<a href=www.spokanejournal.com>spokanejournal.comBy  Addy Hatch

Hecla Mining Co.’s Central and South American mining properties continue to light the way for the Coeur d’Alene-based company’s financial rebound.

Hecla says its San Sebastian property in Mexico, for example, was its “star performer” in its first quarter, producing a record 1 million troy ounces of silver at an average total cash cost of minus 7 cents an ounce. In essence, Hecla was “mining the silver for free” at San Sebastian in the first quarter, says Vicki Veltkamp, the company’s vice president of investor and public relations.

How is that possible? Veltkamp explains that Hecla produces gold as a byproduct of its silver-mining operation at San Sebastian, so whatever money the company makes on the gold mined there offsets its cash cost of producing silver. In the first quarter, the price of gold rose, plus Hecla produced a record amount of gold at San Sebastian—12,000 ounces—resulting in a “phenomenally low” production cost for that property.

For all of 2002, San Sebastian produced 3.4 million ounces of silver and nearly 42,000 ounces of gold. The average total cash cost of silver production there was $1.09 an ounce for the year—far below the commodity’s average market price last year of $4.63 an ounce.

If San Sebastian is Hecla’s current star, the company’s Venezuelan mine, La Camorra, is its talented understudy.

La Camorra was Hecla’s primary gold producer in 2002, yielding more than 167,000 ounces of gold at an average cash cost of $137 per ounce, the company’s annual report says.

“We expect La Camorra to continue to be one of Hecla’s largest revenue producers in the future,” the report says, noting that the mine was responsible for 47 percent of the company’s 2002 revenues.

That will make the Venezuelan property increasingly more important to Hecla as the company seeks to fulfill a goal of doubling its gold production within the next five years. Hecla controls nine other exploration concessions near La Camorra, plus another property, which it calls Block B, in the Venezuelan state of Bolivar. The company expects to begin developing a mining ramp at Block B before the end of the year.

Posted on Thu, May. 08, 2003 FABIOLA SANCHEZ ForthWayne.com-Associated Press

CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez's supporters said Thursday that they would agree to a referendum on Chavez's rule if his political opponents would also face recall votes.

Government delegates last month backed out of a deal setting up a plebiscite this year on President Chavez's rule.

Representatives from Chavez's government and opposition officials met with envoys from Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Portugal, Spain and the United States Thursday as the six nations attempted to restart talks.

Chavez's opponents, who led a two-month failed strike this winter to force Chavez's ouster, want to end his presidency with a referendum.

They say the constitution allows for a referendum on Chavez's rule halfway through a president's six-year-term - in Chavez's case, in August.

On Thursday, government representative Aristobulo Isturiz said any referendum on Chavez should also allow Venezuelans to vote on opposition politicians.

"How can we talk about a referendum for the president and ignore the requests for referendums on governors, mayors and congressmen?" Isturiz said. "We have to talk about referendums in the plural."

Chavez supporters have requested recall referendums to remove elected officials from office. All those officials have already reached the midpoint of their terms.

There was no immediate comment from opposition leaders on Isturiz's proposal.

Venezuela has been riven with political violence in the past 13 months. Dozens of supporters from each side have been killed and hundreds of others wounded in street marches and rallies over the past 13 months.

Venezuela's opposition blames Chavez's left-leaning policies for the country's deepening economic crisis and accuses the former paratrooper of riding roughshod over the democracy.

Chavez blames the two-month strike for the economic downturn. The strike was called to force his ouster, but was unsuccessful.

Posted on Thu, May. 08, 2003 H. JOSEF HEBERT Ledger Enquirer.com-Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, just back from a trip to the Persian Gulf, says a major expansion of Iraqi oil production beyond prewar levels will be impossible for years because of the condition of the country's oil industry.

While Iraqi oil exports could reach prewar levels of 1.5 million to 2 million barrels a day "within a reasonable time," expectations much beyond that are unrealistic given the damage and other shortcomings of Iraq's oil infrastructure, Abraham said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Abraham, who during his trip last week met with the oil ministers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, said he sensed little if any anxiety among Persian Gulf producers about future Iraqi oil production. He said they recognize Iraq's production limitations and expect the country to remain in the OPEC oil cartel.

Some energy analysts, as well as some within the Iraqi exile community, have expressed hope that Iraqi exports, which have never been higher than about 3 million barrels a day, could reach 4 million to 6 million barrels a day in the near future and bring in more money to help reconstruction.

But analysts have said such an expansion also could raise concern among other producers, including Saudi Arabia, that it might drive down prices and disrupt OPEC oil marketing strategies to keep prices around $25 a barrel.

Abraham said production much beyond Iraq's prewar 2 million barrel-a-day level would require major capital investments and take years to complete.

"Speculation about massive increases in production in the near or reasonably near future is completely exaggerated," he said, adding that "the capabilities for that kind of production just doesn't exist."

Abraham, echoing other administration officials, emphasized that future decisions on Iraqi oil policy, including whether to remain in OPEC, would be up to the Iraqis. Whatever their decision, a stable government in Iraq will "alleviate at least some of the concern" about future oil supply disruptions in the region and benefit all consuming nations, not only the United States, said Abraham.

Abraham said an intense campaign of "quiet diplomacy" led to early assurances that Saudi Arabia and other oil producers would boost production and stabilize markets once war erupted in Iraq.

Abraham cited the relatively calm response of oil markets to the war in Iraq, compared to the volatile price spikes and supply disruptions that accompanied turmoil in the region and the Iranian revolution in the 1970s.

"It turned out pretty well," said Abraham during the hourlong interview in his office.

"If somebody had said that this limited dislocation would occur (with a war in the Middle East) and that you wouldn't have to tap the strategic (U.S. oil) reserve ... I don't think many people would have taken the bet," he said.

In the months leading up to the war, said Abraham, he and other administration officials had "many conversations" with OPEC producers and others in search of commitments to replace oil lost from Iraq. He declined to go into details.

The OPEC producers announced early on that they would boost production to replace oil lost because of Venezuela's political strife and gave assurances that Iraqi oil also would be replaced if war erupted. In the months leading up to the war, Saudi Arabia, which had the largest amount of excess capacity, pumped 9.5 million barrels a day - 1.5 million barrels above its OPEC quota - and built up substantial stocks.

While oil prices increased before the war to nearly $40 a barrel because of uncertainty about the ability to protect the region's oil fields, prices quickly dropped once it became clear the war would be short, the Iraqi fields were protected and plenty of oil stocks were available.

Reuters, 05.08.03, 6:12 PM ET By Manuel Jimenez

SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic (Reuters) Venezuela has held back deliveries of three tankers of oil to the Dominican Republic, officials said Thursday, but no reason was made public in the Caribbean nation.

Some sources in Dominican President Hipolito Mejia's government speculated however that the move could be a protest by Caracas at the granting of asylum last month by the Dominican authorities to two military officers opposed to Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez.

Amaury Justo Duarte, president of the Dominican Oil Refinery, REFIDOMSA, confirmed to Reuters the sailing of the tankers had been halted, but added he did not know the reason.

"I cannot say that this decision was caused by political reasons," Justo Duarte said in a telephone interview. "We found out on Wednesday that the vessels had not been authorized to leave, but we do not know the reason for the decision."

Other Dominican government sources said the reason was not financial, adding the country was up-to-date on payments.

Justo Duarte did not give a figure for how much oil was to be brought in on the three tankers but said it was not a large quantity. He added the move by Venezuela would have no impact on local fuel supplies, as the refinery had been obtaining crude and derivatives on the spot market.

The two Venezuelan army captains sought asylum in the Dominican Embassy April 24. The Dominican Foreign Ministry said a week later the government had decided to grant asylum to brothers Alfredo and Ricardo Salazar Bohorquez.

Both said they were politically persecuted by Chavez's government, which survived a brief coup a year ago and is locked in a bitter battle with opponents that included a crippling two-month strike that lasted until February.

The Dominican Republic has asked Venezuela to quickly grant passage to the two men to travel to the Dominican Republic. Justo Duarte said the Dominican Republic took delivery three weeks ago of the first tanker -- of 650,000 barrels of crude and liquid petroleum gas -- from Venezuela since a halt in deliveries last December amid the strike.

.e-thepeople.org

First, I should state that I supported the war against Iraq. I am a unique creature--a Democrat with a neo-conservative foreign policy.

This neo-conservative foreign policy is based upon the notion that since we are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, we should use the overwhelming strength and superiorty of the our military in a preventive and preemptive way.

I was generally accepting of this notion, until I read an article in which the author explore the possible consequences of such action.

If we become the world's policemen or, as the author puts it...the world's guarantors, then no other nation, or its people, will take action in situations for which they are responsible.

For example, by guaranteeing the security of Israel, it ensures that no Israeli government will make a territorial settlement with the Palestinians. Therefore there will be no peace in the Middle East. I am as supportive of Israel as anyone, and even I recognize that Israel will have to make some concessions in order for there to be peace.

By supporting the Mubarak regime in Egypt of the Fayd kingdom in Saudi Arabia, the US removes the pressure for democratization. With an external power guaranteeing stability, the people of Egypt and Saudi Arabia will never revolt or at least take part in democratic reform. Terrorism against America is easier, because we ultimately are at fault for their predicament. I know that some will state that without these regimes in Egypt and SA, these countries will become theocracies like Iran. Well, as least then we will know where they stand. Right now, we are allies with Saudi Arabia even though their people hate and kill us at every opportunity. So, how about this?

What if we just allowed history to take its course, without American Intervention?

What if, in the past, we let Vietname go communist without losing 50,000 Americans to achieve the same result. What if we let Europe deal with Yugoslavia in the 1990's.

Let the Iranian people deal with the Ayatollahs until they finally revolt.

Let Mubarak and King Fayd fall to the Islamists. Let Victor Chavez take on Venezuela's capitalists and landowners.

Let these countries and their people take responsibility for and control of their own destiny, free to make their own revolutions, and fumble toward liberal democracy of their own accord. At least then, they would have no one to blame but themselves and their government. The point is they would not blame the United States.

The US rails against the irresponsibility of the European and Asian powers for their failure to manage even their own backyards, and despises the anger of the Arab masses at America. However, our foreign policy is responsible for such failure and anger. With the best of intentions, the US encourages the very behavior it works against. The more we dominate and intervene, the more terrorists created, the more unsupportive fellow allies and enemies become.

Therefore, now is the perfect time for the United States to withdraw from the Korean peninsula. To withdraw from the Middle East after we have restored order in Iraq.

The prospect of an American imperium is on people's minds. Having demonstrated its power in Iraq, the US can abdicate without revealing weakness. Finally we can worry about ourselves, and we can let the world survive on its own for awhile with no America to blame. Soon they will be begging for us to help them, and soon they will all love America again.

"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it."- Mark Twain