Venezuelan Coup and the US involvement

[gene cisco]

People, I am retarted in this ,only a business man of humble means!!!!!

Why the fuck can he do this, and why the fuck are we in iraq with them paying pennies on gas?!?!?!?!

What is going on? Why isnt the media(fox,cnn,mnbc) reporting like BGOL?!?!!!!?!?!?

Fuck natalie and the missing newlywed, what about this!??!?!?!?!

 

[Dolemite]

People, I am retarted in this ,only a business man of humble means!!!!!

Why the fuck can he do this, and why the fuck are we in iraq with them paying pennies on gas?!?!?!?!

What is going on? Why isnt the media(fox,cnn,mnbc) reporting like BGOL?!?!!!!?!?!?

Fuck natalie and the missing newlywed, what about this!??!?!?!?!

A better question is how can oil companies post triple the profits if their costs have gone up so much? Because Oil hasnt tripled but gasoline prices have.
You are being raped by a Texas oilman president. Welcome to America.

 

[gene cisco]

Yeah you right, once again the consumer gets an asshole the size of a reese cup while oil companies cry "we only making 1 billion!!"

I mean everything goes up from heating to groceries, all cause of greed.

I figured once they broke the 2 dollar mark the shock would wear off and they would be at 279 in no time, took only a year or so. I think they really want shit over 3$

 

[QueEx]

... I mean everything goes up from heating to groceries, all cause of <u>greed</u>.

lmbao; I knew that mofo had something to do with this ..

QueEx

 

[Dolemite]

Yeah you right, once again the consumer gets an asshole the size of a reese cup while oil companies cry "we only making 1 billion!!"

I mean everything goes up from heating to groceries, all cause of greed.

I figured once they broke the 2 dollar mark the shock would wear off and they would be at 279 in no time, took only a year or so. I think they really want shit over 3$

I want to see if this rest of the US Business world will allow this shit to continue. Walmart and other retailers have already started posting losses and I guarantee the worst Christmas in 20 years if fuel prices stay high. Bush's influence and approval rating will have him and repubs in the shitter for the remainder of his term unless Big Oil adjusts its bullshit next month. High energy costs will sink this bullshit bad credit economy

 

[Dolemite]

interesting article

----------
Did Robertson Use the Word ‘Assassination’?
Sarah Whalen, sawhalen@xula.com.edu —
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=69111&d=27&m=8&y=2005

It’s not the first American fatwa.

But it comes at an awkward moment. The West just announced open hunting season — investigation, prosecution, persecution, deportation, long prison terms — on Muslims who “preach hate.” Politically motivated murder — assassination — surely is included. So when, on television, US Christian evangelist Pat Robertson called for America to assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, well, Robertson’s fatwa didn’t pass unnoticed.

“Huh? Wha....who says I said that?” Robertson replied when reporters pounced.

“I didn’t say ‘assassination,’” Robertson insisted.

Ah. Well, as the sports analysts say, let’s go to the videotape: “If he (Chavez) thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.... We have the ability to take him out and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability.”

“I didn’t say ‘assassination,’” Robertson says, no matter how many times we rewind and replay. “I said, ‘Our special forces should take him out.’ Funny, it must be a problem with my machine. Hear that? The video showing Robertson’s mouth moving keeps saying the word “assassinate.” Of course, “take him out” is just a more colloquial way of saying, “assassinate.” Unless Robertson wants to take Chavez out to dinner. Or something.

But Robertson wants to get jiggy with it: “’Take him out’ can be a number of things including kidnapping,” Robertson claims. “There are a number of ways to ‘take out’ a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted.”

Well, whether it’s by “Special Forces” such as the US Drug Enforcement Agency that once kidnapped a Mexican doctor who’d allegedly aided drug dealers, or by Israelis who spirited the notorious Adolph Eichmann out of his South American hideaway, kidnapping still involves snatching someone against his will, often with great violence endangering innocent and uninvolved persons, and violating the sovereign territory of whatever state you’re snatching from. International law experts were unhappy about the technical violations of Eichmann’s kidnapping, but kept quiet for all kinds of reasons, the most obvious being that he was an important Nazi. And who wants to defend a Nazi? The banality of his alleged evil made some Israelis wonder whether Eichmann was too boring to execute, but once inside Israel, Eichmann’s fate was never in doubt. However, the DEA was less successful with its Mexican kidnapping — courts eventually released the doctor.

Kidnapping is almost as reprehensible as murder.

And honestly, after kidnapping Chavez, whatever would Robertson do with him? America didn’t exactly kidnap “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the hated Haitian dictator and son of the hated Haitian dictator “Papa Doc.” We just kind of pushed and pushed and then told his wife there was a huge sale going on at Galleries Lafayette in Paris, and she grabbed her chubby hubby, three of her nicest mink coats, and all the jewels she could stuff into her handbag, and off to France they went. And luckily, the Riviera has a lot of climatic similarities to Port-au-Prince, so Baby Doc feels very much at home there.

Chavez will be harder to coax onto the plane, that’s for sure.

And although the Riviera has a lot of climatic similarities to Caracas, it’s hard to imagine Chavez staying there very long.

Meanwhile, reactions to Robertson’s fatwa range from the left’s sputtering outrage to a sublime unstartled “Huh? Wha...?” from the Bush administration, which Robertson implied was the real architect of his “Take out Chavez” policy. The US State Department pronounced Robertson’s remarks “inappropriate,” which is kind of a warm-water word to describe murder solicitation. But the US of course has a history of tepidity on this point, having engineered the assassination of at least one foreign leader, South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld chuckled that Robertson is “a private citizen. Private citizens say all kinds of thing all the time.”

Well, if Robertson’s a private citizen who can freely issue a fatwa, are Muslims, including imams, similarly free to make statements similar to Robertson’s? Are Muslims not private citizens who say all kinds of things all the time? Or is Robertson freer because he has a television show influencing millions of voters? Is Robertson more special because he once announced Bush had been chosen by God to be America’s president?

When the furor broke, Chavez was in Cuba visiting Fidel Castro, whom the United States unsuccessfully tried to kill for decades, after first waging a fraudulent war of “liberation” that failed abysmally. What did Chavez think, asked reporters, about Robertson’s fatwa? “Huh? Wha?” replied Chavez. “Who’s Pat Robertson?”

It was a poignant moment. Standing with Chavez, communist Castro stroked his beard thoughtfully as any imam and mused of Robertson’s fatwa, “Only God can punish crimes of such magnitude.”

Hmmm. Castro invoking God. Huh? Wha...? That’s not a fatwa, but that’s a first!

 

[Spectrum]

I want to see if this rest of the US Business world will allow this shit to continue. Walmart and other retailers have already started posting losses and I guarantee the worst Christmas in 20 years if fuel prices stay high. Bush's influence and approval rating will have him and repubs in the shitter for the remainder of his term unless Big Oil adjusts its bullshit next month. High energy costs will sink this bullshit bad credit economy

I'm not responding just to this post but all the others. Also, walmart has not posted a loss. They still earns billions in profits per year. They have made statements that store traffic and spending is beginning to be affected by Oil and natural gas prices. It's not about Big Business ALLOWING this to happen. Big Business can't do shit about tight supply chains and exponential demand growth. Unfortunately the entire world, from mechanical, agricultaral, and economic foundations(you can hardly find a major function that isn't dependent on oil..can't even make plastics without oil..fertilizers without oil,et) that is wholly dependent on one resource Oil..more specifically: Cheap Oil. Have you ever taken into consideration that oil has historically been less expansive that buying milk or water. Unfortunately that days are over:most likely forever. ATTENTION WORLD: Oil is a FINITE resouce. ALSO ATTENTION: We dont need to run out of oil for us to have catastrophic consequences...we just have to deplete the resource enough to the point where it isn't CHEAP to produce. Remember what happened in Ireland when their one resouce, the potatoe, was depleted. Unfortunately we aren;t in a world now where the dependence is local and isolated.

I would suggest studying basic economics. This is no world wide conspiracy by the oil companies. This is a classic example of supply and demand. We are dealing with a resource that is finite and hasn't seen a drastic increase in production(some say we are now in Peak oil with production to forever decrease);however, we are seeing huge worldwide population growth and exponential demand growth because of population growth and its demands..and with the demands that the uber growth New China is putting on already tight world wide supply chains. If the Peak Oil population is correct, we will only see a rise in oil prices..perpetually. Oil, along with Gas, is a FINITE resouce..and there hasn't been a major Oil Field discovered in decades. The big finds now really only amount to a few days of worldwide consumption.

Also, remember that although the "current" price per barrel is at record high...the oil companies are selling inventory that was produced at lower cost. This is why they are currently seeing record profits. However, the current cost of production and exploration has increased considerably and will only continue to do so. Do a search on the historical costs of large oil expeditions for evidence. however, this cost will be reflected in those oil inventories once the oil is pumped. Understand that is usually takes 5-10 years to begin pumping Oil from a new well and this is usually after 100's of millions or billions of dollars in investment.

People, I'm not specifically saying here..i just mean in general...make all types of gross generalizations without really understanding the root principles and placing things into the "conspiracy" category. This is a seriously issue beyond anyone's "control". This is a geological issue. We now need to aggressively change our consumption patterns and aggresively pursue alternative energy sources.Unfortunately, I think the world won't wake up to this matter until it gets much more critical.

 

[mr_magic]

I just have to say that I enjoy the substantiative discussion here on the news boards. While I'm pretty moderate compared to some of the folks here, I have to say that the discussion here is always pretty thought provoking. I recall reading about the coup, and possible US involvement back in April '02, but since I was still reading primarily mainstream media, I didn't really get the full story. Thanks for providing me with an additional perspective (or three) to weigh, balance and help me craft an informed opinion on the subject at hand.

 

[QueEx]

This board could use a "moderate" voice. Hope to read a lot more of you.

QueEx

 

[Dolemite]

I'm not responding just to this post but all the others. Also, walmart has not posted a loss. They still earns billions in profits per year. They have made statements that store traffic and spending is beginning to be affected by Oil and natural gas prices. It's not about Big Business ALLOWING this to happen. Big Business can't do shit about tight supply chains and exponential demand growth. Unfortunately the entire world, from mechanical, agricultaral, and economic foundations(you can hardly find a major function that isn't dependent on oil..can't even make plastics without oil..fertilizers without oil,et) that is wholly dependent on one resource Oil..more specifically: Cheap Oil. Have you ever taken into consideration that oil has historically been less expansive that buying milk or water.

my bad on the loss remarks - i hadnt read the reports and had thought i heard that and yes they only lowered forecasts - yes the milk oil shit is an old comparison im familiar with too as well as the cost of gasoline in other nations like england which is more than twice what we pay - not sure if I heard 6 1/2 dollars or pounds per gallon (id be ridin a fuckin skateboard or using bio-diesel etc) 120 bucks to fill up? fuck that lol

Also, remember that although the "current" price per barrel is at record high...the oil companies are selling inventory that was produced at lower cost.

there have been peak oil posts here - dont know if they still show up with a search


I don't work in the oil industry so I don't know the actual situation but I read different things from different sources





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



Oil industry awash in record levels of cash
But a smaller portion of profits is going to find new oil discoveries
By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC
Updated: 9:12 a.m. ET July 21, 2005

When major oil companies report their quarterly profits next week, they're once again expected to post record numbers. With crude trading around $60 a barrel, the oil industry is enjoying one of the biggest windfalls in its history. But as the industry looks for places to put that cash, it's finding it harder and harder to put funds to work finding new deposits of oil and natural gas.

By just about any measure, the past three years have produced one of the biggest cash gushers in the oil industry’s history. Since January of 2002, the price of crude has tripled, leaving oil producers awash in profits. During that period, the top 10 major public oil companies have sold some $1.5 trillion worth of crude, pocketing profits of more than $125 billion.

“This is the mother of all booms,” said Oppenheimer & Co. oil analyst Fadel Gheit. “They have so much profit, it’s almost an embarrassment of riches. They don’t know what to do with it.

The reason for the boom is simple. Much of the investment in finding that oil -- and developing the wells and pipelines needed to produce it -- has already been made. So an oil field that was profitable with oil selling for $20 a barrel is much more profitable with oil trading around $60.

That’s left the industry with a happy problem -- what to do with enough cash to fill a supertanker. Many publicly traded oil companies have been busy buying back their own stock, which helps drive up the price of the rest of the shares left on the open market. Since January 2002, stocks of major oil companies have gained 88 percent; during that period the Standard and Poor’s 500 index has gained less than half as much.

Oil producers have also given investors a raise by gradually increasing the dividends paid out to shareholders. And they’ve paid down their debts to record low levels. ExxonMobil, for example, is virtually debt-free -– with a cash pile of more than $25 billion.

All of this industry good fortune has not escaped the notice of consumers, whose anger at higher gasoline prices has been rising in lock step with the price of crude. The energy bill recently enacted by both houses of Congress provides little relief for U.S. energy consumers. But a continued rise in prices could bring increased political pressure to find ways to lower the cost of energy, according to Tom Kloka at the Oil Price Information Service.

"This is something that Americans regard as their birth right," he said. "If gasoline prices are still north of $2.25 (a gallon) when we reach the midterm election, there's going to be an awful lot of outrage."

Even as their overall profits have soared, major oil companies are earning a relatively modest 8.7 percent profit margin -- the portion of the sale of each barrel that hits the bottom line. Major banks and drug makers, for example, enjoy profits margins that are twice as big.
comment- For every year from 1995 through 2002, the pharmaceutical industry was the most profitable industry in the U.S., although its profitability declined somewhat in 2002. In 2003, drug companies ranked as the third most profitable industry (14.3%), with mining, crude-oil production the most profitable industry (20.1%) and commercial banks the second most profitable (18.6%). Drug companies were more than 3 times as profitable as the median for all Fortune 500 companies in 2003 (14.3% compared to 4.6%). source Kaiser Family Foundation dolemite


Keeping the oil flowing
Not all of the proceeds from the surge in oil prices has gone straight to the industry’s bottom line. As oil prices rise, so do oil companies' costs. For starters, they pay royalties to governments that lease the rights to drill -– a payment that ranges as high as 18 percent in the U.S. Domestic oil producers also pay taxes of about 40 percent, according to Gheit. So as the price of oil rises, so does the bill for royalties and taxes.

Oil producers also have to spend money to keep oil flowing from aging fields, by drilling more holes in the ground to squeeze fewer and fewer barrels out of the same fields. The cost of these oilfield services, everything from drilling rigs to pipelines, has risen by as much as 50 percent over the past five years, according to Gheit. So the cost of maintaining existing levels of production is now consuming more than half of the industry’s annual capital outlays, most of which used to go to discovering new oil fields.

That means a smaller portion of oil industry profits are being put to work to find more oil. One big reason is that finding promising areas to develop new reserves has become increasingly difficult. In part, that's because the bulk of the world’s oil reserves sit in the ground controlled by authoritarian regimes. The higher the price of oil goes, the easier it is for those regimes to maintain power and the less they need to turn to outside oil companies for investment, said A.G. Edwards futures analyst Bill O’Grady.

“Foreign investment brings in foreigners and their ideas,” he said. “OPEC countries and Russia have worked vigorously not let that happen.”

Despite pledges to increase output, most OPEC countries are pumping at full capacity already. And if oil prices are headed higher, those countries with the ability to boost output now have little incentive to do so if they wait and get more money for the same oil in the future.

As a result, Western oil producers have been forced to look for new reserves by shopping for other oil companies that have already found and developed deposits of oil and natural gas. As oil prices have risen, so has the value of another oil company's reserves. The current bidding war between Chevron and China’s state-owned CNOOC is just the latest example.

But none of that investment in other oil companies is increasing the world’s supply of oil. And without new discoveries, the price of oil will likely continue to rise.

"Basically, it's musical chairs, and every time you have fewer and fewer companies,” said Gheit. “The people who are slicing pie among themselves -- the number is shrinking, but the pie itself is not growing. The pie is shrinking."
© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/


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



this tells a different story


[frame]http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_other_issues/001541.html[/frame]









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




http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2303&dept_id=478843&newsid=15098855&PAG=461&rfi=9






08/25/2005
The Truth About Soaring Oil Prices
By: Tamara Tragakiss

It's really not much more complicated than sticking a straw into dry, loose sand and letting the oil gush up. It costs $1.50 a barrel to extract. When members of the Saudi royal family want to increase their profit margin, they and their fellow OPEC nations turn the spigots down, make wildly contradictory claims about reserves and pumping capacities and issue false promises and mixed messages-all of this designed to send the oil traders into a panic at every minor supply interruption.

The result is that the desert oil barons, crafty and corrupt, sit back and collect $30, then $40, then $50, and now almost $66 a barrel for their crude oil. The money props up their unstable regimes, fosters social decay and repression in their countries, and some of it ultimately ends up in the coffers of terrorist organizations.
This is the world of oil, according to author and former commodities trader Raymond J. Learsy.
He says OPEC has for many years been carrying out this age old "shell game," which has been aided and abetted by our own government's policies, by a complacent and undisciplined American oil consumer and by a gullible mainstream media. Mr. Learsy believes that it's time we, the
oil-consuming nations, break the grip of the oil cartel before the money we send its way ends up breaking us.
It's a message that the Sharon resident of 40 years has been trying to send to America and its politicians since 1991, when, at the end of the first Gulf War, he wrote an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times entitled "Did We Fight the War to Save OPEC?" Apparently, he believes so.
In the newly-released book "Over A Barrel, Breaking the Middle East Oil Cartel," Mr. Learsy follows up on this theme-after more than a decade in which he says things have only worsened-and delivers a clarion call of impending disaster, both economically and in terms of our national security.
Despite being the subject of a deluge of interviews last week that included appearances on CNN International, Fox News and at least 15 radio programs, Mr. Learsy, a writer as yet unaccustomed to being in the media spotlight, took some time to answer questions at his Sharon home last Friday.
He is incredulous that Americans, commodity experts and the media seem to have swallowed whole the notion that oil is now, or is about to become, scarce and that we should therefore accept high prices as an accurate reflection of the narrowing supply-demand gap.
"Six years ago," he pointed out, "the price of oil was closer to $10 a barrel. It's practically unheard of for a commodity to jump 600 percent in six years. And nobody is stomping their feet somewhere."
Dressed comfortably and sipping a Diet Coke, Mr. Learsy seemed much more relaxed than when he had appeared on a recent television news show. At first somewhat reserved, in person Mr. Learsy soon opens up with surprising warmth and candor. His manner of speech is earthy and earnest, reminiscent of those corporate men of the old days who succeeded in an era that valued street smarts over MBAs.
Brimstone Exports, the name of Mr. Learsy's trading company, which retired with its owner some years ago, had offices all over the world, and chartered ships and rail cars by the hundreds, he said, calling it "a blood and guts life business." The company traded everything from strawberries to chemical fertilizers, including phosphates, phosphate rock, ammonia and sulfur.
In his new book, he writes about those days of less formal trading, in the early 60s: "We got along on our character, our connections and what we knew." It was then, as a
28-year-old, that Mr. Learsy encountered his first cartel.
Three companies had formed the Sulfur Export Corporation (Sulexco), a legal cartel at the time that had a lock on the world market in sulfur, which came mostly from underground domes in the southern United States. Sulexco, the author explained, kept supplies tight to cultivate an illusion of scarcity. They cast themselves in the role of benevolent keepers and distributors of a dwindling resource. Believing this propaganda made buyers grateful to get their hands on the precious commodity at any price, the author said.
"It was a heady scene," he writes, when he discovered a supplier in Western Canada who was able to get sulfur as a byproduct of natural gas. The young trader parlayed this into a deal with a large British chemical company, a move that not only set up Mr. Learsy's future business, Brimstone, but eventually broke the myth of sulfur scarcity, and with it, Sulexco's chokehold on the market.
Nowadays, he sees a parallel between the old sulfur monopoly and the current oil monopoly. His book attempts to expose what he considers to be many of the fallacies and myths that support the interests of both OPEC producers and our own domestic oil industry.
Even on the question of whether oil production in the Middle East is nearing its peak, he thinks it is impossible to speculate, writing, "All OPEC members' figures are opaque and must be considered suspect until the cartel allows them to be verified ... ."
He has little patience for the often-heard justification for today's high gasoline prices at the pump-topping $2.50 a gallon and rising-that, adjusted for inflation, they are about the same as what we were paying in 1981.
"All this nonsense about inflation-adjusted prices is just a charade to keep us happy that we're paying through the nose," he said. Oil should not be judged that way, Mr. Learsy explained, offering a comparison involving gold. The price of gold was $800 an ounce in 1981, and if treated like oil, it should be $1,600 to $1,700 today, rather than its current trading price of around $450.
Offering other examples, Mr. Learsy said that if the world tolerated the type of markup taken by OPEC, an ice cream cone would cost $25 and a Ford Taurus would cost $300,000. The cost of production doesn't justify those prices, but if OPEC's example were followed, that's where they would stand.
A lack of refinery capacity in this country, which OPEC members have cited as one reason why crude oil prices keep rising, is another canard, he insisted.
"Think about that. If I'm producing oil and you have 10 refineries, and suddenly you close two refineries, you are going to need less oil ... Demand for oil would go down," he argued.
He also simply doesn't agree with current predictions of long-term high prices for crude, but admitted, "I'm a voice in the wilderness. I really think there's no reason for the price to be at that level."
Though he generally supports free-market ideas and many of the policies of the current administration, Mr. Learsy remains sharply critical of what he considers the oil industry's unhealthy influence on the policies of both President George W. Bush, and his father before him.
"But I also say the following in the book and I mean this-that Bush is an oil man. It's bred in the bone. He knows more about it than probably anyone else in government and he is probably the one best equipped to lead us out of this wilderness."
The energy bill, which came out after the book went to press, is not, according to Mr. Learsy, much of a start. "It does some things reasonably well," he said, but "it's pork barrel. It gives the oil industry enormous tax benefits, which are totally uncalled for at $60-a-barrel oil, which shows you the influence of that segment of our society."
In a narrative that sometimes reads like an Arabian tale, Mr. Learsy's book traces out OPEC's emergence and development into a powerful oil monopoly. He goes on to imagine a "nightmare scenario" in which crude oil prices push toward $100 a barrel, sending a tsunami shock wave of economic and political disaster around the world. Finally, the book lays out a prescription for breaking the cartel and averting such a disaster, by compiling familiar and less-familiar proposals into a comprehensive solution for both the short- and the long-term.
Mr. Learsy's strategy addresses both conservation and alternative energy development measures, calls for releases from the Strategic Oil Reserve to stimulate a price drop and offers other demand-tempering policies, such as a voucher system for gasoline.
Though he admits some of his proposals might be controversial, he believes something must be done. "[The money] is going to very unstable regimes, to people who are propagating "wahhabi" schools and imams [who are] preaching hatred of our ideals and hatred of the things that we cherish and hold to be important. And where they are not immediately successful, they are not without the will to draw blood."
It seems as if no one is listening, though. "Sometimes I feel a little like the boy [in "The Emperor's New Clothes"] pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. I'm waiting for other people to pick up on this ... ."
In commenting on last week's article in The New York Times Sunday magazine, "Breaking Point," in which writer Peter Maass suggests, among things, that the oil scarcity is real this time, the retired commodities trader had this to say: "Maass has become a card-carrying member of the good cop/bad cop fraternity of oil patch flacks, scaring us half to death by [prognostications] of the imminent demise of oil-and thereby helping to justify extortionist prices-but simultaneously assuring us that it is only with a heavy heart and concern that the Saudis, OPEC and its minions are gouging us at the pump."
"Over a Barrel," published by Nelson Current, started at 480,000th on Amazon.com just prior to its publication, and this week climbed to 1000th, where it currently hovers. Mr. Learsy has written for The New York Times and National Review Online, and is a member of the Wilson Council at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He lives in Sharon with his wife, Melva Bucksbaum, whom he refers to as his "Muse."

 

[Spectrum]

It costs $1.50 a barrel to extract>

Does "extract" account for building the multibillion dollar facility to do the "Extracting"..how about the employees to run operations, etc. That statement is grossly simplified and erroneous. Simplying read an annual operating report of a public traded oil company will illustrate that it actually is a low margin business. People don't get the stories of the billions invested into "dry" wells that don't produce any type of return. However, technology is making that type of investment less frequent. The reality is that there are NO major wells to find. I mean like the huge well in Saudi Arabia that by itself accounts for maybe 15 percent of ALL oil reserves. Again, the wells left although account for billions in revenues and millions of barrels of oil, still only account for a small numbers of days in worldwide demand...and by the time they are pumped..even less because of growing demand.

This statement from the same posting is more accurate:

>Even as their overall profits have soared, major oil companies are earning a relatively modest 8.7 percent profit margin>

I.E. Although Walmart EARNED about 8 billion last year, there revenue was well over 250 Billion. The are a very profitable company, but take into consideration the revenue project. Exxon Mobil earned 25 billion last year, but that is on 270 Billion in revenue. That hardly is price gouging. Doesn't seem unreasonaly to earn LESS than 10 percent on revenue. So the idea that Oil companies are fleecing the public is a misguided claim.

Conversly...microsoft earned 10 billion on a less than 39 Billion in revenue.

So the argument of extreme profiteering by the oil industry is a meritless claim.


One argument used historical references to conclude that there is a conspiracy behind the rise in Oil prices.

One has to be careful when comparing the price of a commodity like Gold with one that is a consumed finite resource like Oil that pretty much powers the entire industrial world(where as Gold is mainly uses a means of transaction and has limited "real" uses). Also, taking into consideration the increase of demand as the third world is rapidly industrializing and also India and China ramping up their industrial capabilities and increasing their demand for oil...in conjuction with every nations continual demand for oil just to sustain operations much less fill the demand that increasing population growth attibutes to the plight of demand.....there is no historical example of an entire WORLD population being dependent on one resource that ALL geologist (not just the doomsayer that say we are there now)claim will be past its peak in production in no more than 50 years...take into consideration the demand is EXPONENTIALLY growing...understand the power of exponential growth..and then look at a downward spiral in product.... downward spiral in production and exponential incease in demand WILL ONLY lead to huge price inflation PERIOD. This is just a fact of reality and nothing we can do will avoid this reality. It is an inevitability.

 

[Dolemite]

what about the marketing and refinery gouging article?

 

[Dolemite]

also - do you believe the energy industry price fixing cartels don't exist and/or don't have a role in current prices?

Every other industry industry in that top profitability area have had their fun with some type of illegal/fraud type stuff- junk bonds-finance - drug companies - and its been exposed that energy companies were price fixing electricity. Doesn't make it seem unbelievable that other energy companies wouldn't engage in similar activity. I hadn't looked into the sulfur market that article referred to.

 

[Spectrum]

In response to both posts:

>>also - do you believe the energy industry price fixing cartels don't exist and/or don't have a role in current prices?>>

OPEC: This is a price fixing cartel that the united states has been trying to break. OPEC would be an illegal entity in the United States.

Do I believe that U.S. oil companies are currently involved in price fixing? No. But I'm not privy to any inside information. However, with the obvious growing demand for their finite inventories, there is no need to "fix" prices..You only "fix" prices when there is a possibility that prices will fall through competition. As long as OPEC exists and demand remains stable or grows, there would be nothing to benefit by fixing prices. Actually they would stand to lose because the free market will continue to increase prices because of the demand/supply issue and "fixing" provides a glass ceiling. Also to coordinate a fixing scheme in an industry with thousands of execs and millions of employees around the world in wholly independent entities would be utterly impossible to keep secretive in this information age.

However, for OPEX, this is a different issue altogether. They have every incentive to keep output high enough to not disrupt economic growth, but low enough to put pressure on supply chains and keep demand thus maintaining a hill of increasing prices.

<Every other industry industry in that top profitability area have had their fun with some type of illegal/fraud type stuff- junk bonds-finance - drug companies>

There is a difference between individual cases of fraud (like enron or tyco) and an industry wide price fixing scheme. The only thing that could be said is mistating inventory to increase commodity prices;however, making restatement of inventory levels immediately kills a stock price so there is nothig to gain there. There is simply no reason for it. The principles of the business are different than that of Drug companies or "investment" type opportunities like Bonds. I've read books about how Milken and his cronies did all types of fraudalent things to profit in the junk bond industry..however this wasn't industry wide and "bonds" aren't the same class of vehicle as a finite resource like oil. Also, any real demand for a "bond" is cyclying generated by either press, propoganda, market exubberance, companies prospects..etc that can be manilupated.... however, oil inventory levels are studied by thousands of independent companies, geologist, etc. This is a real substance that is being depleted, the use of demand is obvious and recordable....these things can't be manipulated.

The only collusion is the illegal(by u.s. standards) OPEC cartel that keeps a squeeze on supply. But even if we broke up that cartel, the increase in supply will only temporarily decrease prices...we don't have any huge SWING producers that can increase capacity to decrease our demand issues. The reality of the matter is that there is too much demand for a resource that is limited in production and supply.

We must begin to redesign our cities, adjust our consumption, invest in alternative and green energy sources, etc. Because the oil issues and the prices are going anywhere. It only gets worse from here. We will probably see 100 per barrel oil in less than two years and maybe even by late next year.

>It was then, as a
28-year-old, that Mr. Learsy encountered his first cartel.
Three companies had formed the Sulfur Export Corporation (Sulexco), a legal cartel at the time that had a lock on the world market in sulfur, which came mostly from underground domes in the southern United States>

There are no oil cartels(legal or illegal) so the connection between sulfar and oil can't be made. There is no counterpart in the Oil industry for Sulexco).

In regards to what is written below, i've discussed this in a previous post. Also, idiots are allowed in the country to write and have their books published. That may be a severe label but some of this claims are really far off base... To compare the cost of oil to the cost of ice cream cones is bordenline stupidity. For a man who is writing a book on the subject to not dig into the deeper issues and come to the conclusion that a finite resource with exponential demand that was used to build up the entire industrial makeup of the entire globe over the last 100+ years and compare this to ICECREAM CONE costs is not only remarkably lacking in logic..it is completely irresponsible and I have to seriously discredit any assertion he makes based on this irrational assertion.

>He has little patience for the often-heard justification for today's high gasoline prices at the pump-topping $2.50 a gallon and rising-that, adjusted for inflation, they are about the same as what we were paying in 1981.
"All this nonsense about inflation-adjusted prices is just a charade to keep us happy that we're paying through the nose," he said. Oil should not be judged that way, Mr. Learsy explained, offering a comparison involving gold. The price of gold was $800 an ounce in 1981, and if treated like oil, it should be $1,600 to $1,700 today, rather than its current trading price of around $450.
Offering other examples, Mr. Learsy said that if the world tolerated the type of markup taken by OPEC, an ice cream cone would cost $25 and a Ford Taurus would cost $300,000. The cost of production doesn't justify those prices, but if OPEC's example were followed, that's where they would stand.
A lack of refinery capacity in this country, which OPEC members have cited as one reason why crude oil prices keep rising, is another canard, he insisted.
"Think about that. If I'm producing oil and you have 10 refineries, and suddenly you close two refineries, you are going to need less oil ... Demand for oil would go down," he argued.>>

 

[Dolemite]

I wasn't asking about Learsy beyond the cartel issue, I was mainly interested in your take on the marketing and refinery pricing as mentioned in the Consumer Union article and graphs in the PDF files listed.

Also you say

The only collusion is the illegal(by u.s. standards) OPEC cartel that keeps a squeeze on supply. But even if we broke up that cartel, the increase in supply will only temporarily decrease prices..

Then you said

There are no oil cartels(legal or illegal) so the connection between sulfar and oil can't be made. There is no counterpart in the Oil industry for Sulexco

What kind of cartel is OPEC if not an oil cartel? Or do you mean in the US? and if you do mean in the US, since OPEC is felt globally isn't there still a cartel fixing prices?


According to their charter they exist to fix prices.


[frame]http://www.opec.org/aboutus/history/history.htm[/frame]

 

[Spectrum]

I guess I didn't make that clear distinction. I meant a U.S. based Oil cartel like the example with the sulfar industry where U.S. based companies colluded to fix prices in the U.S. marketplace. That doesn't exist in the U.S. and there is nothing to substantiate a claim that U.S. based companies are colluding to fix prices. This was only based on the American based companies or ones that are listed on our stock exchanges.


As I said earlier, OPEC is a Cartel that fixes prices. However, by U.S. standards it is illegal but it isn't bound by U.S. law. and isn't an American entity.

Opec is a unique situation because unlike that example in the U.S. with the Sulfar industry, it isn't a cooperative of companies like the typical cartels...it is a collective of oil producing nations;however, the price fixes affects the entire world's population nonetheless. But I thought you meant that U.S. based oil companies were fixing U.S. oil prices.

Sorry, I missed the other PDF file you mentioned. I will read it tomorrow..it's like 3am now.

 

[Dolemite]

The Cartel that Learsy is talking about in regard to Oil price fixing is OPEC which you call an Oil Cartel too. And the price of oil in the US is fixed by OPEC so while not an entirely US operation like the sulfur group, its still price fixing in the US(and the rest of the world) by an oil cartel.



the other article from consumer union says the refinery and marketing profits make up a huge part of the gas prices and that its price gouging- the pdf file linked at the bottom shows different graphs of data- a few of which show prices falling for christmas and rising afterward among other things


I agree with you in regard to energy and the future. But there is no way in hell the government how its currently aligned will modify EPA laws/Energy laws to move away from fossil fuels and to new sources of energy until the last dollar has been wrung out of gasoline and its related industries and petroleum and its related industries - plastics etc - not with energy company executives rewriting EPA scientist reports in the white house

Did you catch the corn energy forum on cspan last week? funny shit - scientists arguing like a muthafucka lol

 

[Spectrum]

The Cartel that Learsy is talking about in regard to Oil price fixing is OPEC which you call an Oil Cartel too. And the price of oil in the US is fixed by OPEC so while not an entirely US operation like the sulfur group, its still price fixing in the US(and the rest of the world) by an oil cartel.

I completely agree...and my point was this isn't a conspiracy by the Oil companies(i wasn't just debating those articles but alot of posts that made it seem as though this was a conspiracy by Exxon,etc).



the other article from consumer union says the refinery and marketing profits make up a huge part of the gas prices and that its price gouging- the pdf file linked at the bottom shows different graphs of data- a few of which show prices falling for christmas and rising afterward among other things


I agree with you in regard to energy and the future. But there is no way in hell the government how its currently aligned will modify EPA laws/Energy laws to move away from fossil fuels and to new sources of energy until the last dollar has been wrung out of gasoline and its related industries and petroleum and its related industries - plastics etc - not with energy company executives rewriting EPA scientist reports in the white house

I COMPLETELY AGREE


Did you catch the corn energy forum on cspan last week? funny shit - scientists arguing like a muthafucka lol

I didn't catch that. I will have to look that one up....lol

 

[Dolemite]

I didn't catch that. I will have to look that one up....lol

the corn shit was funny because professors from berkley were arguing with dudes from michigan about bullshit and they were heated but playin it off then mad corn industry people were pissed too mufuckas who werent press kept asking questions and making statements

all over prospective btu's gained by converting corn to energy lol and use of old study data - mad shady people arguing that some data was from studies done in the 1980's - but the scientists were like - the data is good and valid so what difference does it make?

this is a good thread topic but i dont wanna hijack my own venezuela thread

you should post here more

 

[Dolemite]

[frame]http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/08/30/2003269725[/frame]

 

[gene cisco]

He is right, if somebody did the same to that bitch bush all hell would break loose.

SAD!!!!

But didnt america take themselves out the world courts and say fuck the UN.

Who can respect that. Let alone we have the most inmates in the world and claiming "they hate our freedom".

Muthafuckas like chavez need to expose this shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch fox justify robertson but let one iraqi say they want us out and they are fucked up! Go figure.

 

[Dolemite]

washingtonpost.com
U.S.: Cuban Militant Shouldn't Be Deported

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL
The Associated Press
Tuesday, August 30, 2005; 5:48 AM

EL PASO, Texas -- A Cuban militant and accused terrorist is not eligible for asylum in the United States but shouldn't be sent back to Cuba, a lawyer for the government told a judge in the opening day of the man's deportation hearing.

Luis Posada Carriles requested asylum after being arrested in May on charges that he sneaked into the country illegally through Mexico. He was arrested in Miami.

Lead government attorney Gina Garrett-Jackson told the judge Monday that federal officials hadn't yet decided if they would oppose Posada's deportation to Venezuela, where he has been accused of orchestrating the deadly 1976 bombing of a Cuba jetliner.

She cited concerns about torture in opposing his potential deportation to Cuba.

A number of governments that had citizens aboard the jetliner have demanded the deportation of the one-time CIA operative. The government of Venezuela has requested that the 77-year-old Posada be sent back to that country to stand trial on charges accusing him of plotting the bombing while in Caracas.

A Venezuelan lawyer is expected to be the first witness on the stand when the hearing resumes Tuesday. Attorneys in the case have not said what the lawyer will testify about.

Posada, who is Cuban, has denied any involvement in the bombing, which killed 73 people when it crashed off the coast of the Barbados. He also has declined to name a country he would prefer to be deported to if his request for asylum is denied.

A recently declassified CIA document quotes an unnamed former Venezuelan official saying that shortly before the bombing Posada was heard to say that he and others "are going to hit a Cuban airplane."

CIA documents show the spy agency trained Posada in 1961 to participate in the Bay of Pigs. An immigration judge last month asked lawyers in the case to prepare briefs on whether the invasion was a terrorist act.

Posada's lawyers have said he did not participate in the failed attempt to topple Fidel Castro's communist government.

He was acquitted by a Venezuelan military court but that decision was later thrown out when it was decided that he should be tried in a civilian court. He escaped from a Venezuelan jail in 1985 before the trial had been completed.

The chief of the Organization of American States said Monday that the U.S. should extradite Posada if there is evidence of links to the 1976 bombing.

"If evidence against him exists in Venezuela, extradition must proceed," OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza said. "He should be extradited to Venezuela to face justice."
© 2005 The Associated Press

 

[Dolemite]

this guy posada might have had a hand in JFK's assassination too if it in fact proceeded along the lines of the theories involving Bush Sr. in his CIA days and the anti-castro movement/installation/Bush Oil company island between Florida and Cuba

 

[QueEx]

<font size="6"><center>Bully tactics not serving U.S. well</font size></center>

Chicago Sun Times
<font size="3">By Jesse Jackson</font size>
August 30, 2005

CARACAS, Venezuela -- To get a good sense of America in the world, it helps to look from the outside in. This week, I traveled to Venezuela to meet with President Hugo Chavez and address the National Assembly. Here's how America appears to many of its neighbors to the South.

Chavez has been elected twice by large majorities. He is a populist champion of the poor in Venezuela. Riding the oil boom -- Venezuela sits on the largest oil reserves of any nation in the hemisphere -- he's seeking to gain a higher percentage of oil profits for his country. He is an ardent nationalist, challenging what he considers U.S. domination of the hemisphere. He has even embraced Fidel Castro, who has made U.S. presidents froth for over 45 years.

Chavez's brash independence irritates the Bush administration. Don Rumsfeld recently traveled through Latin America proclaiming Chavez a threat to stability, suggesting that he was working to destabilize Bolivia. The defense secretary offered no evidence for the charge. Last week on TV, Pat Robertson, the zealous right-wing minister who is a key political ally of President Bush, said if Rumsfeld is right, the United States should "assassinate" Chavez, which would be cheaper than waging another $200 billion war to overthrow him, as in the Iraq fiasco.

Robertson's chilling words echoed across the world. Bush did not rebuke him. The FCC, so quick to react to a bared breast in a Super Bowl halftime, did not open an investigation. Rumsfeld dismissed Robertson's statement, noting that assassination is against the law. Robertson later apologized, sort of, suggesting that kidnapping would do just as well as murder.

Most Americans would dismiss these words as the loony ravings of a right-wing zealot. But consider how this looks from Caracas, or Santiago, or Managua. The Bush administration denounces Chavez as a threat to stability. The same administration proclaims it will act preemptively with military force, covertly or overtly, to eliminate potential threats "before they have formed," in Bush's words. It has unleashed the CIA, used high-tech weaponry to "take out" suspected terrorists, and demonstrated, in Guantanamo and elsewhere, that its agents are prepared to trample laws and treaties.

Throughout the hemisphere, decades of U.S. intervention -- the gunboat "diplomacy" of the early 20th century, the CIA's notorious wars against elected presidents in Guatemala, Chile and Nicaragua, the assassination plots against Castro -- ensure Robertson and Rumsfeld's words are taken very seriously.

In Venezuela, the Bush administration is already seen as implicated in the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez. The Bush White House rushed to recognize the coup leaders one day after they announced Chavez had been deposed, only to discover that the Venezuelan people would defend the democracy that the U.S. administration scorned. Prudence alone makes Chavez take the threat of the president's close political ally very seriously.

America cannot change its history in the hemisphere nor erase the well-founded suspicions that history creates. But it can change the future. Venezuela is our neighbor and should be our friend. Chavez is elected by his people. Venezuela is our fourth-largest source of crude oil. It borders on Colombia and is vital to the ongoing war on drugs.

We need to move from a big stick to a good neighbor policy. Over the past two decades, democracy has spread across Latin America, but so have poverty and inequality. The policies that we've enforced -- the "Washington consensus" -- have failed to work for most poor and working people in the region. Bolivia is unstable not because of Chavez, but because of the policies pursued by Washington and the International Monetary Fund.

Chavez announced a proposal to provide low-cost heating oil to poor communities, schools and hospitals in the United States. With oil prices reaching $70 a barrel, and gas prices exceeding $3 a gallon, and winter on the horizon, this is a plan that I and the whole world can endure.

Americans have to choose -- assassination or engagement, the big stick or the good neighbor. Too many people looking at America from the outside think that choice has already been made the wrong way. It is up to us to prove them wrong.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse30.html

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Hugo Chavez: from populist folk hero to impressive statesman</font size></center>

By Richard Gott
THE GUARDIAN , LONDON
Wednesday, Aug 31, 2005,Page 9

Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, is a genial fellow with a good sense of humor and a steely political purpose. As a former military officer, he is accustomed to the language of battle and he thrives under attack. He will laugh off this week's suggestion by Pat Robertson, the US televangelist, that he should be assassinated, but he will also seize on it to ratchet up the verbal conflict with the US that has lasted throughout his presidency.

Chavez, now 51, is the same age as UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and after nearly seven years as president he has been in power for almost as long. But there the similarities end. Chavez is a man of the left and, like most Latin Americans with a sense of history, he is distrustful of the US. Free elections in Latin America have often thrown up radical governments that Washington would like to see overthrown and the Chavez government is no exception to this rule.

Chavez is a genuinely revolutionary figure, one of those larger-than-life characters who surface regularly in the history of Latin America -- and achieve power perhaps twice in a hundred years. He wants to change the history of the continent. His close friend and role model is Fidel Castro, Cuba's long-serving leader. The two men meet regularly, talk constantly on the telephone and have formed a close political and military alliance. Venezuela has deployed more than 20,000 Cuban doctors in its shanty-towns, and Cuba is the grateful recipient of cheap Venezuelan oil, replacing the subsidized oil it once used to receive from the Soviet Union. This, in the eyes of the US government, would itself be a heinous crime that would put Chavez at the top of its list for removal. The US has been at war with Cuba for nearly half a century, mostly conducted by economic means, and it only abandoned plans for Castro's direct overthrow after subscribing to a tacit agreement not to do so with the Soviet Union after the missile crisis of 1962.

The US would have dealt with Chavez long ago had they not been faced by two crucial obstacles. First, they have been notably preoccupied in recent years in other parts of the world, and have hardly had the time, the personnel, or the attention span to deal with the charismatic colonel. Second, Venezuela is one of the principal suppliers of oil to the US market (literally so in that 13,000 US gasoline stations are owned by Citgo, an extension of Venezuela's state oil company). Any hasty attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government would undoubtedly threaten this oil lifeline, and Chavez himself has long warned that his assassination would close down the pumps. With his popularity topping 70 percent in the polls, he would be a difficult figure to dislodge.

Chavez comes from the provinces of Venezuela, from the vast southern cattle lands of the Llanos that stretch down to the Apure and Orinoco river system. Of black and Indian ancestry, his parents were local schoolteachers, and he has inherited their didactic skills. His talents first came to the fore when he joined the army and became a popular lecturer at the war college in Caracas. He is a brilliant communicator, speaking for hours on television in a folksy manner that captivates his admirers and irritates his opponents.

He never stops talking and he never stops working. He has time for everyone and never forgets a face. For several years he travelled incessantly around the country, to keep an eye on what was going on.

frenetic

This was not mere electioneering, for he would talk for hours to those who had hardly a vote among them. He exhausts his cadres, his secretaries and his ministers. I have travelled with him and them into the deepest corners of the country, and then, after a 16-hour day, he would call the grey-faced Cabinet together for an impromptu meeting to analyze what they had discovered and what measures they should take.

There was always a touch of the 19th century about this frenetic activity, as though the president were still on horseback, and Castro is known to have warned Chavez not to absorb himself unduly in the minutiae of administration. "You are the president of Venezuela," he is reported to have said, "not the mayor of Caracas." Chavez has taken the advice to heart, and has become less the populist folk hero and more the impressive statesman. Concern about possible assassination has long predated Robertson's outburst, and for the past two years Chavez has cut down his travels inside the country and been accompanied everywhere by fearsome-looking guards.

Abroad, however, he is a frequent visitor to the capitals of Latin America and he is widely perceived as the leader of the group of left-leaning presidents recently elected in Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, as well as the inspiration of the radicalized indigenous movements now clamoring at the gates of power in Bolivia and Ecuador. There is another touch of the 19th century here, for Chavez is a follower and promoter of the ideas and career of Simon Bolivar, the Venezuelan leader who brought the philosophy of the European Enlightenment and the French Revolution to Latin America, and liberated much of the continent from Spanish rule. Chavez has labelled his movement the "Bolivarian Revolution" and he hopes that his political ideas will spread throughout the continent.

This in itself would be alarming enough to the US, had it the time to pay proper attention. Equally worrying for the Americans is the time Chavez has devoted to the Middle East, successfully courting the governments that belong to Opec, the oil producers' organization, some of whom have been labelled by the US as "the axis of evil." Today's high oil price has much to do with increased demand from China and India -- and from the Iraq war -- but the spadework that has given Opec fresh credibility was put in by Chavez. Soon he will be helping to show the new Iranian president, using the Venezuelan example, how to increase the revenues of a state-owned oil company and channel them into programs to help the poor.

achievements

Chavez is widely popular today, but for much of his presidency he has been a contested, even a hated figure, arousing widespread discontent within Venezuela's traditional white elite. Yet although his rhetoric is revolutionary, his reforms have been moderate and social democratic. He criticizes the policies of "savage neo-liberalism" that have done so much harm to the poorer peoples of Venezuela and Latin America in the past 20 years, yet the private sector is still alive and well. His land reform is aimed chiefly at unproductive land and provides for compensation. His most obvious achievement, which should not have been controversial, has been to channel increased oil revenues into a fresh range of social projects that bring health and education into neglected shanty-towns.

The hatred that he arouses in the old opposition parties, which have seen their membership and influence dwindle, lies more in ideology and racial antipathy than in material loss. Some opponents dislike his friendship with Castro, his verbal hostility to the US and his criticisms of the Catholic church, and some people still have a residual hostility to the fact that he staged an unsuccessful military coup in 1992 when a young colonel in the parachute regiment. Many Latin Americans still find it difficult to come to terms with the idea of a progressive military man. But mostly they are alarmed by the way in which he has enfranchised the country's vast underclass, interrupting the cosy, US-influenced lifestyle of the white middle class with visions of a frightening world that lives beyond their apartheid-gated communities.

Over the past few years this anxious opposition has made several attempts to get rid of Chavez, with the tacit encouragement of Washington. They organized a coup in April 2002 that rebounded against them two days later when the kidnapped Chavez was returned to power by an alliance of the army and the people. They tried an economic coup by closing down the oil refineries, and this too was a failure. Last year's recall-referendum, designed to lead to a defeat for Chavez, was an overwhelming victory for him. The local opposition, and by extension the US, have shot their final bolt. There is nothing left in the locker, except of course assassination.

The fingers of mad preachers are usually far from the button, but the untimely words of Pat Robertson, easily discounted in Washington and airily dismissed by the US State Department as "inappropriate," might yet wake an echo among zealots in Venezuela. A similar call was made last year by a former Venezuelan president. Assassinations may be easy to plan and not difficult to accomplish. But their legacy is incalculable. The radical leader of neighboring Colombia, Jorge Gaitan, was assassinated more than 50 years ago, in 1948. In terms of civil war and violence, the Colombians have been paying the price ever since.

No one would wish that fate on Venezuela.


Richard Gott is the author of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2005/08/31/2003269859

 

[African Herbsman]

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4721961.stm[/frame]

 

[Spectrum]

The most imporant part of that article:

"President Chavez also admires Cuba's Fidel Castro, but says Venezuela's revolution is based on a new kind of socialism, not communism. "

And he will get the same results that these types of systems have produced for hundreds of years in all their myriad of forms and this will never change. They have have the same absence of rights, concentration of power into a dictator like individual or panel, etc. .ie. Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini...all part of the same creed. The irony is that they are always doing it for the "people", but the people end up in perpetually worsening slave types environments...or still fighting the "revolution" like in Cuba.

 

[Dolemite]

"He is willing to compensate Vestey if they can prove they legally own the land"



that oil guy with those ice cream analogies- i heard him on the radio yesterday and that was a shitty article- he was detailed and broke down specifics not using analogies like that - that book is worth checking out

 

[Dolemite]

[frame]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4222268.stm[/frame]

 

[muckraker10021]

<font face="verdana" size="4" color="#D90000">You can't talk about Venezuela without Outlining the context & perspective & history of US Imperialism vis-à-vis all of the nations south of the continental United States.</font><br>



<font face="arial unicode ms, arial, helvetica, sans serif" color="#333333" size="4"><br>Let's start with <a tarset="_blank" href="http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_060800_monroedoctri.htm"><u><br />&quot;The Monroe Doctrine&quot;</u></a>.

Since 1823 the United States has declared essentially that "WE OWN CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA & the CARIBBEAN". This declaration has been enforced via Covert means :<FONT COLOR="#d90000"><br />• CIA - Central Intelligence Agency<br />• DIA - Defense Intelligence Agency<br />• FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation <br />• NRO- National Reconnaissance Office<br />• NSA - National Security Agency<br /><br /></FONT>....And Overt means via the School of the Americas<br /><a target="_blank" href="http://www.oocities.org/~virtualtruth/soaclose.htm"><u><br />School of Americas Link 1</u></a><br /><a target="_blank" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html"><u>School of Americas Link 2</u></a><br /> <br />The School of the Americas is where the United States openly trains the murderers and killers that it appoints as "Leaders" in Central & South America. These "Leaders" blood soaked regimes are fully supported by the United States Government. The "Horror Roll" of "Leaders" trained at School of Americas include:<FONT COLOR="#d90000"><br /><font color="#000000">
• Roberto D'Aubuison -</font> the leader of El Salvador's Death Squads whose victims included Catholic Priests and Nuns.
<font color="#000000">
• Victor Manuel Trujillo Hoyos -</font> Columbian Death Squad Leader
<font color="#000000">
• Leopoldo Galtieri -</font> head of the Argentina junta Death Squads
<font color="#000000">
• Manuel Noriega -</font> Panamanian President & Death Squad leader, CIA employee, Drug Dealer
<font color="#000000">
• Anastasio Somoza -</font> actually trained at West Point, attended School of the Americas for "special courses" & training in torture techniques. <br /><br /></FONT>
This is just a short list. The total list is hundreds of Latin American "Leaders?", trained? at the School of the Americas.<br /><br />As long as these "Leaders" allow their countries to be raped and pillaged by American Capitalism they will retain their "White House Passes" where they appear for a photo-op session and a 'state' dinner at least once a year. The fact that 70 -90 percent of the population in their countries are living with their "Faces In The Mud" - abject poverty, means nothing to American Capitalism. Research the history of the United Fruit Company-now known as United Brands Company. The chairman of that company would literally phone the white house to request a 'COUP D'ETAT' whenever a Latin American "Leader" didn't go along with the program of RAPE with 'No-Grease!'. This occurred in Guatemala in 1954, when the <a target="_blank" href="http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0618-13.htm"><u>CIA Assassinated the Guatemalan leader</u></a><br />who had the audacity to ask for his country NOT to be RAPED with 'No- Grease'. President Clinton apologized to the Guatemalan people in 1998 for this CIA 'COUP D'ETAT' .<br /><br /><br />Now let's talk about HUGO CHAVEZ<br /><img src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1245000/images/_1245063_chavez-ap-150.jpg"><img src="http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1925000/images/_1925236_castro-ap-150.jpg"><br />President Chavez was democratically elected twice, receiving more than 60% of the vote. Venezuela is a country where 75% of the people live with their "Faces In The Mud"-abject poverty. This is despite the fact that Venezuela exports more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia. The country had been on-lockdown by a small group of families, an oligarchy. They didn't give a SHIT about Venezuela. They were sending their millions and billions to the US, buying mansions and bling-bling in Miami. This was fine with the US government. This was the usual deal offered to South American countries - RAPE with 'No-Grease!'. Because Chavez wants to change this deal he is vilified by the Venezuelan press which is owned by the Venezuelan oligarchy, and with the explicit help of the United States (bush Junta) , they have been trying to remove Chavez ever since he got elected. In the face of this US sponsored opposition, what Chavez has been able to accomplish is remarkable. He has defeated the bush Junta & Venezuelan oligarch sponsored "Recall" on Aug. 16th 2004. The results were certified by former US President Jimmy Carter who was an election obsever. Oh, by the way they used electronic voting machines and EVERYBODY WHO VOTED GOT A PAPER RECEIPT, something that the RepubliKlans here in the US say is impossible to do <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <br />I expect these evil forces to attempt to assassinate him shortly. Stay tuned for US Imperialism next bloody 'COUP D'ETAT'. A twice democratically elected Venezuelan leader whose country supplies us with more oil than the Saudis and who wants to spend more of that oil revenue on helping the Venezuelan poor, and is friendly with Fidel Castro MUST BE ELIMINATED. Pat Robertson's public call for Chavez's assassination is a window into the bush juntas plans to eliminate Chavez in the blood-soaked tradition of US imperialism towards South America. Killing Chavez is United States standard operating procedure. <br /><br /></font><br /><br /><br />

 

[Dolemite]

welcome back muckraker!

 

[Hardballa]

Venezuela to Provide Discounted Heating Oil and Free Eye Operations to U.S. Poor

Venezuela to Provide Discounted Heating Oil and Free Eye Operations to U.S. Poor Print E-mail
By Bernardo Delgado - Venezuelanalysis.com
Wednesday, 31 August 2005
Venezuela’s Chavez said to visiting Rev. Jesse Jackson today that he would like Jackson to help with finding a way to provide discounted heating oil and free eye operations to poor communities in the U.S. Pointing out that Venezuela provides 1.5 million barrels of oil per day to the U.S., Chavez said, “we would like to provide a part of this 1.5 million barrels of oil to poor communities.”

Chavez made these comments during his weekly television program today, which Jackson briefly attended to speak to Chavez and the audience. Jackson is on a three-day visit to Venezuela, during which he will meet with local religious leaders, Afro-Venezuelan groups, the president of the state oil company PDVSA, President Hugo Chavez, and visit poor-neighborhoods to see Venezuela's social programs at work.

Chavez had first mentioned the plan to supply discounted oil to poor communities in the U.S. last week, while in Cuba, but did not provide any details beyond that. Today he specified that it was heating oil that the Venezuelan government was looking into because this seemed the most feasible and most necessary approach. Given the high price of oil this year, heating oil is expected to reach very high levels this winter, which will be unaffordable for many poor families in the U.S.

“There is a lot of poverty in the U.S. and don’t believe that everything reflects the . Many people die of cold in the winter. Many die of heat in the summer,” said Chavez in explaining why Venezuela was interested in providing discounted heating oil to the U.S. poor. “We could have an impact on seven to eight million persons,” he added.

Chavez said that he was interested in talking to Jackson about this plan, so that his organization and other U.S.-based groups might help with it. Chavez mentioned the groups TransAfrica Forum, Global Exchange, and Global Women’s Strike that could also help implement the plan.

Part of the plan was for the U.S.-based and Venezuelan state-owned oil company Citgo to provide heating oil directly to poor households. Chavez said this would not present a loss to Venezuela because the idea would be to offer the oil at a lower rate because intermediaries would not be involved. Up to 30% to 40% of the cost could be saved said Chavez. Citgo licenses 14,000 gas station franchises and 8 refineries in the U.S.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the U.S. Bernardo Alvarez, had told Chavez that the embassy has already received over 140 requests about the plan, even though it has not been formally announced yet.

Free Eye Operations

Chavez spent a large part of his Sunday talk show discussing new healthcare plans for Venezuela. Part of this discussion also involved the provision of free eye operations to people in all of the American continents, north and south. The operations Cuba would provide the bulk of the operations, with Venezuela providing the transportation.

Chavez said that of the six million operations that Cuba and Venezuela would want to organize over the next ten years, there would be slots for 150,000 U.S.-Americans per year. Each country will receive a quota. Chavez gave some examples, explaining that there would be 100,000 for Brazilians, 60,000 for Colombians, 12,000 for Panamanians, 30,000 for Ecuadorians, 20,000 for Bolivians, and 20,000 for inhabitants of the Caribbean. Chavez said that those interested in the eye operations should turn to the Venezuelan embassies in their respective countries.
The plan to provide free eye operations is part of the “Mission Miracle,” which is one of the many new social programs that Chavez government has instituted in the past two years in Venezuela. By the end of December, 150,000 Venezuelans will have received eye operations. These operations involved operations for cataracts, myopia, pigmentary retinosis, and many others.

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/venezuela_heating_oil_eye280805.htm

 

[GhostofMarcus]

Chavez Extends Oil Trade Deal to Caribbean

[FRAME]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_oil_diplomacy[/FRAME]

 

[QueEx]

Re: Chavez Extends Oil Trade Deal to Caribbean

Chavez Extends Oil Trade Deal to Caribbean

Sound good to me. Sometimes, the beneficiaries of a good fight are not the combatants themselves, its the people in the routing section.


QueEx

 

[Hardballa]

ABC Nightline: Venezuelan President on rocky relations with Washington

ABC Nightline ( Interview -- transcript): "I have friends throughout the entire world," Chavez told Ted Koppel. "Only with Washington is where the relationship doesn't work."

In his first American broadcast interview since the Rev. Pat Robertson called for his assassination last month, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told ABC News' Ted Koppel today that he has evidence of a United States plan to invade Venezuela. In New York for the UN Summit, Chavez discussed his strained relationship with the United States government, Robertson's comments and the United States' dependence on Venezuela's oil supply.

Following is a rush transcript of the interview, which aired tonight on "Nightline" at 11:35 p.m. ET.

Transcript: Hugo Chavez Interview

KOPPEL: Tell me a little bit -- most Americans don't know very much about you. Tell me a little bit about your youth, when you were a young man.

CHAVEZ (through translator): I would like to welcome you. And I would like to greet all of the people who are watching this program and who are listening to it. I was a farm kid from the plains of South Venezuela, from a very poor family. I grew up in a palm tree house with an earthen floor.

And later, we were lucky enough, my brothers and I, to be able to study. There were six of us. My father and my mother were both teachers. They inculcated to us the importance of studies. But out of every 100 children from my town, 99 didn't get to study. That was poverty, the poorest of the farmers.

Later, I was a young athlete. I was telling this friend here from San Francisco so that one of my greatest dreams was to be a pitcher for the San Francisco Giants. I played a lot of baseball. It was a passion of mine.

I painted. I wanted to be a painter. I sang. I still sing a little bit. I still paint a little bit. And I can still bat a bit.

But afterwards, when I was 16, I became a soldier. But I became a soldier, not because I had a military vocation initially, but because it was the only way that that young, poor-class child from the provinces could go to the center of the country: through baseball, which was my dream.

But I liked the army. And I became a patriotic soldier. And that's what I am, essentially, a patriotic soldier.

KOPPEL: I read that you discovered later in your life that your grandfather or your great grandfather was a guerrilla fighter. Is that correct?

CHAVEZ (through translator): That was from a previous time, a hundred years ago. Yes, he was a great grandfather of mine.

But the point is that when I was a kid, I would hear stories from my grandmother and my great grandmother -- you know, when they talk -- grandmothers tell stories.

And when I was a kid, I heard that I had a murderous grandfather. And that stuck with me.

But later, when I became a man, and I was reading the history of my fatherland, a history that starts in the 20th century, I conciliated myself to the fact that he was not a murderer; he was a guerrilla. He was one of the last men on horseback. This was the time of Pancho Villa. This was the time of Emiliano Zapata. This was the time of San Dino (ph). This was the time of (inaudible) the gentleman of hope in Brazil (inaudible). He was one of those last horsemen who took on imperialism.

My great grandfather was one of them. I discovered the truth.

KOPPEL: You're a man who loves language. You're a man of many words. I'm going to put you to a test now.

Give me three words that describe you.

CHAVEZ (through translator): A soldier-esque man. I would add the word "patriot." I would add the word "revolutionary."

KOPPEL: A revolutionary has to be in revolt against something. What are you revolting against?

CHAVEZ (through translator): I've been in revolt for years against ignominy, against injustice, against inequality, against immorality, against the exploitation of human beings.

One of the greatest rebels, who I really admire: Christ. He was a rebel. He ended up being crucified. He was a great rebel. He rebelled against the established power that subjugated. That is what rebellion is; it's rebellion out of love for human beings. In truth, that is the cause, the cause of love: love for every human being, for every women, for every child, for every man, for every brother.

I believe you to be a brother. I don't see you as above or below. I don't feel superior or inferior to you. We're on an equal basis. Your cameraman, your photograph are equal. The men and women who are seeing you, who are seeing us are equal. They're true brothers.

KOPPEL: Well, maybe the photographer; not the cameraman.

(LAUGHTER)

No, no, I'm just teasing. He's an old friend.

CHAVEZ (through translator): It's really hot here in New York.

KOPPEL: It's very hot here in New York.

I appreciate what you say and I think I understand that you don't feel that same way; you don't have that same love for the government of the United States.

CHAVEZ (through translator): Yes. There are profound differences, very profound with this government, this administration since Mr. Bush came into power. We have been subjected — Venezuela has been subjected to permanent aggression against us and against me personally.

There has been no respect for the sovereignty of Venezuelans, for the chief of state (inaudible) Venezuela.

On the other hand, I remind you that last night I gathered here with some Democrats and Republicans. Tomorrow, I'm going to be with some others.

Recently, Jackson was there and I'm going to see him tomorrow.

This morning, I saw Danny Grover (ph). We're good friends. And I said to them, and I say to everyone, that it was different with Clinton.

With President Clinton, I sat down just like we are now on at least three occasions. There was no occasion for disrespect on either side.

Now, this administration has truly broken with all protocols of democracy and respect for people. The coup d'etat against Venezuela was manufactured in Washington. My death was ordered. And it was ordered recently.

Reverend Pat Robertson, who is very close to the president, asked for me to be physically eliminated, for me to be killed.

And so perhaps Christ recommends that when we get a slap in our cheek, we turn the other cheek. We have both cheeks red and blue because we've turned the cheek so many times. But we never (inaudible) because we do love the people of the United States. We want to be brothers and sisters of the people of the United States, independently of their government.

KOPPEL: I'm going to perhaps shock you a little, but these are your words. You called President Bush an .

CHAVEZ (through translator): I've said various things about him. I don't know if I actually used that word. But I have been really hard on him.

But I have always responded to things that I was termed. I was termed a threat, a threat to the continent. It was said of me that I harbor terrorists.

There have been official reports issued from the State Department. The secretary of state has gone through South America saying publicly that I have to be isolated; that I am a threat; that I am using oil to subvert order in Latin America. Some secretaries of state -- other secretaries of state, that I am allied with drug traffickers -- a series of lies and aggressionists that sometimes I respond to. And sometimes we raise the tone.

We wait to get signals, and we respond to signals we receive from Washington.

KOPPEL: So you haven't got any -- you haven't received any good signals lately?

CHAVEZ (through translator): Really good signals? No. You know where right now my medical team is? In the presidential plane, 200 kilometers from here. The government of the United States, in violation of the laws of the United States and conventions, prevented my doctors from coming to New York. Where is the chief of staff of my military detachment and my chief of security? On the plane. They've been locked into the plane, two days. They can't come out of the plane.

Those are the signals we're receiving. Yesterday they issued a report saying that Venezuela does not cooperate in the fight against drugs. Absolutely false. We have broken records this year in confiscation of cocaine in the fight against drug trafficking. Those are the false aggressions, the false signals we've been receiving.

KOPPEL: I've been told by contacts of mine in the US intelligence community that you have members of Al Qaeda, you have members of other terrorist groups who are allowed to operate within Venezuela. Not true?

CHAVEZ (through translator): It's absolutely false. And one time someone said that bin Laden -- did anyone ever say bin Laden could be in Venezuela?

KOPPEL: Not to my knowledge.

CHAVEZ (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Those are part of the lies that are circulating. So the lies haven't reached that point, but it's absolutely false.

But it's part of the whole chain of rumors in this campaign to even justify my death, because recently Pat Robertson and an ex-CIA agent added that I should already be dead because, since I'm a threat, you have to liquidate the threats, you have to wipe them out, you have to kill them. That would justify any greater (inaudible) aggression against us.

KOPPEL: It was a foolish thing to say, and Pat Robertson admitted later that it was a foolish thing to say. And certainly no one from the government condoned what he said.

Why do you take what a private citizen says, foolish as it may have been, and ascribe it to the US government?

CHAVEZ (through translator): Well, take a look at this.

The US administration has to reject -- should have rejected the term of terrorist that Robertson used. The U.S. administration seriously sinned with respect to international and national laws, because the call to murder a chief of state is, in accordance with international law, terrorism.

So this gentleman, Robertson, should be under arrest by the government of the United States -- silence.

Consequently, harboring a terrorist, but not only Robertson -- there have been television channels in Miami, various people, including some Venezuelan terrorists who participated in the coup d'etat and who lived here in the United States freely -- went to request my death, and the government of this country does absolutely nothing.

So they are harboring terrorism, independently of whether or not Robertson (inaudible) of a personality. But that is not the main issue. The main issue is that on television, in front of millions of people, he justified my assassination.

And later, he said, no, it was not assassination. It was kidnapping. But that's also terrorism.

KOPPEL: If one looks at your record, one could easily come to the conclusion that you would like to put pressure on the United States.

You have spoken in the past of cutting off Venezuelan oil to the United States. You have signed new agreements with China. You have visited India. There is a sense that you want to be able to bring the United States to its knees.

CHAVEZ (through translator): It's very difficult for someone to bring the empire to its knees. That is not my pretension. That would be something totally disproportional.

What we do want to do is have both of us on our feet -- both of us standing up or both of us sitting down. Or, if we kneel, let both of us kneel. That would be to pray -- to pray, as we Christians pray.

Now, there's the matter of oil. Look, let me clarify. And I would like to clarify this for the people of the United States. The people of the United States should know that we are the owners in a U.S. territory of a great oil (inaudible) which has eight major refineries. That company has a value in near $10 billion.

We're one of the biggest investors of Latin America. I think we're the prime investor of Latin America in the United States. We are giving employment to more than 2,000 US workers and their families. We are paying taxes to the government of the United States. We cooperate with many cities, with mayoralties, Houston.

And now with Katrina, this awful drama that the United States is living through, from the very first day I ordered a group -- a coordinating a group of support being sent to where one of our refineries is located. We've been helping. And we've been even rescuing people.

Practically no one in the United States knows that we've donated millions of dollars to the governorship of Louisiana, to the New Orleans Red Cross. We're now giving care to more than 5,000 victims, and now we're going to supply gasoline, freely in some cases, and with discounts in other cases, to the poorest of communities, starting with New Orleans and its surroundings.

The people of the United States should know that.

The only time that I have said where Venezuela would not supply oil to the United States, it was no threat. It's rather to respond to a threat, the threat of invasion. We have obtained evidence of something which would be absolutely foolhardy, the invasion of Venezuela. That's where we said that under those circumstances…

KOPPEL: Let me stop you.

CHAVEZ (through translator): … there would be no oil.

KOPPEL: Are you saying you have discovered evidence of an invasion plan against Venezuela or are you saying "if" you discovered a plan?

CHAVEZ (through translator): I'm telling you that I have evidence that there are plans to invade Venezuela. Furthermore, we have documentation: how many bombers to overfly Venezuela on the day of the invasion, how many trans-Atlantic carriers, how many aircraft carriers need to be sent to (inaudible) even during (inaudible).

Recently, an aircraft carrier went to Curacao (inaudible) the fact that the soldiers were on leave.

That's a lie. They were doing movements. They were doing maneuvers. All on documentation. The plan is called Balboa, where Venezuela is indicated as an objective.

And in the face of that scenario, I said that if that actually happens, the United States should just forget the million and a half barrels of oil. Because everyday since I've been in power for seven years, we haven't missed it even one single day -- just one day, when we were overthrown. We were overthrown by that coup -- oil sabotage -- which was supported by Washington…

KOPPEL: If I may, Mr. President, you say you have documentation of this plan. Can I ask you now, on camera, will you make that documentation available to me?

CHAVEZ (through translator): I can send to you -- I can't send it all, but I can make sure I can send part of it to you. I can send it to you.

KOPPEL: Please.

CHAVEZ (through translator): I can send you maps and everything, and you can show it to the United States citizens. What I can't tell you his how we got it, to protect the sources, how we got it through military intelligence.

But nobody can deny it, because (inaudible) the Balboa plan. We are coming up with the counter-Balboa plan. That is to say if the government of the United States attempts to commit the foolhardy enterprise of attacking us, it would be embarked on a 100-year war. We are prepared.

They would not manage to control Venezuela, the same way they haven't been able to control Iraq. (inaudible) Venezuela, my impression is that there would be a movement of a resistance in other parts of this continent. Oil could reach $100 or $120 a barrel, among other things.

KOPPEL: Can you understand why people think that you are unfriendly toward the government of the United States?

Among your closest friends: Cuba, Syria, Iran, Libya. These are all countries that the United States regards as unfriendly, if not terrorist countries themselves.

CHAVEZ (through translator): Well, Cuba is much more than a friend. The people of Cuba and its leader, Fidel Castro, are much more than friends. We are joined in a battle which is described in the plans of each country and described in the roots of our history.

Now, Cuba is being attacked -- assaulted by the United States, by the government of the United States, and that has been the case for more than 40 years. This inhumane blockade, this unjustified blockade, the United Nations has gotten tired of issuing pronouncements asking the United States to cease the blockade. And Pope John Paul II -- and the undignified, unjust, accusative, arbitrary blockade is being maintained.

The assaulted party is Cuba. We are brothers of Cuba.

We are also friends of Gadhafi. We are part of the petroleum producing companies. This morning I met with the president of Iran. We are members of OPEC.

And I'm also very close to Lula. I'm very close to (inaudible). I'm a very good friend of the prime minister of Jamaica. I'm very close to the representatives who came here last night, Delahunt from Massachusetts, Burton, a Republican. Good friends. I have a lot of friends (inaudible).

Now, you can't say -- nobody can say that Venezuela is a country that commits aggression against the United States or is an enemy of the United States because it has open relations with (inaudible) world. We have open relations with China (inaudible). With Colombia we have very good relations. We have good relations with everyone.

The only country, the only administration with whom we don't have good relations on the face of the earth is the administration of Mr. Bush. That's the only example (inaudible). We are friends of the king of Spain. As we say in Venezuela, he is a good guy. The king of Malaysia (inaudible). The emir of Qatar is my brother.

I have friends throughout the entire world, kings, princes, presidents, prime ministers. Only with Washington is where the relationship doesn't work.

KOPPEL: Let me put it very simply.

(CROSSTALK/BREAK)

KOPPEL: If the United States doesn't invade Venezuela, can the people of the United States assume that Venezuela will continue supplying as much oil to the United States as it has in the past?

CHAVEZ (through translator): Of course.

Let me tell you something further.

If you give me a map, I'll show it to you very simply, very quickly. Most all the US companies work in Venezuela -- ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil (inaudible) Venezuela. And they are producing oil.

And let me tell you that I meet very frequently with the managers and the administrators, the leaders. Recently, the world director of Chevron came to announce to me that they want to invest more than $5 billion in (inaudible). They just won a gas license, ChevronTexaco. They are operating (inaudible) Shell, from England.

What's the name -- the Norwegian (inaudible), but especially the US companies. They are developing plans to continue to invest in Venezuela in gas and oil.

Pay attention. In these days of Katrina, today or tomorrow, a Venezuelan ship with 300,000 barrels of gasoline should be arriving. It's the first of four or five additional ships that we have sent to help to palliate the (inaudible) and put the breaks on the (inaudible). That's what we're doing. (inaudible) You hit me on one cheek, and I'll try to respond by helping you. I don't care. We're not doing this for the administration. We're doing it for the people of the United States. So that's how I respond.

We have no plans to alter in any way the supply of oil to the United States.

Furthermore, I would say that Venezuela has the chief, most important oil reserves in the world. Do you know how much oil is left in the United States reserve? Barely 20 billion barrels, with 20 million barrels a day being consumed.

Venezuela has 300 billion barrels for the reserve. We have the second-most important reserve of gas in this continent of the United States or in the world.

Now we want to share that oil and that gas with the United States, but also with the Caribbean, but also with China and also with India and also with Argentina and Brazil.

Now we are (inaudible) in the Orinoco River. I hope you could visit the Orinoco and do a special program on oil, because what I must confirm is that we offer the United States every guarantee for oil supply for 150 (ph) years more, when both of us will be pushing up daisies.

KOPPEL: Mr. President, on that happy note, let me thank you. You've been most generous with your time and it's been a pleasure talking to you.

Thank you very much indeed.

CHAVEZ (through translator): Let me thank you.

I would like to greet you, and I hope you can come to Venezuela. Let me invite you and let us greet the entire people of the United States.

Tomorrow I'm going to take a walk through some of the neighborhoods of New York. We're going to a church to see Jesse Jackson (inaudible). And then I'm going to play a baseball game on the field with some Yankees (ph).

We love the people of the United States, and our desire is to have a world of brothers in peace. God grant that that be the case.

Thank you.

KOPPEL: Thank you, sir.

END

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=46002