washingtontimes.com February 18, 2003 Bernardo Alvarez Herrera

     The rights conferred and guaranteed to citizens in the U.S. Constitution, adopted 214 years ago, endure as some of the most empowering ever written. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Constitution has had a profound impact on the framing of laws and constitutions in countries all over the world. People want to be governed by democratically elected leaders whose power is reflected only by those rights granted to them by the people through a constitution rooted in fairness and equality. Venezuela is no exception. Just 33 months ago, the people of Venezuela ratified a bold, dynamic constitution rooted in the same values used by Madison, Monroe, Mason and others.      Despite the fact that Venezuela's constitution grants rights to her citizens that it took the United States 176 years to accomplish (with the Voting Rights Act) — and guarantees rights that might not ever be ratified in America — The Washington Times uses its own constitutional freedoms to imply that Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, "might not keep his pledge to hold a binding referendum in August." Mr. Chavez cares deeply about following (and therefore not exceeding) the wording of the constitution and has — and will continue to respect — such a referendum this August. Mr. Chavez knows a great deal about the rights and responsibilities conferred in the Venezuelan Constitution. As noted by The Times, Mr. Chavez inspired much of the document. In fact, Article 72, which allows the people of Venezuela to hold their elected officials responsible for their actions halfway through their elected term — was promoted into the constitution by Hugo Chavez. The Times' inference, made during a time of such economic turmoil in Venezuela, seems particularly unfair and irresponsible.      Government of, by, and for the people.      One of the values that truly place the United States as a shining city on the hill is the faith in and simplicity of her democracy and the peacefulness of her transference of power. America prides herself on exporting the ideals and values of democracy to countries around the world. In fact, — America spends billions of taxpayers' dollars on programs to promote democracy. So why then question the legitimacy of a democratically elected president? Mr. Chavez was first elected in 1998 and overwhelming re-elected in 2000 with 57 percent of the vote.      Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech?      The protection of those rights granted to Americans by the Bill of Rights has not been an easy road. The civil rights movement in the United States is a reflection of the length of that road. Change is not always easy — it is not expected to be. And, predictably, the freedoms exercised by a small group of people in Venezuela — the opposition's partial economic paralysis (more similar to a "lock out" in the United States) — has, no doubt, caused economic challenges.      Although the results of the opposition's "strike" can and should be placed at the feet of those organizing the opposition and participating in the strike — our constitution allows for and protects their speech.      It's like yelling "fire" in a very, very crowded theater — and getting away with it.      Can you imagine the results in America if more than a third of the U.S. revenue base was literally "turned off" over night by a group opposing the policies of the Bush administration? Can you imagine how disruptive it would be to daily life if hundreds of thousands of working men and women were "locked out" of their jobs by their employers? Can you imagine the pressures of managing a government not knowing who will help you and who will work against you? Can you imagine George Bush trying to manage the United States if CBS, NBC, ABC and all of the nation's newspapers simultaneously attacked and questioned his policies — around-the-clock for months? Those are some of the challenges Mr. Chavez has had to recently overcome. Remember how President Truman dealt with striking steel workers or President Reagan handled striking air-traffic controllers? A country must be allowed to act to protect the best interests of a majority of her people and the long-term growth of her economy. So, too, should President Chavez in dealing with lost oil revenue to Venezuela and the flight of capital during the "strike."      And, although the "strike" has been over for only a few days, our oil production is up to about 65 percent of our full capacity and normalcy has returned to our streets. We are proud of Venezuela's economic independence.      Or the press?      At the cornerstone of America's democracy is the freedom of the media to report, print, produce and broadcast what ever they want. Answering only to those consumers who purchase and use their information (and therefore not to the Government or special interests), the media in the United States has earned a hard-fought reputation for independence and fairness. That is why it is particularly disturbing to witness the uttering of false information and baseless opinions like some expressed in the Editorial to which this response is based.      For example, in your editorial it was implied that Venezuela has a paramilitary group — which "according to their leader" has "over 2 million members." The Washington Times knows — or should know — that such an armed force would be the largest in the hemisphere (almost 30 percent larger than the U.S. Army) — and know that such a statement is just not true.      The Times also accused the Chavez administration of somehow adding "instability" to the region by allowing "certain freedoms" to the guerrilla movement in Colombia. The Colombian government, the third-largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in the world, is working closely with Mr. Chavez to stop illegal drug trafficking and guerrilla operations across the more than 1,200 miles between population centers of the two countries. In fact, just this past week, the Colombian government publicly praised the Chavez administration for its commitment working for democracy and peace in the region. No one who knows much about the situation along that border has anything but praise for Mr. Chavez and Colombia's President Uribe.      While The Times readily admits Mr. Chavez is "Venezuela's native son born of tremendous frustration with the politics of privilege," the complex social and political situation should not result in misleading articles or editorials based on illogical reasoning. That's not what your Founding Fathers had in mind — or ours either.            Bernardo Alvarez Herrera is Venezuela's ambassador to the United States.

washingtontimes.com EDITORIAL • February 18, 2003

     Country by country, Latin America is boiling over. From the fatal police-military clash last week in Bolivia, to the ongoing social upheaval in Venezuela and economic calamity in Argentina, the region is showing signs of distress. Paraguay, Ecuador and Uruguay are tottering financially.      While the Bush administration has wisely made its pursuit of terrorists its first priority, the problems in Latin America have grown severe enough to merit the attention of the White House.      Last Wednesday and Thursday, 23 persons were killed and scores were injured in Bolivia after the military opened fire on a peaceful protest by striking police officers. President Gonzalo Sanchez Lozada, who won in a tightly contested election, has been severely weakened politically by the violence. In Venezuela, more than 200 people have killed or injured since spring, when a coup briefly ousted President Hugo Chavez. The country has become so polarized, that groups against and supportive of Mr. Chavez are arming themselves. That situation remains highly volatile. Argentina, meanwhile, has succumbed to full-blown economic crisis after suffering several years of recession. And on Friday, Paraguay defaulted on some of its $20 million in dollar-denominated debt, as bond holders exercised their right to cash in their bonds before they mature in 2005. Ecuador and Uruguay will have considerable trouble paying their public debt of about $11 billion each.      On Wednesday, President Bush spent 40 minutes with Ecuadorean President Lucio Gutierrez. The head of state of Ecuador, with a population of 13 million and a gross domestic product of $21 billion, ordinarily wouldn't get so much time with the leader of the world's only superpower. But Mr. Bush clearly is interested in supporting stability wherever he can in the Western hemisphere.      A week ago, the White House offered to eliminate tariffs on all imports of textiles and clothing from 34 nations in the Americas by 2010, as part of negotiations for creating a free-trade zone in the Western hemisphere by 2005. The administration also has proposed cutting tariffs on about 65 percent of U.S. imports of consumer and industrial goods from the Americas when the free-trade zone becomes a reality, and to eliminate all tariffs on these goods by 2015. Also, 56 percent of agricultural imports would enter tariff-free once the zone is established.      The Bush administration is certainly on the right track in adopting measures that will allow Latin America to develop economically in the long-term. But it also should consider granting the region more immediate tariff relief, given the scale of current economic.      While Latin America's current economic crises are certainly troublesome, the Bush administration must steer clear of such quick fixes as bailouts, which certainly could cause more problems in the long term. Those troubled nations would best be served with foreign aid that focuses on micro and small businesses — rather than large-scale public works projects, for example. The United States clearly has a stake in Latin America's present and future, as Mr. Bush seemingly is aware.

www.chron.com Feb. 17, 2003, 11:57PM By TOM COHEN Associated Press

FORT McMURRAY, Alberta -- Along the Athabasca River of remote northern Alberta is an engineer's dream: miles of gigantic projects turning once unrecoverable oil from Alberta's tar sands into black gold.

Trucks as big as houses rumble on tires 10 feet tall and shudder under 100-ton loads of oil-rich sand dropped in by towering shovels. The brown-black earth is turned into slurry, then travels by pipeline to plants where it will be refined into crude oil, diesel and other fuels and chemicals.

Such synthetic oil projects -- those involving more than conventional drilling -- often bear a stigma as high-cost, low-yield investment turkeys. The Alberta oil sands, though, have reached high-level production at a workable cost with reserves that will last decades.

And the global terrorist threat and instability associated with conventional oil sources such as the Middle East have made Canadian oil a crucial component of U.S. hopes for a secure energy supply.

"Sept. 11 was a watershed event for the oil sands," said Patrick Bryden, a research analyst for FirstEnergy Capital of Calgary who considers the Canadian resource "a strategic asset for North American oil supplies."

The U.S. domestic supply has matured, while supplies in the Middle East and former Soviet Union are tainted by uncertainty of access, Bryden noted. Political unrest has raised questions about Venezuela, a major U.S. supplier.

"When the going gets tough, the dependable oil is going to come from Canada," Bryden said.

That means the oil sands and the mega-projects that use surface mining or more technologically advanced steam-driven extraction methods to produce almost 1 million barrels of crude or refined oil each day.

Production is expected to reach 1.8 million barrels a day by 2010, with known recoverable reserves of 315 billion barrels, comparable to Saudi Arabia.

Overall, Canada produces 2.3 million barrels a day and exports 1.4 million, all to the United States, making it one of the top four suppliers of foreign oil with Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico, according to Greg Stringham, vice president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, an industry lobby group.

The Canadian oil provides 15 percent of total U.S. imports, and industry figures expect that to increase. Suncor Energy Chief Executive Rick George said the U.S. market buys 30 percent of his company's production, and that figure eventually will rise above 50 percent.

President Bush mentioned the oil sands when referring to energy policy last year, thrilling industry leaders, although he used an outdated phrase.

"Bush came out and called them the tar pits," Stringham said.

"That's fine with us, as long as he recognizes the huge size and potential there."

The tar reference comes from Canadian explorers who saw Indians sealing their canoes with the thick, black substance known as bitumen bubbling from the Athabasca River banks.

Decades of persistent but mostly futile research followed, with initial entrepreneurs trying and failing at conventional drilling in the early 20th century.

Scientists figured out as early as 1920 how to mix the black, sticky oil sand with hot water and caustic soda, then shake it up to separate the components, with the heavier sand sinking to the bottom and the bitumen rising to the top.

It took until 1967, though, for Suncor to develop the first major project, and others, including Syncrude, Exxon Mobil, Imperial and Shell, have since put up money to get huge operations going, with a boost from government incentives that helped write down the investment more quickly.

Stringham said total investment in the oil sands, which include the Athabasca River, Cold Lake and Peace River regions around Fort McMurray, 210 miles northeast of Edmonton, was $11.3 billion from 1996-2001, with another $4.6 billion on new projects under construction and at least $16.6 billion more in potential projects through 2010.

Such figures are appropriate for the oil sands, where gigantic mining and refining complexes sprawl across the formerly barren landscape, spewing plumes of steam and smoke.

To industry figures, the known reserves of the oil sands put the emphasis on technology to lower the cost of getting the oil out, rather than the exploration necessary for conventional drilling operations.

Production costs range from $7 to $11 a barrel, depending on the project, with the current oil price up above $30 a barrel.

Most production comes from the surface mining by Suncor and Syncrude, but more steam operations are planned because they can get to deeper reserves and hold down production costs.

Environmental groups call such major investment in oil technology shortsighted, prolonging the focus and dependence on an environmentally harmful industry.

Research and development money should go toward technology such as hydrogen-cell power to eliminate combustion engines, said Robert Hornung, policy director of the Pembina Institute, a nonprofit environmental research and advocacy organization.

Then there is the Kyoto Protocol, ratified by Canada in December, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

With oil sands projects expected to emit up to 20 percent of Canada's total greenhouse gases by decade's end, the Kyoto limits could mean significant costs for producers, Hornung said.

Stringham of the petroleum producers lobby group noted some planned projects are on hold because of rising costs and the Kyoto factor, including a $2.3 billion open-pit mining operation by TrueNorth Energy, a subsidiary of Koch Industries.

"There's several of them that are kind of pausing," he said, "still doing the engineering and spending the hundred million dollars, but not ready to pull the trigger on the billions needed to launch the project."

www.gopbi.com Tuesday, February 18 Palm Beach Post Editorial Tuesday, February 18, 2003

Gas prices in South Florida are up about 45 percent from a year ago, but this is only the beginning. Industry analysts warn that with war in Iraq looming and the seasonal summer increases ahead, paying $3 for a gallon of regular is a possibility.

The American Automobile Association says it has found no evidence of price gouging, but Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., isn't buying that. He has asked the Federal Trade Commission for an investigation to explain why the national per-gallon average has risen 30 cents to $1.66 in just two months, and 13 cents in the past two weeks.

Typically, industry officials use the ever-popular broken-pipelines or burning-refineries excuse when such a spike occurs. This time, however, the explanations are more political and climatological: a strike in Venezuela, a cold winter that increased home heating oil demands, and the Bush administration's preparations for the campaign in Iraq. Analysts say crude oil supplies are at a 28-year low, so the higher prices make sense, despite Sen. Schumer's proper skepticism.

The nation has about 600 million barrels in its Strategic Petroleum Reserve stored underground in Texas and Louisiana. President Bush correctly has resisted the temptation to dip into the reserve to lower prices at the pumps. The reserve was created for emergencies such as shortages. Since Saddam Hussein, if attacked, may torch Iraq's oil fields, the nation may have to use its reserves soon enough.

It is hardly surprising that the Bush administration, with many personal and political ties to the oil industry, has done little to wean the nation from its overreliance on petroleum. But it is particularly disappointing that Congress has failed to do much more. Passenger vehicles have hit a 23-year low in fuel economy because lawmakers have refused to get tough with Detroit and toughen CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) loopholes. The government's light-truck exemption on fuel efficiency allows trendy SUVs driven by commuting office workers to fall into the same generous category that was intended for farm and construction vehicles. Americans remain unapologetic gas-guzzlers whose pain at the pumps is largely self-inflicted.

Gas prices in Palm Beach County averaged $1.74 for unleaded regular Monday, a nickel above the state average. Florida tourism takes a hit when families cancel road trips. Some stations in New York, New Jersey and California already have broken the $2 mark. Never at a shortage of explanations for higher prices, the industry appears to have a larger reserve than ever this year.

www.timesdaily.com By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER Associated Press Writer February 18. 2003 4:57AM

Oil output could reach 2.8 million barrels day within a month, when restrictions on sending tankers to Venezuelan ports are lifted, the head of Venezuela's state-run oil company said Monday. Foreign shippers were warned against loading in Venezuelan ports during a two-month strike against President Hugo Chavez. The work stoppage ended on Feb. 3 in all sectors except the all-important oil industry. Ali Rodriguez, president of Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., or PDVSA, accused striking employees of scaring off shippers by telling them new, inexperienced workers at docks and loading terminals presented a risk. "Due to a publicity campaign some companies fear sending their tankers," Rodriguez told a press conference. Some major companies in the shipping and oil industry, however, have decided to return to Venezuela. Exxon Mobil Corp. plans to resume loading this week while refiner Valero Energy Corp. has chartered a tanker to load 2 million barrels of crude. In order to boost production as planned, stockpiled oil filling storage tanks, a bottleneck which leaves no space for freshly produced crude, must be exported. Once exports pick up, oil output could jump to 2.8 million barrels per day - Venezuela's quota as set by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - by mid-March, said Rodriguez. Speaking during his Sunday radio program "Hello President," Chavez said oil production has already reached 2.1 million barrels per day. However, ex-PDVSA staff claim total output stands at roughly 1.4 million barrels per day. Venezuela, the world's fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier to the United States, was producing 3.2 million barrels per day before the strike. Output fell as low as 200,000 barrels per day in December. Chavez, a former paratrooper who was elected in 1998 and re-elected in 2000 to a six-year term, is continuing efforts to regain control of PDVSA. To squeeze out dissent, Chavez has fired one-third of the company's 37,942-strong work force. He claims most of PDVSA's employees have returned to work. Strike leaders deny the claim, saying thousands refuse to return until Chavez rescinds the firings and agrees to early elections. At negotiations mediated by the Organization of American States, government representatives have rejected opposition demands that dissident PDVSA workers be allowed to return to their jobs. Using tear gas and rubber bullets, National Guardsmen dispersed dozens of protesting oil workers in western Zulia state on Monday. One protester suffered injuries when shot with rubber bullets. Dissident employees also staged an anti-Chavez street march in the capital. Chavez has balked at a proposal to hold early elections as a means of ending the nation's political stalemate. The opposition must wait for a binding recall referendum halfway through his term, or August 19, Chavez says. Meanwhile, Venezuelans continue waiting in mile-long lines outside service stations due to gasoline shortages and reduced refining capacity caused by the strike. Venezuela imported 11 million barrels of gasoline between December and January for the domestic market to deal with shortages. Another 12 million barrels of gasoline will be imported this month. Normally, Venezuela refines about 250,000 barrels of gasoline per day for domestic use. Approximately 150,000 barrels are currently being refined.