S. America Goes Nationalist With Oil, Gas

[FVZA_Colonel]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051013/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_nationalism


By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON, AP Business Writer
Thu Oct 13, 3:56 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela - Protesters in Ecuador have dynamited oil pipelines, a Bolivian presidential candidate says he wants to seize private gas fields, and Venezuela is threatening to kick out any foreign oil companies that won't submit to more state control.

For international oil companies like BP PLC and Exxon Mobil Corp. and their customers, who used to look to South America for stable supplies, this powerful wave of nationalist sentiment comes at a particularly bad time.

Tight supplies worldwide already have driven oil prices close to record highs, and while the nationalist swing is unlikely to further escalate prices unless it curtails oil production or exports, it's heightening risk in a region that once was willing to offer much more to attract foreign investment, experts say.

Some warn that such changes could land governments in a tight spot if oil prices fall, investment has been compromised, and there's less to meet the inflated expectations of poorer citizens who have been promised more benefits.

[Judi Lynn]

1. The last posted sentence is a scream. Some real liberties are being taken

with the truth there, to generate support for _Bush's administration's taking an even more hostile attitude toward Latin America, or at least the countries he can't dominate any longer.

The oil companies will get along just fine with Venezuela, when they start paying their taxes, and having a little respect for the countries they are using.

The genius reporter wants the readers to get really steamed about any new leaders in Latin America who are looking out for their people's interests, the same people who've always been stomped on by previous US-backed & bought right-wing Latin American Presidents.

American oil companies are always just fine with juntas, coups, death squads, etc., etc. as they get very generous treatment from right-wing puppets.

Now it appears AP and other news/propaganda sources are claiming that soaring oil prices will mean that "there's less to meet the inflated expectations of poorer citizens who have been promised more benefits." Awwww, isn't that a shame?

_Bush has been put in the uncomfortable position of apparently having, as a true "patriot," to overthrow, maybe murder Hugo Chavez in order to pay out social security, etc. to all those little poor old men and women we know he doesn't give a flying #### about. (You remember his university professor has stated that _Bush crabbed to him in class that the poor are simply lazy.)

Oh, sure. Just keep lying to us, AP, why not? We're so lucky to read the propaganda blast day after day. Did these people EVER have consciences?

[Bacchus39]

8. no, read the article again

it says they might not be able to meet the people's expectations if oil prices FALL. I don't see that happening though.

[foflappy]

2. Wait and see

I am still open to the idea of Nationalization or partial nationalization of natural resources but I am waiting to see if it works out for "the people".

It is hard to find a success story.... isn't it?

[LatinoSocialist]

3. note to self: it's nationalist to want to use your resources

for the good of your own people, as opposed to production for export to the already rich countries.

Thanks...got the memo! :sarcasm:

[foflappy]

4. I think the question is

whether or not you want to have the state run all facets of production, set prices manage the business or do you want a "fair" deal from a third party that will benifit the people not a few polititians.

What assurances are there that the value added of a natural resourse is used for the good of the people?

What models have worked the best?

[LatinoSocialist]

6. Venezuela has increasingly

taken over production, and efficiency hasn't faltered. The boogeyman of market myths hasn't happened.

Besides, if it's between Shell taking huge profits, and running it, or the government making less profits, but taking in more revenue from its ownership, I'd rather go with plan B.

""We're looking at a transitory period in which things are a little bit tense, but if we get through this, we'll be in a much better place. I believe there is a role for private oil companies here, and that the government believes there is a role for us here," said Sean Rooney, president of Shell Venezuela."

Looks like the big multinationals don't have a major problem paying more of a fair share.

Besides, one has to look at this from a historical perspective. For a century, the U.S. has done whatever it wants in South America without opposition, and without recompensing the people of South America fairly. They're not taking charge, and we're supposed to be wary of that? It's about time, is what I say. I mean, look at this...this is outrageous:

"Ecuadorean President Alfredo Palacio later announced all contracts with private oil firms would be revised to ensure the government at least 50 percent of oil profits, up from 20 percent."

20 percent? The oil of a nation gets that nation 20 percent of its profits, while some tentacled-multinational takes 80%? 50/50 sounds fair to me, as opposed to 80/20.

[foflappy]

7. Plan B would be a nice model for all nations with

the caveat that the money gets used for the general welfare of the people not an elite few....Leaders should set the example where children starve while the leaders live in luxury that is a sign that there is a problem. I think , probably without exception, that you will find this disparity all over the world.

Of course there is a benefit to private interest risking capital in a commodity market...

[LatinoSocialist]

13. so far,

all the evidence points to improving living standards for Venezuelans, and an outpouring of support for Chavez on the part of the Venezuelan poor. I'd guess that Chavez is meeting your "caveat".

[oneighty]

9. Might I suggest

the 'Alaska Permanent Fund' as a type of 'nationalization oil resources.

The fund supplies an oil dividend to every qualified resident of Alaska every year. Kinda neat, huh?

Because the 'nationalization' works well in Alaska I bet it would work in the lower 48 and Hawaii.

180

[foflappy]

10. The problem with that model

Is that it would be applied unevenly throughout the states as there is unequal distribution of natural resources.

[oneighty]

12. No

The states are homogenized and we all share equally in the natural resources given to us by the Christian God. (Doncha know)

An idea long overdue.

Of course it has the flavor of socialism for which the Republican/Conservatives of Alaska have acquired a taste as it keeps them in power.

180

[LatinoSocialist]

14. good point

It's funny how even the most rabidly "market will solve everything" types cannot argue about the utility of well-managed government funds.

[Say_What]

5. South America reclaiming their own resources

and it's about time.


:bounce:

[Toots]

11. How is this different than what we do in the USA?

We tax the oil companies on the oil and collect royalties on leases and pipelines. Look at Alaska for instance..

[txaslftist]

15. Pat Roberson's really gonna be mad now.

Time for another Fatwa on Chavez

[bemildred]

16. Patwah. nt

[txaslftist]

17. Phatwaugh.