www.vheadline.com Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 By: Oliver L. Campbell

VHeadline guest commentarist Oliver L Campbell writes: Upon the nationalization of oil industry in 1976, PDVSA became one of the world’s major oil companies, but that did not make it a multi-national since it did not have subsidiaries ... mainly marketing companies ... in other countries as did the major oil companies like Exxon, Gulf and Shell. Instead PDVSA sold its oil to other oil companies and large customers such as electrical utilities.

PDVSA were initially content with this situation and had no plans to become a multi-national.  However, they soon realised they had no control over export markets and were vulnerable to competition from both the multi-nationals and other national companies. They thus decided they needed to secure some sales volumes through long-term contracts and downstream investment in foreign countries. Ideally, the companies would have refining capacity and a substantial share of the local market, for which Venezuela could supply the crude oil.

The best deal that came up was with Veba Oil, which had both refineries, and a substantial share of the German market, but no crude supplies of its own.  PDVSA proposed a joint venture under which they invested in the German refineries in exchange for the right to supply the oil for their local market requirements.  The Minister for Mines and Hydrocarbons supported the investment, but many in Congress were against the concept of investing abroad and asked PDVSA to justify the investment. The latter’s explanation that it was a defensive strategy designed to secure an outlet for Venezuelan oil failed to convince many of them.

So the first attempt to gain some control over export markets got off to a bad start.

However, the deal was approved and, presumably, gave a satisfactory result otherwise PDVSA would have terminated it.

The CITGO investment ... made on very favourable terms ... was very much larger and had the goal of securing a large volume of sales to the USA.

PDVSA has supplied CITGO with about half its crude oil requirements and, in 2001, this amounted to 281,000 barrels per day (bpd), compared with the latter’s refining capacity of 589,000 b/d.

It is interesting to note that PDVSA has an additional refining capacity of 616,000 bpd under other ventures unrelated to CITGO ... taking PDVSA’S total refining capacity in the USA (including Saint Croix) to 1,205,000 b/d.

This is a significant figure, which compares with the 1,246,000 bpd actually processed in 2001 in the Venezuelan refinery system.

Though PDVSA saw its overseas investments as a defensive strategy, rather than one to improve its sale price, it also expected that refining its crude and marketing the products in the same country would produce an added value i.e. one that gave more than the sale of the crude oil to a third party would have done.

The USA products market is a lucrative one ... so this may well be the case ... but only PDVSA can confirm it.

Even if no added value resulted, what price does one place on the security of supply?

In 2001, PDVSA exported 2,762,000 bpd of which 1,497,000 bpd (54%) went to the USA.

The 281,000 bpd sold to CITGO represents only 18.8% of the latter so, with hindsight, one can question whether that particular investment was needed to secure sales since, it seems, PDVSA managed to sell its oil in North America, Latin America and the Caribbean with no particular problem.

Conflicting statements have appeared that the government does and does not want PDVSA to sell CITGO ... the rumor is that the assets are worth in excess of US10 billion though this seems doubtful ... the question is does a sale make commercial sense?

On the face of it, there may be a case for sale if:

1. PDVSA is short of funds for new investment, and
2. the crude oil at present sold to CITGO can be sold elsewhere at the average price for such crude oils.

The answer to the first is a definite yes, and to the second a qualified yes.

Traditionally, the bulk of the profit from oil comes from the E&P (exploration and production) function, and the writer suspects that PDVSA may well find the net cash proceeds from the sale of CITGO give a better return if invested in the upstream development of existing and new oil and gas fields than if kept tied up in CITGO.

PDVSA certainly needs to evaluate the opportunity cost of the CITGO investment, taking into account the security of supply and any added value which the investment provides.

However ... even if a good case is made for selling CITGO ... it only has merit provided PDVSA keeps the proceeds for upstream investment.

• So the crucial question is would the government allow PDVSA to keep the cash?

If not, then nothing will be achieved except to endanger the goose’s ability to continue laying the golden eggs.

PDVSA must invest in order to maintain and increase its production capacity, and the country needs PDVSA to increase its income in order to restore economic growth.

One comes before the other.

Oliver L Campbell, MBA, DipM, FCCA, ACMA, MCIM  was born in El Callao in 1931 where his father worked in the gold mining industry.  He spent the WWII years in England, returning to Venezuela in 1953 to work with Shell de Venezuela (CSV), later as Finance Coordinator at Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA).  In 1982 he returned to the UK with his family and retired early in 2002.  Campbell returns frequently to Venezuela and maintains an active interest in political affairs: "I am most passionate about changing the education system so that those who are not academically inclined can have the chance to learn a useful skill ... the main goal, of course, is to allow many of the poor to get well paid jobs as artisans and technicians."  You may contact Oliver L Campbell at email: oliver@lbcampbell.com

www.vheadline.com Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 By: Robert Rudnick

Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce & Industry (Fedecamaras) vice president Albis Munoz has criticized the government for taking so long to implement its currency controls, insisting that the longer the measures are delayed the more businesses will be forced into bankruptcy. 

The Currency Administration Commission (Cadivi) had been due to publish a list of approved products the would be seen as essential in terms of dollar applications on its website this Wednesday, but so far the list has not been released.

"The people who are handling this clearly don't have the technical ability to do it," Munoz said of the Cadivi board.

"We are very worried because we've just come out of a civic strike which had already restricted inventories, and now we are experiencing a foreign exchange freeze that has lasted 45 days."

yellowtimes.org Printed on Friday, March 07, 2003 @ 02:42:18 EST   ( ) By Bill Douglas YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)

(YellowTimes.org) – "The most important question one can ask oneself is: 'Is the universe a friendly place?'" -- Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein recognized that from the answer to the question "Is the universe a friendly place?" one could extrapolate the direction of every subsequent life decision. One's entire reality would evolve from the answer to that one all-important question.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and others in the present U.S. government administration pulled strings to avoid military service in Vietnam. Why? Apparently not because they didn't oppose the red menace in Vietnam; after all, they supported others fighting that war. Therefore, the unavoidable answer to that question is cowardice. A coward sees the world as a very threatening place. Herein lies the danger to all the people of the world. When coward are in charge, they will direct the institution they lead to use all of its resources to "protect themselves from harm." This perceived harm could be economic, political, or military. And they perceive harm coming from every corner, from under every bed, and from anyone and everyone who challenges their fearful view of the world. In a coward's world, "you are either with us, or against us."

The only way the coward can feel truly and ultimately feel safe is to destroy preemptively all possible challenges to their perceived safety. They don't savor competition and challenge, but rather see it as a direct threat. They have no vision of a win-win scenario because everyone is a potential enemy of their way of life. Therefore, all programs of social uplift must be dismantled because leveling an unfair playing field in the economic realm could pose a threat to their inherited place of economic ascendance.

In the cowardly world of George W. Bush, free speech must be controlled. Public television and public radio must be de-funded because if they are not beholden to the corporate entities that share the Bush view of the world, they may allow views of the world that directly threaten Bush's safety and peace of mind. Because in a "you're either with us or against us" world, any diversity of opinion is inherently "against us." Long-time allies who express dissenting opinions are immediately suspect, and implicitly supporting the enemy.

On the political/military field, we must crush and/or make subservient every nation on earth. Only a castrated world can pose no threat to the coward. To have influence and control over the world's oil will effectively castrate much of the planet and render it a non-threat. In the coward's mind, the entire world is a very dangerous place. Divergent opinions from other nations are a threat. In fact, diversity itself is a threat.

The facade of diversity is acceptable. Black and brown faces may appear in the coward's very white world. However, those black or brown faces must walk lockstep within the mindset of that world; otherwise, they too are "against us."

This is a Brave New World that humanity is embarking upon. It requires great courage, and an inherent faith in the goodness of humanity and nature. It will require us to let go of control of our lives so that we don't destroy our ecosystem by manic attempts to reign in the forces of nature to serve our will. It will require that we trust other's goodwill to do what is right in the world without us controlling all that they do. To actually foster democracy in other lands will inherently cause us to "lose control" of the decisions those people make such as electing populists like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to lead them. It will require faith. Faith is the opposite of fear. When one has faith, one does not fear even the Valley of the Shadow of Death.

We live in a time when those who have little faith are controlling our nation. They are driving the force and will of our nation in the direction of control and conquest to allay their bottomless fears. What they cannot see is that there is no absolute safety, and, in fact, the pursuit of that absolute safety is a manic course that will only make the world more and more unsafe.

America mourned the death of 3,000 innocents on 9-11. That mourning was carefully directed into a manic rage of fear. This manic rage enables good people to justify the slaughter of untold thousands in the name of our safety. The revulsion of a world that will witness this slaughter in Technicolor broadcasts will create a very dangerous mood for America to endure.

Of course, the American media will try to protect U.S. citizens from the images of mayhem and horror that several hundred missiles unleashed upon the crowded city of Baghdad will undoubtedly cause. But the U.S. media, try as it might, will not be able to prevent the rest of the world from witnessing this horrific crime against humanity. The world will watch ... and the world will judge. And the ill will that results will provide the cowards with ample grounds to cause their citizens to fear more and more.

And the song will play on. The truth is that our fear is destroying us. Twenty thousand Americans kill themselves every year from depression. This dwarfs the 3,000 lost to terrorists. Could it be that we and our media are the most effective terrorists, terrorizing ourselves into believing that the world is not, and never will be, a friendly place? Where we will go as a nation and a world hinges on one all-important question: "Is the universe a friendly place?" Be careful how you answer it.

[Bill Douglas is the founder of World Healing Day, now celebrated in 50 nations worldwide each year. He is the author of "The Amateur Parent-A Book on Life, Death, War and Peace, and Everything Else in the Universe." Bill has written for publications worldwide on health, environment, and human rights issues, and his 9-11 commentary, "America's Broken Heart," was published on the site of the Society of Professional Journalists. Bill's book is available at www.smartaichi.com.]

Bill Douglas encourages your comments: Wtcqd2000@aol.com

YellowTimes.org is an international news and opinion publication. YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction identifies the original source, www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated.   Related articles at YellowTimes.org · ''The death and resurrection of Hugo Chavez'' · ''Coup-operation, the American way'' · ''Our wish for justice to prevail'' · ''The illusion of choice'' · "Hugo Chavez and Venezuela's poor versus everybody else" · "Who's to blame in Venezuela?" · "How oil plays a role in an invasion of Iraq" · ''The dangers caused by a policy of preemption''

· All articles by Guest Editorial

Most read story from Guest Editorial: ''A letter from an American prison''

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 By: Cecil Kirkman

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:01:29 -0500 From: Cecil Kirkman cecilkir@cox.net To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Educate us in the way of truth and freedom

Dear Editor: Reference Mr. John Kaminski's letter to VHeadline.com,  he has now told us and the world what is wrong with America and called our people liars and thieves, who are bent on dominating and enslaving the entire world. He said, "Americans don't tell the truth to anyone, least of all themselves. And I direct this at not just the government, but also at the American people." Reading his letter, one wonders how America could possibly have risen to be the world's only superpower.  Why did not the rest of the world stop us. They have had over 200 years to crush us infidels and they certainly outnumber us both with manpower and resources!

• One also wonders, why in the name of creation, he, knowing all these facts about the evil of America, he continues to live in such a God hating society that is only bent on death and destruction of innocent civilians, especially the helpless children of the world?

Why?  When there are so many good places to live in the world, so many righteous and honest, humanitarian, and loving societies, such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea ... why does he continue to choose to live here?

Are we devil worshipping Americans holding him here?

Maybe because here is one of the very few places on this globe where he us free to write such a tirade against the government with impunity, that he continues to live in such a decadent society. Or does he continue to live here because he knows that thousands of Americans have given their lives so that he might say what he thinks?  No, it could not be this for these stupid Americans gave their lives so that we could dominate the world. Forgive me, I forgot the truth there for a moment.

Anyways, now that he has told us everything that we are doing wrong, please do me a favor.  Why not follow up his letter and tell us just exactly what it is that we Americans should be doing. Enlighten us with his wisdom, and show us the way we should live. Tell us what our government should be doing. He wrote, "It's time to do something about it. Although massive logistical problems and ad hoc legal procedures need to be developed, this would work, I think. And Thomas Jefferson would like it a lot." Remember, we Americans are so stupid, we need him to tell us what "massive logistical problems and ad hoc legal procedures need to be developed."

Just how do we go about doing this?

We would be forever in his debt ...and Thomas Jefferson would love him.

Horace V. Kirkman Cecilkir@cox.net

www.vheadline.com Posted: Thursday, March 06, 2003 By: Steven Hunt

US-based commentarist Steven Hunt writes: The Financial Times is supposed to be some of the best reporting from the UK.  However, Andrew Webb-Vidal's piece entitled "Terror Groups Relocating to US's Backyard", dated March 4, 2003,  is mere crass ideology disguised as astute analysis.

Vidal-Webb quotes General James Hill, head honcho at the US Southern Command, as sounding the alarm that Middle Eastern terrorist groups are jeopardizing US security by establishing a foot hold in Latin America.  Hill, points to Venezuela's Margarita Island as one of the new "terrorist" hotspots.

So in the first few paragraphs of the story we, the average readers, have the central point, spoken from the mount of the most powerful military commander in the Americas:  terrorists have set up shop on Margarita Island.

Vidal-Webb makes explicit that certain "security experts" (that tellingly go unnamed) say that "as yet" no regional governments can definitively be said to be aiding these Middle Eastern terrorists.  But the FT reporter states that US officials (again, un-named) are "worried that weak state institutions are making the region a haven for operatives" with links to al-Qaeda, Osama's group.

The "weak state institutions", or the specific states, are not singled out by Vidal-Webb.  But, of course, since Venezuela is singled out in this story, any competent reader would assume that Venezuela has "weak state institutions."

If there would be any doubt in the reader's mind as to which states pose the US a problem, than those are laid to rest when the reporter quotes Fernando Falcon, a former Venezuelan state security police chief.  Falcon ominously states that "If I were al-Qaeda, I would be setting up in Venezuela right now."

Again, dear VHeadline readers, pay attention to what gets included and what is omitted:  Webb-Vidal never interviews anyone involved in Venezuelan state security, not one person.  However, the reporters chooses to give voice to a "former" police chief.

A competent reporter, knowing a little about the recent political tumult in Venezuela, might think to ask whether or not former chief Falcon or his political allies have anything to gain by smearing the current government as inept or villainous adjuncts to terror; or as weak in the area of intelligence and enforcement.

(If I were al-Qaeda, I would head straight to Honduras.  The US military has a huge presence in the country and almost everyone is on the make for bribes from foreigners.  Moreover, with the US presence in that country, it would be one of the last places that the US "experts" would think that terrorists would hide.  More, the country is desperately poor--money can buy almost anything, even anonymity.  Moreover, Honduras is a lot closer to the US than is Venezuela.  It would be faster to ship chemical or nuclear weapons from Central America.  If Honduras is good enough for US supported terrorists, for example, the Contras, than it should be adjudged good enough for Third World terrorists from the Middle East.)

Just so we can understand the ideological framework in which Webb-Vidal's vaunted US General Hill is operating within, it is important to understand what this military stooge considers "terrorist".  Hill states that Colombia saw "more terrorist attacks than all the other nations in the world combined."

What General Hill does not point out is that most attacks in Colombia that saw the death of non-combatants, innocent civilians, were carried out by pro-government and pro-US partisans--the rightwing paramilitaries that are documented as having ties to the military, and are responsible for roughly two-thirds of all civilian deaths.

This is one of those "omitted" facts that the US corporate press usually does not see fit to include in stories about the Colombian civil war.

After General Hills statements to the effect that the Colombian conflict could be won, while the US ends up "losing the battle in the rest of the region."

Curiously, Webb-Vidal takes this very ominous warning from the General as  indicating that "the Colombian conflict is becoming enmeshed with increasingly violent political tensions in Venezuela."

Just how this political conflict in Venezuela is connected with the Colombian civil war, the reporter does not say.  But in the next paragraph he highlights two historical "facts": (a) that two powerful bombs went off in the Colombian and Spanish diplomatic missions; and (b) that the attacks followed shortly after President Chavez criticized Colombia, Spain, and the US for involving themselves in Venezuelan affairs.

Thus, like spokespersons for the US government tried to imply, the reporter suggests a casual connection between Chavez's admonishments and the bombings.

Though the FT reporter does present the opinion of the Chavez government about the blast, he quotes--again, unnamed--"intelligence sources in Miami that the terrorists behind the bombings were either left-wing Colombian guerrillas, or a group from the Chavez government!

So there you have it, "intelligence sources in Miami" have the final say in the FT story as to who the likely culprits behind the bombings were.  Since the Colombian, US, and Venezuelan rightwing has long smeared the Chavez government with helping and coddling the FARC.  The average reader is lead to assume that the Venezuelan government is a weak security link that allows the proliferation of Middle East terrorists, and also, that the Chavez government itself was responsible for bombing the diplomatic seats of Colombia and Spain.

Most disturbing and inexcusable, however, is that Webb-Vidal does not think that it is necessary to name the Miami "intelligence" contacts he uses for his report.  They could very well be very rightwing groups that have a history of terrorist attacks on Cuba, we will never know.

Webb-Vidal uses the precious last paragraphs--the ones that tend to leave the greatest impression on the reader--for highlighting the developing US presence in Colombia.  However, what is ostensibly the reason for the US Colombian presence, the war on "drugs", goes unmentioned by Webb-Vidal.  We are given information that Colombian military men have been investigating the movement of FARC rebels into Venezuela.

In the last paragraph we are given a quote from a Mr. Robert Steele, described as "a former deputy director of US Marine intelligence and the private sector advisor":

     "We have cold war mindsets that are not adequate for        today.  The US thinks of Latin America as a benign        backyard.  They are wrong.  It is a nightmare ready to        go north, and the Americans don't understand that."

With Steele's interesting interpretation of Latin America as "a nightmare ready to go north" what are we, the average readers, supposed to come away with from the story.

(1) That Venezuela is a gathering point for terrorists. (2) Venezuela's government is an ideal place for terrorists. (3) That the Chavez government, or its allies, are likely involved with terrorists attacks against the diplomatic seats of Spain and Colombia. (4)  As the noble battle against terrorism is won in Colombia, it is likely to spread throughout the adjacent countries, especially Venezuela. (5) That the US government and its citizens in the north should pay special attention to Latin America because the area has weak, or pro-terrorist states that are planning to cause havoc to innocent civilians in the US.

Again, dear reader, the US public and people in "allied", wealthy nations are being set up--if the lying, fascistic, and morally-defunct elites of the world get their way,  the Chavez regime will become another target in the "war on terrorism".  From Webb-Vidal's unscrupulous reporting we can already see the broad trajectory of what US intelligence and their Venezuelan buddies, the extremists in the opposition, have planned.

Smear the government as "weak" and incapable of controlling terrorists (Middle Eastern or otherwise;  label Chavez as an undemocratic thug, an enemy of human freedom and freedom of the press; talk up or manufacture tensions (between Colombia and Venezuela, Chavez and the opposition); conflate regional terrorism--that is predicated on antagonisms rooted in economics, racism, and social classes--with the US-led global "war on terrorism."

Look for further economic and social destabilization--these are the requisites if the opposition is to ever be successful in any "fair" elections.

Remember, the US would rather not have to deal with an outright invasion, that scenario would yield too many dead US servicemen, such an endeavor would loose favor with a public still shell-shocked from Vietnam.

Thus, the US intelligence "black-braggers" and their ideological cohorts in Venezuela are hoping to cause enough chaos so as to promote a military coup.

None of the above described scenarios are already "written onto the pages of history".  By studying and understanding propaganda, US imperialism and covert actions, we can reasonable understand and counter the ongoing destabilization.

However, more people need to avail themselves of alternative, non-corporate sources of information.  Moreover, commonality, mutual-aid, and authentic solidarity are essential.

They are but a puny, fearful, selfish, and immoral group of fascist agitators and coup-mongers.  But not all the opposition are, however.  Many are merely fearful that historically subordinate groups of people are finally asserting themselves proactively.  In their fear they want to believe those in the opposition that are duplicitous and essentially against democracy.

Where the right-wing has historically deployed death-squads we need to release an even more deadly weapon: love-squads.  Love-squads are people, operating individually or in groups, that are capable of describing the goals of the Bolivarian revolutions to those that have been grossly lied to.

We can share with them our ideals, describe our projects, and more importantly, work to help them in any way that we reasonably can.

Love and cooperation will always triumph over fear and oppression.

This we must believe, but more importantly, really live.

Steven Hunt ecocentricsolutions@earthlink.com