Big
Oil And Big Media V. Hugo Chavez
By Stephen Lendman
29 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org
On
June 27, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal vied for attention
with feature stories on oil giants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips "walking
away from their multi-billion-dollar investments in Venezuela"
as the Journal put it or standing "Defiant in Venezuela" as
the Times headlined. Both papers can barely contain their displeasure
over Hugo Chavez wanting Venezuela to have majority ownership of its
own assets and no longer let Big (foreign) Oil investors plunder them.
Those days are over. State oil company PDVSA is now majority shareholder
with a 78% interest in four Orinoco joint ventures. That's up from previous
stakes of from 30 to 49.9%. That's how it should be, but it can't stop
the Journal and Times from whining about it.
What ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips
reject, oil giants Chevron, BP PLC, Total SA and Statoil ASA agreed
to. They're willing to accept less of a huge profit they'll get by staying
instead of none at all by pouting and walking away as their US counterparts
did. Or did they? The Wall Street Journal reports "Conoco isn't
throwing in the towel in Venezuela yet. By not signing a deal, the Houston
company kept open the option of pursuing compensation through arbitration."
Exxon, however, is mum on that option for now. Responding to Energy
Minister Rafael Ramirez saying the two oil giants will lose their stakes
in the Orinoco oil fields altogether, a company spokesperson expressed
"disappoint(ment) that we have been unable to reach an agreement
on the terms for migration to a mixed enterprise structure (but will)
continue discussions with the Venezuelan government on a way forward."
So what's likely ahead as
most Big Oil giants agree to Venezuela's terms while two outliers haven't
yet but may in the end do so. The country's oil reserves are too lucrative
to walk away from, especially with Russia now pressuring foreign investors
the same way. It also wants majority stakes in its own resources with
its giant oil and gas company Gazprom in control. It has a monopoly
over the country's Sakhalin gas field exports and has taken over two
of the largest energy projects in eastern Russia.
If these actions by Venezuela
and Russia succeed as is likely, they may influence other oil producing
nations to follow a similar course and pursue plans for larger stakes
in their own resources as well. Why not? They own them and even with
less ownership interests, Big Oil will still earn huge profits from
their foreign investments. They just won't be quite as huge as they
once were with one-sided deals benefitting them most. So the end of
this story may not be its end according to Michael Goldbert, head of
the international dispute resolution group at Baker Botts, an influential
law firm representing major international oil companies. He said he
didn't think the June 26 actions were "necessarily the end of the
story (adding) The prospects of a deal are never over until a sale is
made or an arbitrator reaches a decision."
The investments are large
ranging from $2.5 - $4.5 billion for Conoco and $800 million for Exxon
if Venezuela assumes ownership of its heavy oil projects. Conoco explained
"Although the company is hopeful that the negotiations will be
successful, it has preserved all legal rights, including international
arbitration." Exxon also expressed its hope an agreement could
be reached permitting it to continue operating in an ownership role.
It looks like Conoco and
Exxon want one foot in and the other outside Venezuela to keep its interests
in the country alive. It also looks like they're playing games and letting
the Wall Street Journal and New York Times do their moaning about what
they ought to be grateful for - the right to invest and earn huge profits
the way other Big Oil investors are opting to do. Despite their June
26 decisions, Exxon and Conoco may, in the end, make the same choice.
If they don't, the stakes they relinquish will shift to other producers
according to James Cordier, president of Liberty Trading Group in Tampa,
Florida. He said production won't halt, and "Before everyone walks
out, a deal will be struck and production there will continue."
Caracas-based petroleum economist Mazhar al-Shereidah agrees saying
"Venezuela is now free to find other partners (and) this doesn't
constitute a dramatic situation." There are plenty of capable and
willing takers around.
Conoco and Exxon may in the
end accept less of a good investment, stop whining about it, and continue
operating in Venezuela. Why not? The country is more open than many
other oil-producing nations with much of their world's proved reserves
controlled by state monopolies barring private investment. Venezuela
barred them from 1975 - 1992 when the nation's energy sector was completely
nationalized. That changed with a series of partial privatizations in
the 1990s, and Chavez said he has no plans to reinstitute a complete
oil industry nationalization. Private investors can thus remain in the
country and continue earning huge profits doing so. Conoco and Exxon
may decide after all to share in them.
Venezuelan V. Iraqi Oil Policies
- A Study in Contrasts
High-level US officials from
the administration, Congress and Pentagon are pressuring the puppet
Iraqi parliament to pass its new "Hydrocarbon Law" drafted
in Washington and by Big US and UK oil companies. Its provisions are
in stark contrast to Venezuela's oil management policies under Hugo
Chavez. For Chavez, his nation and peoples' interests come first. In
Iraq, however, Big Oil licensed plunder will become law if the parliament
agrees to accept what its occupier and corporate interests demand. At
this stage, it's nearly certain it will clearing the way for stealing
part of what a US state department spokesperson in 1945 called "a
stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material
prizes in world history" - the vast (mostly Saudi) Middle East
oil reserves.
In Venezuela, the nation
and its people will benefit most from the country's oil wealth. In Iraq,
their resources are earmarked mostly for Big US and UK Oil. The new
"Hydrocarbon Law" is a shameless act of theft on the grandest
of scale. It's a privatization blueprint for plunder giving foreign
investors a bonanza of resources, leaving Iraqis a mere sliver for themselves.
As now written, its complex provisions give the Iraqi National Oil Company
exclusive control of just 17 of the country's 80 known oil fields with
all yet-to-be-discovered deposits set aside for foreign investors.
Even worse, Big Oil is free
to expropriate all earnings with no obligation to invest anything in
Iraq's economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire local workers, respect
union rights, or share new technologies. Foreign investors will be granted
long-term contracts up to 30 or more years, dispossessing Iraq and its
people of their own resources in a naked scheme to steal them.
The Wall Street Journal,
New York Times and rest of the dominant US media shamelessly denounce
Hugo Chavez for his courage and honor doing the right thing. In contrast,
their silence, and effective complicity, on what will be one of the
greatest ever corporate crimes when implemented shows their gross hypocrisy.
It'll be up to the people of Iraq to resist and reclaim what Venezuelan
people already have from its social democratic leader serving their
interests above all others.
Stephen Lendman
lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site
at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information
Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.