libya had to perform a balancing act after the Lautenberg
amendment, said Duncan, who retired in April 2008, before the Libya
exemption was granted: Fight against legislation they felt to be unjust
without being seen as arguing against the interests of terrorism victims.

“It’s not something you develop white papers on,” Duncan said.

Within days of Qaddafi’s scolding of ConocoPhillips’ Mulva, the U.S.-Libya
Business Association, formed in Washington by U.S. oil companies operating
in Libya, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to pursue
a waiver from the law. It “unjustly puts the entire burden of terrorism
claims reparations on a few U.S. companies that have made substantial
investments” in Libya, according to the letter.
Sanctions Lifted

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and
the National Foreign Trade Council joined the Libya group in signing the
letter.

David Goldwyn, a Washington consultant who previously was an Energy
Department assistant secretary for international affairs, had the U.S.-Libya
Business Association as a client at the time and served as its executive
director. The association paid Goldwyn’s firm $203,500 in the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2008, according to filings with the Internal Revenue Service.


The group was created after a 2003 rapprochement with Libya, in which
Qaddafi’s government renounced terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. responded to Qaddafi’s gesture by lifting 19-year- old sanctions on
Libya. American oil companies moved into the country to make up for time
lost to European competitors such as Rome-based Eni SpA
(ENI)<http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=ENI:IM>and
Paris-based Total SA, according to cables spanning 2004 through 2009
published by WikiLeaks.
‘Fierce Competition’

There was “fierce competition” to enter the Libyan market, a Nov. 21, 2007,
cable from the embassy in Tripoli said. More than 40 companies were already
operating there, and the latest bidding for exploration and production
rights had drawn offers from 60 oil producers, according to the cable.

Libya was “an exceptionally difficult place in which to operate,” the
cable<http://www.wikileaks.ch/cable/2007/11/07TRIPOLI979.html>said.
The state-owned National Oil Corp. was seeking a bigger share of the
oil the companies produced than called for in negotiated agreements, raising
“serious questions about NOC adherence to the sanctity of existing
contracts,” according to a cable from a U.S. embassy official on Oct. 26,
2007.
Visa Struggles

The Americans also struggled to get employee visas, which were usually
contingent on hiring Libyans, the November cable said. Qaddafi’s government
“regularly assigns both qualified and unqualified Libyan workers to foreign
energy companies,” which often reacted by “paying these individuals without
expecting them to work,” according to a State Department investment-climate
statement last March. The rule of thumb was one job to a Libyan for each
U.S. employee’s initial visa and another Libyan job for every year the U.S.
worker stayed.

The U.S. companies pushed on. In November 2007, Exxon Mobil, the world’s
largest publicly traded oil producer, added more than 2.5 million offshore
acres in the Mediterranean Sea to its Libyan block. This was a 50 percent
increase and “another step for Exxon Mobil towards regaining a major share
of the Libyan market,” a cable said that month.

With the country planning to increase production to 3 million barrels daily
by 2013, Libya promised to be lucrative for oil companies set up there.
‘Very Attractive’

“Libya is a very attractive place,” Occidental Chairman and CEO Ray R. Irani
told analysts on an October 2007 earnings call.

The Lautenberg amendment threatened to undo everything.

“We talked to both the State department and the Libyan government about the
compensation issue,” Goldwyn said in an interview, speaking of the
U.S.-Libya Business Association. “We provided the State Department our
insights, we told them the message we were delivering to the Libyan
government and helped them brainstorm.”

Companies acted on their own as well. Among them was Los Angeles-based
Occidental, which had extended more than a dozen Libya contracts for 25
years, agreeing to spend more than $13 billion in the country, according to
Stevens’ cables, one of which said Occidental was spending 70 percent of its
global exploration budget in Libya.

With the hiring of Hogan & Hartson in March 2008, Occidental obtained the
services of former House Republican leader Robert Michel and former
Representative John Edward Porter, who both worked for the firm. Occidental
paid $190,000 to Hogan & Hartson, as well as $100,000 to O’Melveny & Myers,
a Los Angeles law firm whose Washington office already had been hired to
focus on the Libya exemption.

U.S. Chamber

Richard S. Kline, a spokesman for Occidental, declined to comment. Robert
Kyle of Hogan Lovells <http://topics.bloomberg.com/hogan-lovells/>, the
successor to Hogan & Hartson, led the firm’s lobbying effort and didn’t
respond to messages seeking comment.

The U.S. companies all used their in-house lobbyists to make the case as
well, their lobbying reports show.

“We lobby ethically, constructively and in a bipartisan manner,” Chevron
spokesman Lloyd Avram said in an e-mail. Hess spokesman Jon Pepper didn’t
respond to an e-mail and phone calls. Lee Warren, a Marathon spokesman,
declined to comment.

The oil companies also sought help from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
biggest business lobbying group. R. Bruce Josten, the Chamber’s executive
vice president for government relations, said in an interview he attended
meetings about the waiver issue with oil company representatives, Goldwyn of
the U.S.-Libya Business Association and lawmakers from oil-producing states
including Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Republican
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Libya’s Income

For Libya, the concern was that oil taxes, rents and production money from
U.S. companies would be diverted to pay victims. Oil and gas proceeds
accounted for more than 90 percent of Libyan government revenue, according
to a report last October by the International Monetary
Fund<http://topics.bloomberg.com/international-monetary-fund/>.


The Libyans wanted to protect that income, which their government estimated
at $1 billion a month and a ConocoPhillips executive put at $500 million to
$750 million a month, according to a Stevens cable. Libya demanded that U.S.
companies begin paying in euros to avoid the U.S. financial system, Stevens
wrote. The companies complied, he said in a cable.

On March 12, Libya signed a $2.4 million contract with its own lobbyist, the
Livingston Group, according to reports filed with the Justice
Department<http://topics.bloomberg.com/justice-department/>.
The firm was co-founded by Bob Livingston, a former Republican
representative from Louisiana.
‘Ongoing Contact’

Throughout the week of March 24, the Livingston Group had “ongoing contact”
about Libya by phone with Goldwyn, a Hogan & Hartson lawyer retained by
Occidental, the U.S.-Libya Business Association and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, according to the filings. The Livingston Group also escorted
Libya’s ambassador to meetings with 64 members of Congress between April and
July of 2008, the firm reported to the Justice Department.

Livingston himself met twice with oil company representatives about a Libya
waiver, he said in an interview. “They were very anxious to do business over
there,” he said. The Livingston Group dropped Libya as a client in 2009.

The message was getting through. On March 18, four members of Bush’s Cabinet
-- Secretary of State Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Energy Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez -- had written
to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
proposing legislation that would let Bush exempt Libya from the Lautenberg
amendment.
‘Chilling Effect’

Applying it to countries no longer designated a state sponsor of terrorism
would “hamper severely” U.S. efforts to get those countries “to stand with
us against the threats of global terrorism,” according to the letter.

Allowing assets to be attached also would have “a chilling effect on
potentially billions of dollars in investments by U.S. companies in Libya’s
oil sector, investments affecting U.S. energy security,” the Cabinet
secretaries wrote.

Lobbying for the waiver continued through April 2008. Marathon, which had
formed a joint venture with Hess and ConocoPhillips that spent $1.8 billion
to return to Libya after the sanctions were lifted in 2004, hired Amos
Hochstein, a former senior policy adviser to the House International
Relations committee, to work solely on the Libya issue, according to
disclosure forms.

Hochstein, who declined to comment, had just finished a stint as deputy
campaign manager for Senator Christopher Dodd’s unsuccessful bid for the
Democratic nomination for president. Previously, he’d been employed by
lobbying company Cassidy & Associates, where he now serves as executive vice
president for international operations.
Rice Visits Qaddafi

On July 31, 2008, the Libyan Claims Resolution Act passed by unanimous
consent in Congress. Signed into law by Bush on Aug. 4, the legislation gave
Libya immunity from lawsuits tied to past terrorism. The following month,
Secretary of State Rice made the highest-level visit to Libya by a U.S.
official in more than 50 years, welcoming Qaddafi as an ally in the war
against terrorism and symbolically sealing ties between the two nations.

On Feb. 10, 2009, according to a cable written two days later, Ghanem,
Libya’s oil chief, met with Gene
Cretz<http://topics.bloomberg.com/gene-cretz/>,
the new U.S. ambassador, “saying he was pleased that normal relations had
been restored.”

The meeting also made it clear that Qaddafi’s demands hadn’t ended. The
state-owned oil company had “lent” $700 million to the $1.5 billion
compensation fund and needed reimbursement, Ghanem told the ambassador,
according to the cable. Prime Minister Baghdadi Mahmudi had assembled
international oil companies for a meeting earlier in the month “and pressed
them” to contribute, Ghanem said. Their failure to do so “had led the
leadership to conclude that the companies were merely exploiting Libya’s
resources,” the cable paraphrased Ghanem as saying.
Pulled Out

Cretz responded that putting pressure on U.S. companies to finance the fund
“crossed a red line” and contradicted the understanding between Libya and
the U.S. There is no indication in the cables that any U.S. company donated.


Almost two years later to the day from that meeting, protesters following
the lead of pro-democracy demonstrators in Egypt and Bahrain rallied in
Benghazi, demanding Qaddafi’s ouster and set off a civil war that continues
today.

Conoco, Marathon, Occidental and Hess all have quit production in Libya and
pulled expatriate employees out of the country, according to spokesmen for
the companies.

Exxon Mobil wasn’t producing oil in Libya at the time of the uprising and
hadn’t yet begun planned exploratory drilling, said Margaret Ross, a
spokeswoman. Chevron already had pulled out in 2009, after an exploratory
well came up dry.

The companies say they don’t know what’s happening to their assets in Libya.
“We have no visibility on that,” David Roberts, a Marathon executive vice
president, told analysts and investors on a May 3 earnings call.

“Libya and the whole thing was not exactly a financial success” for the oil
companies, Fadel Gheit, an analyst for Oppenheimer & Co. in New
York<http://topics.bloomberg.com/new-york/>,
said in an e-mail, “although it was a bonanza for the madman Qaddafi.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Judy Pasternak in Washington at
jpastern...@bloomberg.net; Jim Snyder in Washington at
jsnyde...@bloomberg.net; Nicole Gaouette in Washington at
ngaoue...@bloomberg.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:laamn-unsubscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:laamn-subscr...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:laamn-dig...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:laamn-ow...@egroups.com?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:la...@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/laamn@egroups.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    laamn-dig...@yahoogroups.com 
    laamn-fullfeatu...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    laamn-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to