Venezuela Seizes Last Private Oil Fields

You are joking, right?

Would the US lock up people who attempted to use violence to depose the government? Yes.

Is there evidence that venezuela has gone beyond that and locked up people who have simply criticized the policies? I am not aware of it but if anyone has evidence of this, please point me to it.

As far as nationalizing their oil fields... They are not doing anything that the middle east does not already do. They have exerted their national ownership of the resources and are going in on a partnership with the experienced oil companies to pull it out, reformulate it and ship it.

Chavez hopes to radically make over Venezuela, saying big changes are needed to make sure the poor benefit from the country's wealth and not just the elite.

His policies will make it to where no one will benefit from anything, except maybe Hugo Chavez and his direct subordinates.

sent thousands of doctors to live in poor neighborhoods and provide free medical care.

By force? Geez that sounds like slave labor.

You are making assumptions to support your opinions.

You know what happens when you ass/u/me... don't you?

what about alaska
isnt their oil a bit state-ilized?
every citizen in alaska shares the oil royalities
how freaken socialist of the US

I'm making assumptions based on economics and history. Chavez is a self-serving individual just like everybody else. Being democratically elected to power doesn't magically change this. In fact, it usually exacerbates and twists this fundamental character trait.

Power corrupts, and governments tend to get larger and more oppressive, not the other way around. Look at the United States in 1800 and compare it to now. Hell, compare the Untied States 30 years ago to now.

Venezuelan oil was nationalized in 1976, and the joint partnership requirement became law in 1990 some eight years before Chavez came to power. The thick Orinoco oil was declared to be coal at the time, so all Chavez is doing is calling oil, um oil. How dare he?

In Venezuela, Fidel Castro's close friend and ally President Hugo Chavez celebrated May Day by seizing control of the world's largest-known petroleum deposit. Cheering on President Chavez, 6,000 workers backed by troops occupied the multi-billion-dollar installations in the Orinoco River basin. It's part of a wide-ranging nationalisation drive by the firebrand president. And he announced earlier this week that Venezuela was pulling out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The US administration say the move is "digging a hole" for the Venezuelan people.

They are not doing anything that the middle east does not already do.

I don't think you want to use that particular line of reasoning. Would you be happy if Chavez banned women from driving? Or if he declared a state religion and banned all others from being practiced?

oh please.... I am talking about oil field control. That is all I am talking about.

uhh... The big oil companies are in for 40%... why would they set fire to their wells?

It was an Ayn Rand reference...Atlas Shrugged.

It was an Ayn Rand reference...Atlas Shrugged.

Good work. Ellis Wyatt blew up his wells when the government made it so he'd fail.

Bodhi, you still around?

I thought you'd be shootin' Eyerackeys by now. What's up? Flat-footed?

Tell you what... when Chavez has actually committed any of those acts, the liberals will turn against him.

Until then, Venezuela's government is no more evil and oppressive than Sweden's government

Venezuela's government is no more evil and oppressive than Sweden's government

He's already implicitly threatened direct violence for those who refuse to give up their own private property. You can't much more evil than that.

The liberals will not see this as the beginning of a corrupt, communist government that will dominate the people in a brutal manner. They will decry the corrupt government that Chavez replaced. And then they will tout that Chavez's moves will greatly benefit the people, much like Fidel has the people of Cuba.

Bodhi,

This actually might not happen in Venezuela. Due to their oil reserves, the government will have plenty of wealth, especially from the United States. Socialist countries, after all, depend on the the wealthier ones to survive, since they don't create near enough wealth themselves to fund their expensive policies.

And Chavez is a media whore, so I doubt he'll do anything overtly and obviously oppressive to the majority of the population who thinks that stealing private property and forcing doctors to work for free is OK.

Although I think it will happen very quickly once Chavez is gone.

It is implicit violence to tell a company that if you do not want 40% then you get nothing and you can leave?

you are stretching reality to hold your position in the matter.

Implicit threats are "if you don't follow through, you will regret it..."

Chavez said

Venezuela may expropriate that company's assets if it doesn't follow suit.

how is that direct violence?

The beginning of a corrupt communist government? Corruption has existed all along before Chavez arrived. Halliburton, anyone? Carlyle group? How about them?

Anyway, that was backhanded. Nevertheless, corruption exists whether you are liberal or conservative or whatever.

Where has this "usually" gone down, Bodhi? I'm curious... Also, what leads you to believe that the people will be brutalized? Will it be the case that it is more or less brutal than Guantanamo? Just asking.

He's threatened to bring the armed forces into it. That is as close to a threat of violence as you can get. In fact, the threat of violence is the only thing government has the power to do.

Would these companies give up their land voluntarily if Chavez hadn't forced their hand?

how is that direct violence?

Expropriate is just another word for "steal". Stealing is taking something against the other parties will. Violence is necessarily involved. You think these companies would give up their assets voluntarily? State actions always have the power of force behind them. It's how they get things done.

Implicit threats are "if you don't follow through, you will regret it..."

Exactly. That's why I said it was an implicit threat.

I'm stretching reality? Please give an example of how I'm stretching reality. I'm basing my opinion on these series of AP articles. Are you claiming that they are not based in reality?

MIAMI (Reuters) - Chevron Corp. (CVX.N: Quote, Profile , Research) is "optimistic" about the future of foreign oil companies in Venezuela's vast Orinoco reserve following the government's planned takeover of their multibillion-dollar projects there, a company official said on Thursday.

"We're optimistic that on these conversions of the heavy oil projects there's an opportunity for the companies to come out OK," said Peter Sommer, Chevron's commercial manager for Latin American exploration and production."

.oO source Oo.

Doesn't sound much like theft does it?

Where has this "usually" gone down, Bodhi? I'm curious...

Cuba.

Will it be the case that it is more or less brutal than Guantanamo?

That may be the most ignorant statement I have ever read here. I am not trying to be mean or rude. I mean ignorant in the true meaning of the word.

You honestly believe that our military is more brutal than communist governments? Ignorance is the only justification for that stance.

Guantanamo Bay, perhaps?

Cuba.

Bodhi1, Venezuela is a democratic socialist government, not a communist government.

Doesn't sound much like theft does it?

Doesn't really sounds too enthusiastic, does it? I would try to make the best out of a crappy situation too when there's nothing else I could do about it.

A PR statement is hardly grounds to change the definition of theft.

Will it be the case that it is more or less brutal than Guantanamo?

That may be the most ignorant statement I have ever read here. I am not trying to be mean or rude. I mean ignorant in the true meaning of the word.

You honestly believe that our military is more brutal than communist governments? Ignorance is the only justification for that stance.

I missed this comment. How ignorant of me. Nevertheless, I honestly have been disappointed the more I've read about some of the brutalities that appear to have taken place. Color me pinko. I have yet to see any brutality in Venezuela from a little bit closer to the action here. Nor here in Ecuador. Quite frankly, things ARE getting better for the people right now. If nothing else, they are beginning to have confidence in government, which is something that I think is dropping in our own country. It's a shame that you don't recognize that Chavez (and Correa) were elected democratically. For what it's worth, Correa just won the election to rewrite the constitution down here with 82% of the vote! This is what the people want. You may think they are ignorant, but these people are tired of the corruption. Maybe they'll be taken advantage of in a different way. Who knows? Socialism by definition ain't so bad, as far as I am concerned. Particularly if people are CHOOSING socialism, DEMOCRATICALLY.

Joshua Deacon,

So, it is a threat of violence when Eisenhower sent in the National Guard to allow the Black students to enter their school back in the 50's?

Guess what... when you break a law, you get a police action.... enforcement of the laws of a country is NOT a threat of violence.

theft of their natural resources? Sorry.... the oil companies stole the oil that belongs to Venezuela. Taking control of their natural resources is NOT theft any more than the feds taking control of the national forests is theft from timber companies.

Justice! Stop watching CNN!! Anybody been to Cuba? The Cuban people, especially the poor, share a life of empowerment. This is a lot different from the way we usually see it in a capitalist society, where people are so often judged in terms of wealth. The empowerment of the poor I saw included literacy, good health, housing, and most importantly a spirit of friendliness and hospitality.

We can learn alot from other nations. America was the greatest country in the world. A little humility will help make it the greatest country in the world again. We didn't build America (North America), we we inherited it whin it was widely accepted around the world as number one. This assertion is made no longer. The United Nations voted 117-3 that America should lift the trade embargo on Cuba. You can earn the respect of other nations with acts of kindness or you can demand their respect at gunpoint--but I don't think there are enough guns.

The Cuban people, especially the poor, share a life of empowerment. This is a lot different from the way we usually see it in a capitalist society, where people are so often judged in terms of wealth. The empowerment of the poor I saw included literacy, good health, housing, and most importantly a spirit of friendliness and hospitality.

Yup. That's right. That's why we have so many Americans drowning at sea as they try to get to Cuba in make-shift boats.

No, that's not right. As Willie Wonka says, "Strike that. Reverse it."

Bodhi, I think you consider me a liberal, and I have been predicting that Smilin' Hugo would run his country into the ground since he first announced this plan. Perhaps the world ain't as simple as you'd like to make it out to be?

Lets focus on the dissatisfied few and make broad generalizations about a nation... OK so all American teens are wrought with angst and shoot up their schools, the future of American is doomed!

Use common sense please.

From Mexico to China, more than 75% of the world's oil reserves are controlled by national oil companies today. Of the world's top 20 oil-producing firms, 14 are state-run. And even though Chavez has now stripped foreign oil companies like Exxon Mobil of any majority stakes they had in Venezuelan oil production projects — mandating that his state-run company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), have at least 60% ownership from here on out — he's at least allowing those private multinationals to continue taking part in the drilling. Not so, for example, in Mexico or the world's largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia. Washington touts those two countries as model energy allies, despite the fact that for more than half a century their national oil companies have barred U.S. and other foreign oil businesses from production ventures.

.oO source Oo.

Good to see that all your media doesn't come up with the same old pony.

Excellent find.

Guess what... when you break a law, you get a police action.... enforcement of the laws of a country is NOT a threat of violence.

You can argue that some threats of violence are good for society, but that doesn't just change what they inherently are. If you don't think armed troops stationed at the entrance to a school is a threat, I want what you have been smoking.

Your entire insinuation has been that Chavez is evil for "threatening force"... Our own government does this every day... why are you not more concerned about our government and the citizens of this country than you are about the Venezuelans? Easy answer... you are all talk and no substance on the issue.

Apparently you think his vision is to make Venezuela a communist worker's paradise....

It would seem his actions do not fall in line with that and you are then wrong about his motives.

He wants to make his country prosperous... that means ending the political graft in the government and taking control of the natural resources that can bring in the money. It also means spreading this money over the very poor populous so they can send their kids to school, keep healthy, and break out into the middle class.

Post-Chavez Venezuela has 1000% more government control than before, that is hardly ending political graft that is increasing it to an art. Politics no longer play a role in determining resource allocation now they are the only decision point in resource allocation.

He is not spreading wealth, he is spreading control mechanisms over the populace. Spreading wealth would be to empower people to help themselves. What I've seen is making sure the populace requires Chavez in order to survive until tomorrow, he has new direct control over food, energy, and now health in addition to the traditional force monopoly governments enjoy. Political undesirables find themselves without the ability to survive, everybody else grows dependent and Chavez indispensable and thus powerful.

I was being generous to assume he believes in a communist paradise where everybody is of equal power and agree his actions are nowhere near that line. They are much more like Stalin than Lenin.

They NEEDED more government control. pre-Chavez, they had a completely corrupt government that was graft-ridden and allowed corporate interests and the wealthy to run roughshod over poor in order to enrich themselves.

government control is not a bad thing.... too much or too little is.

again... he has no imprisoned anyone unjustly... he has not killed millions of opponents... he is NOT an authoritarian dictator. What he is, however, is a person who does not want to bow to American corporate interests and wants to make venezuela economically strong.

They NEEDED more government control. pre-Chavez, they had a completely corrupt government that was graft-ridden and allowed corporate interests and the wealthy to run roughshod over poor in order to enrich themselves.

Ahem...

The liberals will not see this as the beginning of a corrupt, communist government that will dominate the people in a brutal manner. They will decry the corrupt government that Chavez replaced. And then they will tout that Chavez's moves will greatly benefit the people

Just because you're right about us saying that doesn't mean you're right about the issue. Bodhi1 how do you know that the people of Venezuela and Ecuador are not happier now???

government control is not a bad thing.... too much or too little is.

Too much government control is a bad thing, glad we agree on that though I am surprised as I thought you were arguing for Chavez's style of 100% control.

Stealing from... the U.S. Corporatocracy? Like U.S. Internationals haven't been raping Latin America for a century now. If you think he's stolen it from his own people, that's naive. If he returns profits to the poor in the form of services such as healthcare then he's doing more for his people than the U.S. is willing do for theirs.

Taking one's property is STEALING!

What Chavez does with the property is immaterial.

You would be screaming like a stuck pig if I took your stuff and gave it to the poor.

Where are they "taking" anything? The crude is under Venezuelan sovereign territory. The key word that appears more than once in the article is negotiation. This isn't a bank robbery or a mugging.

Chavez "is going to discover that nationalism is one thing, but money talks," Lynch said. "And I don't think he's going to be able to get more money out of the Orinoco or the foreign oil companies without being a lot nicer to them."

The American media has simplified this for the masses into seizing.

Chavez is nullifying a CONTRACT.

Sovereign territory? Yes, sovereign territory in which the oil company's are in legal possession.

The only thing I have found on a contract, is a wikipedia entry, that states that,

Chávez also attempted a comprehensive renegotiation of 60-year-old royalty payment agreements with oil giants Philips Petroleum and ExxonMobil. These agreements had allowed the corporations to pay in taxes as little as 1% of the tens of billions of dollars in revenues they were earning from the Venezuelan oil they were extracting.

And there is a difference between me losing something that "belongs" to me and a multi-billion $ business(es) that "owns" something.

Your hatred of multi-billion $ businesses does justify the nullification of the drilling rights that these companies have.

A contract is a contract.

Your hatred of multi-billion $ businesses does justify the nullification of the drilling rights that these companies have.

I know it does, so why are we discussing this?

Sorry... a contract is not a contract. A contract signed by a corrupt government that is deposed is not valid unless the new government wants to make it so.

1% tax on the oil they sell? that is insane and the people of venezuela deserve their fair share.

Since a contract with a government is only as good as the government's ability to guarantee it will honor it, what Chavez has to worry about is the trust factor with contractors... but since the companies are hanging around, they must trust that the new contracts will be honored.

A contract is a contract.

If you believe that, I think some Native Americans would like to speak to you about repossessing the land under your house. After all, the US Government has broken countless CONTRACTS with them, so repossession is in order. After all, a CONTRACT is a CONTRACT, is it not?

And no, I'm no friend of Chavez, in fact I think he's a demagogue who is causing long term harm to his people. I just hate oversimplifications.

Great post AdipicAcid.

and if that fails... invaded.

Unfortunately, that is true. We are a nation of warmongers.

He's already in phase 3 of the Corporate CIA playbook:
1. Refuses to buy into long term, impossible to pay back, loans for development of infrastructure from U.S./CIA/Corporate Internationals in exchange for mineral/fuel/development rights.
2. Refuses to be outright bullied into submission by the U.S. and cronies

Phase 3 is what awaits; Forced removal from power through assassination, military coup, etc...

Phase 4. Invasion

One needs only look as far as his neighbors for historical precedence.

Not to mention the $25millon propaganda campaign that seems to have seen little return. Tax payers' money well spent?

remember... they tried the coup back in 2002.... it failed... Invasion is next.

Most likely some Negroponte inspired incursion from Colombia.

Remember when the neo-con Reverend Roberts called for his assassination? A real bright spot for neo-con religious right types.

A leader, yes. But that isn't really saying much in favor or against him. I can say Hitler was a leader, and I'd be factually correct.

He may go bad as you say (men in power usually do) but he has done a lot of good for his people. I can easily see why he thinks the way he does.

He may go bad as you say (men in power usually do) but he has done a lot of good for his people.

So it may seem at first glance. But at what cost? We won't truly know until a few years have gone by.

you are convicting him of being a Hitler or Stalin and he has done nothing wrong by his people yet.

you are convicting him of being a Hitler or Stalin and he has done nothing wrong by his people yet.

Umm...no. Where did I do that? I just pointed out the fallacy in believing that just because Chavez is a leader, that it automatically means he's good for the country. Just because he knows how to get things done doesn't mean he's getting good things done. Hitler was just an example of this principle.

And I think he was done harm. If Chavez can get emergency powers and begin taking 60% of a companies profits at the drop of a hat, how many other businesses do you think will want to invest and bring jobs to Venezuela? It raises the risk for potential investors without raising the rewards.

You and the other conservatives on this story have constantly used communist and fascist imagery when talking about Chavez. That is as clear cut as it gets when you are trying to paint a guy as bad or evil.

AS for your opinion about the economic fall out... it will not happen. The oil companies are staying in at their 40% cut. Government ownership of the oil has not hurt the rest of the world's oil producing nations (Mexico and a few others have problems that go beyond their oil control that cause them economic problems).

You have been worked up into a furry over a foreign leader because you have been conditioned to dislike him. wake the heck up!

You have been worked up into a furry over a foreign leader because you have been conditioned to dislike him. wake the heck up!

Wrong. I haven't been conditioned by anybody. Basing my opinions purely on his actions.

And no economic fallout? Right. There are always unintended consequences with government intervention. Sometimes they are more visible than others. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. But considering we already have examples in history of how this type of stuff turns out, (Italy and Germany), I think it's appropriate to make some comparisons. Please read the Road to Serfdom by Hayek. It details out the exact comparisons, and they are indeed scary.

The fact that you consider him to be a bad person when he has done nothing wrong is proof of your conditioning.

The non conditioned conservative response to his actions would be:

"His actions could lead to economic problems in the future. If I was his people, I would watch out because history has shown that strong central leaders tend to become despotic as time goes on"

You on the other hand speak in absolutes which is a symptom of conditioning. Black and white thinking is a bad state to be in because it forces you to take a ridged position on everything.

Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for Venezuela?

Stop, I've heard this one before, only it went:

Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for the U.S.S.R.?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for Cambodia?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for Cuba?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for China?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for North Korea?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for Vietnam?

I am sorry, I was looking for a real answer. I don't know if you realized that.

the right wing here are just claiming he is a bad guy... there is nothing he has done that is bad yet... No mass killings... no imprisonment of political rivals for simply speaking out (violence is another matter).... All the guy has done is tick off the rich in his country and the US... so of course the right wing in the US hates him and wants to defame him.

It is going to suck for a gasoline consumer for a while because the markets will freak out until they realize nothing bad will happen.

Indeed, it is the propaganda machine in full swing against Chavez. Our government (U.S.) has no ground to to stand on when it comes to what is right and wrong. Guantanimo, extreme rendition, suspension of the writ of HC, telling our own people to sacrifice their lives and killing others under false pretenses, acting in denial of global warming, etc....

Who are the real bad guys? Chavez is loved by the citizenry, and refuses to play ball with a government which has proved itself to be untrustworthy as a partner (U.S.). Can the U.S. say the same?

I would suggest it's not easy for a nation to thrive in the shadow of the U.S., especially one as wealthy in resources as Venezuela. He has to be tough, or he'll doom his people to slavery to the U.S. and corporate interests, and he himself will perish.

Stop, I've heard this one before, only it went:

Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for the U.S.S.R.?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for Cambodia?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for Cuba?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for China?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for North Korea?
Can someone tell me why this is a bad thing for Vietnam?

Typical Bodhi1 tactic of answering a question with a question. Seriously Bodhi1 how is this a bad deal for Venezuela?