Venezuela Seeks to Cut Oil Output (NYT)

[ny_liberal]

HOUSTON, May 29 — When President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela wraps up this week's meeting of OPEC's 11 members in Caracas with an excursion for delegates to Canaima National Park, the location of the world's tallest waterfall, it will be another chance to remind energy markets of his influence in helping drive oil prices above $70 a barrel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/business/worldbusiness/30opec.html

[1932]

1. Yet, it has been reported that Chavez wants oil at $50pb.

Do New York Times reporters read the news or what???

by Meirion Jones - BBC Online

In an interview with BBC Newsnight's Greg Palast, Mr Chavez - who is due to host the Opec meeting on 1 June in Caracas - said he would ask the oil cartel to set $50 a barrel as the long term level.
During the 1990s the price of oil had hovered around the $20 mark falling as low as $10 a barrel in early 1999.

"We're trying to find an equilibrium. The price of oil could remain at the low level of $50. That's a fair price it's not a high price," Mr Chavez said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4871938.stm

[NobleCynic]

5. Perhaps that statement

should be taken with a grain of salt. Of course he'll say he wants oil to be cheaper. He may or may not believe that, but no one in his position would say otherwise. Talk is cheap. It costs Chavez nothing to say that.

[1932]

9. Give me a break. Why should we trust a totally unsubstantiated claim

printed in the New York Times more than Chavez's actual words???

Read the Times article again and tell me where in it is there any evidence that that claim is anything more than the reporter's opinon?

And why should you trust Chavez's actual words? Because there's a precedent Venezuela has cited that proves why they aren't lying. Venezuela believes that it will benefit more from low, fair prices that result in its regional neighbors being able to develop economically and they cite the gas crisis in the early 70s as the worst possible scenario for them. High prices in the 70s put lots of latin american countries in so much debt that they saw their regional autonomy disappear, the saw Wall Street lenders and the world bank take over economies and they set the clock back on the growth of middle class nations by 50 years. Watch the documentary Life and Debt if you don't get it. Venezuela doesnt' benefit from huge disruptive swings in gas prices. They benefit from unchaotic, fair prices that don't kill the economies of their neighbors.

[NobleCynic]

15. All I'm saying is that

if you look at the scenario from a gamesmanship perspective, given a leader that wants lower gas prices and one that doesn't, both will say they want lower gas prices. Chavez's own words mean nothing. As for the "precedent" you cite, that is assuming Chavez cares for the well being of other Latin American countries, as higher gas prices definitely benefit Venezuela. I'm not saying he doesn't care for Latin America as a whole. I'm just saying there is no way to know whether or not he does. As a true gamesman would desire that appearance regardless of actual intentions, so to believe anything he says at face value is foolish.

[radwriter0555]

17. Chavez' actions speak louder than words. He is an ethical man and

how can you say his words mean nothing? He's not a republican, he's a SOCIALIST. He has always put the needs of his people above profit.

To believe the lies of corrupt US republicans and their pandering corrupted MSM is foolish. Hugo Chavez has done NOTHING to be distrusted, ever, in any way, shape or form.

Chavez is perhaps one of the best and brightest leaders in the world today... one of the best to be seen in many decades really.

[NobleCynic]

23. There are two basic issues with your comment

First, how does being a socialist equate to being honest?

Second, as you responding to my original question, where is evidence that Chavez not just believes that it is morally imperative to lower the price of oil, but is also taking action to that effect? And if it impossible for Chavez to take that action or he is choosing not to, is that not in essence proving my statement that this Chavez claiming so is just political grandstanding?

[radwriter0555]

27. Because Chavez IS a socialist, a man for the people. That is the essence

of who he is and how his actions as a state leader have defined him. He has done nothing corrupt, criminal or non-socialist. His record is clean and untainted. His record of socialist advances for his nation is very evident and outstanding... he's a model state leader on all accounts. His endeavors are about his people and South America, and (do ya hear history repeating itself?) protecting its people and its natural resources from capitalist profiteers.

Chavez has long held the belief that $50 a barrel price for the VN oil and the rest of the oil in South America is in the best interests of South America. His Orinoco oil is the best heavy crude -- and the largest reserve -- on the planet, controlling 90% of the world's supply. This is bad news for the middle east, especially since they've cut off the cheap oil out of Iraq. A $50-a-barrel lock-in would open the way for Venezuela, already the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, to demand a huge increase in its official oil reserves - allowing it to demand a big increase in its production allowance within Opec.

This $50 price will further economically stabilize the region and enable it to stave off attacks and invasion by the PNAC lead US military . You have to realize the US no longer has a foothold in South American politics even as it has 2000 US troops on gunboats off the coast of South American, even as we speak. While the profiteers like the enslavement and crippling effects of NAFTA, it's only further impoverishing nations, and as always, a few profit while the rest suffer. The supporters of Chavez and his cooperative oppose NAFTA... this isn't making US capitalists and profiteers terribly happy.

The current international model of consumption and trade when it comes to oil is no longer valid and is in fact for the long term, destructive to many countries. The clarity of the impact of this destructive model is what forced Venezuela to shape a strategy based on cooperation and solidarity toward its neighbors through the creation of initiatives like PETROCARIBE and PETROSUR.

These initiatives go beyond securing the crude supply to cover the development of infrastructures such as storage facilities, refinery expansion and terminals. Venezuela is the biggest reserve holder of oil and gas in the Western Hemisphere, with 316 billion barrels of crude oil reserves and 150 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, which by any form of calculation is the cornerstone to guarantee the energy security of the hemisphere. This is what the bush regime oil cos fear the most... the inability to have a major stakehold in the world oil supply as the middle east supplies rapidly diminish.

Chavez and Hussein have a lot in common since they're using their plentiful, top quality cheap state owned oil as a political weapon. However, Chavez is not quite being portrayed as a tyrant, mass murderer, etc. You can expect that to happen shortly however. It's worked for the PNAC in the past. I expect in a few months we could well see a variety of stories floating up from SA and VN about Chavez and prison camps, terrorist attacks, rebel bombing, etc... all US efforts to destabilize the Chavez government and cooperative.

Chavez is a staunch opponent of NAFTA, a stand which gives him horns in the eyes of the GOP/USA. His alliance with Castro further casts him in a thoroughly demonized light to anyone who doesn't identify with the capitalist mentality. The bush regime and the PNAC prefer their state leaders to be little roll over puppets like Tony Blair and the Polish prime minister. Chavez is decidedly not a roll over republican whore, that's for sure.

[1932]

24. I'm sorry. Chavez has said that he wants oil at a lower price

and he has explained why. There's an historical precedent explaining why developing countries don't want oil at super-high prices (and you can learn about it if you watch the documentary Life & Debt).

If you want to believe the unsubstantiated channelling (ie, fiction) printed in the New York Times, then I don't know what more we can say to each other.

[NobleCynic]

25. One last note

I never claimed the NY Times is an accurate all-knowing source of wisdom. I never used the Times article as a reference. I am simply relying on Occam's razor. Doubting your source is not the same as believing the Times.

More over, I've seen Life and Debt, and I would like to know how that movie pertains to OIL EXPORTING COUNTRIES. Jamaica was hurt by rising oil prices because they do not produce oil. They import it. Yes, high oil prices hurt developing countries without access to internal energy resources. No, they do not necessarily do the same to energy rich developing countries. Don't throw around references like that hoping people don't know the material. World Bank and IMF failures are not the topic of this thread.

[1932]

26. I really shouldn't persist with this.

However, Venezuela sees its future as a member of a economically developed region. They've tried the expirement where they live among poor nations selling one expensive product to the west, and it did nothing for their economy and the people. It fed a polarization of power that resulted in an extremely undemocratic society. Read Amartya Sen. His model of development is they one they're chosing to embrace.

You should do a little research. Venezuela's government has made these points repeatedly. Just because the Times ignores it doesn't give everyone the license to ignore reality.

And reread your post. Three times you say the less you know the more you know. You prefer Occam's razor to the facts. You don't know the argument in Life & Debt (and you don't want to engage it) and then you demand to leave the IMF out of the equation.

OK. You can chose to uninformed. That's your right. But once again, I'm so curious why the people who insist on having the least informed opinion feel the need to be the most forceful in expressing that uninformed opinon.

[Deja Q]

11. Interesting flip-flop.

Is Chavez trying to hasten the destruction of the world economy? America's is tied with the rest of the world's... (I also regret a comment I made a few months back, supporting him. Not just because I made it in error too. :) )

:tinfoilhat: :popcorn:

[1932]

13. I think NYT is lying. No flip flop.

the times article cites no facts to support their claim. they'll fool a lot of fools. i'm sure.

[dweller]

2. and how exactly is Hugo C. driving prices above $70 barrel?

since i understand it's the futures market doing that?

dp

[ny_liberal]

3. By cutting production

Read the article. They have production stats.

[1932]

4. Chavez himself said that he would like oil to be at $50 per barrel and

nothing in that article makes it seem like the author's channeling (or whatever he's basing his claim on) is more reliable that Chavez's actual statements about his intentions which he made to the BBC recently.

[dweller]

30. and this is bad according to whom?

"Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia
and the OPEC cartel. "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1317250#1319270

appears to be a standard operating procedure.
dp

[radwriter0555]

29. He isn't. He has maintained for a couple years now that $50 pb is the

target price.

[cliss]

6. Here we go.....

(putting on seat belt, pulling it tight....)

The Bush administration is struggling as it is. When gas prices go up, Bush's ratings go down by exactly the same amount. If Chavez cuts oil production, you can bet gas prices will go up to $80.00/barrel, maybe even higher.

This could push this country closer to a recession.

The oil producing countries LOVE it when the price goes up. They would like nothing more. It serves 2 purposes: it brings in loads and loads of cash....wheelbarrels full.

It makes people hate Bush even more than before. 2 birds with one stone. Plus, Chavez & Ahjadinejad get to show the world who is really holding all the cards....

(hint = it ain't Bush)

[tritsofme]

8. Oil producing nations want the price to be high, but not too high.

Because if very high prices cause a recession, it would decrease demand, and that means less profit for them.

The decrease in demand will also put downward pressure on prices, hurting them once again.

[1932]

10. Read the BBC article in post #1 in which Chavez says he wants $20 lower

price on gas.

And the reason is exactly the one cited in the other post repying to your post.

[Selatius]

7. The biggest cause of 70+ price right now is fear of war with Iran

If you factored out the fear, you could easily shave 10 dollars off the price of a barrel of oil. People are willing to pay that much for oil because if Bush launches a bombing campaign or finds justification for launching a bombing campaign, that same barrel of oil could cost 100 dollars or more by the end of the first day of war.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Gosh I don't remember Venezuela seeking to cut oil output when...

...Bill Clinton was president. But with Bush and the Republicans running the show things must be different? I hope the voters notice the difference in November.

Don

[NNN0LHI]

14. kick

[Scoody Boo]

16. Chavez's oil is not worth $70 a barrel.

His high sulpher content oil sells at $18-$20 off of the market price.

Chavez really needs to look more to Noriega if plans to be a political strong man than to Castro. See what history tells him.

He could have paratroopers dropping into his backyard in the dark of night at anytime.

[NNN0LHI]

18. Or mercenaries. Bush likes using them

They don't show up on the body counts so when one of them gets aired out it doesn't hurt his poll numbers at all.

Don

[Scoody Boo]

19. Not enough mercenaries.

Probably about 10,000-12,000 paratroopers. A few thousand more support personel and infantry. Air support. The US would be mopping up by morning, just like Panama.

I was part of Operation Just Cause in Panama. Even the cream of Noriega's so called elite forces were either cut down like wheat or just deserted. I remember finding Pamamanian uniforms just thrown on the ground in people's back yards where laundry was hanging out to dry. The Panamanian soldiers were stealing civilian clothes to hide from us.

Chavez's forces would fare no better. There are Latin American "elite forces" and then there are US Army Paratroopers and Rangers. No comparison. No comparison at all.

[NNN0LHI]

20. That was before the Iraqis showed the world how successful IEDs are

Don't think other counties haven't been paying close attention to what is transpiring in Iraq right now. No matter where our military goes from here on out it will be IED city.

Don

[Scoody Boo]

21. There is a difference...

Venezuelans will not blow up their own. The insurgents hate us enough to blow up their own kids, women and neighbors. They have been raised with Islam and jihad as one of the pinnacles of their existence. They have lived their whole lives under a religious system.

Venezuealans on the other hand, do not love Chavez enough to kill their own for him. It will be much more like Panama than you can imagine. Plus it will be overwith quick. There will not have to be the complete destruction of infrastructure, a democracy is already in place, and we have learned lessons in Iraq about handing over power.

[NNN0LHI]

22. Yes they will throw flowers at the invaders and dance in the streets n/t

[Scoody Boo]

28. The Panamanians did not do that either...

they just took it in stride. As would Venezuela.