Quietly, Chávez reopens the door to Western oil firms

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Quietly, Chávez reopens the door to Western oil firms

Until recently, buoyed by the surging price of oil, Chávez had pushed foreign oil companies here into a corner by nationalizing their oil fields, raiding their offices with the tax authorities and imposing a series of royalty increases.

But faced with the plunge in oil prices and a decline in domestic production, senior officials here have quietly begun soliciting some of the largest Western oil companies in recent weeks, including Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Total, in the hope of getting them to invest in Venezuela again

...

But the shift also shows Chávez's pragmatic side. At stake are no less than Venezuela's economic stability and the sustainability of his government. With oil prices so low, the longstanding problems plaguing Petróleos de Venezuela SA, the national oil company that is driving his socialist-inspired revolution, have become much harder to ignore. Embracing the Western companies may be the only way to shore up the company - and his personal ambitions.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/...rica/venez.php

damn those western capitalists....
 
Who would? If you know that as soon as things turn up he'll just rip it away again, why would you even consider going back there?
 
Who would? If you know that as soon as things turn up he'll just rip it away again, why would you even consider going back there?

totally agree...this from the article:

Their willingness even to consider investing in Venezuela, home to some of the largest petroleum reserves in the world, reflects the scarcity of projects open to foreign companies in other top oil nations, particularly in the Middle East.
 
Companies will go in with serious services contracts instead of taking equity positions which will be stolen later.
 
There's a lot of risk in going back into Venezula, but the massive profits that oil companies get more than makes up for it.
Well, that and they can do it by contract rather than direct ownership. Make the cash with less risk. However, I wouldn't even trust Venezuela to pay on their contracts.
 
What gets done is you send the engineers and geos and get there salary back and a monthly cut of production or bonus payment. Renig and the rock sniffers leave.
 
Well, that and they can do it by contract rather than direct ownership. Make the cash with less risk. However, I wouldn't even trust Venezuela to pay on their contracts.

It's just something they have to take into account. There are people right now getting paid a lot of money to decide whether or not Venezula is worth the risk again.
 
Arguing about words as general and vague as liberalism and conservatism is rather stupid, imho. The ideologies don't mean today what they meant even fifty years ago, and they don't mean the same thing in the US and abroad. They are umbrella terms.
 
Liberalism is the only philosophy that's actually been proven to work time and time again on a large scale.

LOOOL, sure, thats why no empire has EVER lasted....no philosophy by itself has ever worked, it takes more than just words that try to encompass a philosophy. 100% liberalism will always fail, just as 100% conservatism will always fail.....somethings need change and somethings don't...why don't you change the day you celebrate your birthday every year if you like liberalism so much...further you can't define everyone with simple philosophical words.
 
Arguing about words as general and vague as liberalism and conservatism is rather stupid, imho. The ideologies don't mean today what they meant even fifty years ago, and they don't mean the same thing in the US and abroad. They are umbrella terms.

good point
 
Arguing about words as general and vague as liberalism and conservatism is rather stupid, imho. The ideologies don't mean today what they meant even fifty years ago, and they don't mean the same thing in the US and abroad. They are umbrella terms.
Not really, since they should be argued in terms of their present meanings, which are defined by their respective political movements. Liberals want more government control of the economy, and conservatives want less. Taken to their logical extremes, liberals are therefore socialists, and conservatives are therefore capitalists. *shrug*
 
Not really, since they should be argued in terms of their present meanings, which are defined by their respective political movements. Liberals want more government control of the economy, and conservatives want less. Taken to their logical extremes, liberals are therefore socialists, and conservatives are therefore capitalists. *shrug*


Awesome.
 
Back
Top