Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Venezuela’s Gas Prices Remain Low, but the Political Costs May Be Rising
Simon Romero, New York Times
In a country moving toward socialism, the beneficiaries of government largess here are still people like Nicolás Taurisano, a businessman who dabbles in real estate and machinery imports. He is the proud owner of a Hummer.
Motorists in the United States smarting from rising gasoline prices, take note: Mr. Taurisano pays the equivalent of $1.50 to fill his Hummer’s tank. Thanks to a decades-old subsidy that has proven devilishly complex to undo, gasoline in Venezuela costs about 7 cents a gallon compared with an average $2.86 a gallon in the United States.
“It is one clear benefit to living in an otherwise challenging country,” said Mr. Taurisano, 34, who also owns a BMW, a Mercedes-Benz, a Ferrari and a Porsche.
Many Venezuelans consider the subsidy a birthright even though it bypasses the poor, who rely on relatively expensive and often dangerous public transportation. Economists estimate that it costs the government of President Hugo Chávez more than $9 billion a year.
Critics of Mr. Chávez, and the president himself, agree that the subsidy is a threat to his project to transform Venezuela into a socialist society, draining huge amounts of money from the national oil company’s sales each year that could be used for his social welfare programs.
Gasoline prices have often been a taboo subject for Venezuelan governments. There are memories of the riots in 1989, in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people died after protests set off by an increase in gasoline prices that resulted in higher transportation costs. That instability helped set in motion a failed coup attempt by Mr. Chávez in 1992, which first thrust him into the public eye.
After his re-election to a six-year term last December, when his political capital was abundant, Mr. Chávez called the gasoline prices “disgusting” and said his government was planning to raise them with a measure “financed by those who own a BMW or a tremendous four-wheel drive.” But he turned his attention to other matters, avoiding the touchy subject.
(30 October 2007)
Contributor Jeffrey J. Brown comments: “With oil prices going up, I think that it is going to be very difficult for exporting countries like Venezuela to cut their petroleum product subsidies. “
Why Did We Invade Iraq Anyway?
Michael Schwartz, Tomdispatch
Putting a Country in Your Tank
—
Lately, even Democratic candidates for president have been weighing in on why the U.S. must maintain a long-term, powerful military presence in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, for example, used phrases like protecting our “vital national security interests” and preventing Iraq from becoming a “petri dish for insurgents,” in a major policy statement. Barack Obama, in his most important speech on the subject, talked of “maintaining our influence” and allowing “our troops to strike directly at al Qaeda.” These arguments, like the constantly migrating justifications for invading Iraq, serially articulated by the Bush administration, manage to be vaguely plausible (with an emphasis on the “vaguely”) and also strangely inconsistent (with an emphasis on the “inconsistent”).
That these justifications for invading, or remaining, are unsatisfying is hardly surprising, given the reluctance of American politicians to mention the approximately $10-$30 trillion of oil lurking just beneath the surface of the Iraq “debate” — and not much further beneath the surface of Iraqi soil. Obama, for example, did not mention oil at all in his speech, while Clinton mentioned it twice in passing. President Bush and his top officials and spokespeople have been just as reticent on the subject.
Why then did the U.S. invade Iraq? Why is occupying Iraq so “vital” to those “national security interests” of ours? None of this makes sense if you don’t have the patience to drill a little beneath the surface – and into the past; if you don’t take into account that, as former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz once put it, Iraq “floats on a sea of oil”; and if you don’t consider the decades-long U.S. campaign to control, in some fashion, Middle East energy reservoirs. If not, then you can’t understand the incredible tenaciousness with which George W. Bush and his top officials have pursued their Iraqi dreams or why — now that those dreams are clearly so many nightmares — even the Democrats can’t give up the ghost.
(30 October 2007)
Tomdispatch editor Tom Engelhardt has an introduction to the article at the original posting.
Iraq’s oil: the plot thickens
Jim Landers, Dallas Morning News via Seattle Times
SSYAN, Iraq — Jebel Semroot is a dusty heap of rocks plowed and grazed by tough farmers and tougher goats. But this hill surrounding the village of Assyan, where Dallas-based Hunt Oil Co. hopes to drill next year, could have hundreds of millions of barrels of oil trapped beneath it.
Chief Executive Ray Hunt flew to Iraq in September to sign an exploration agreement covering Jebel Semroot with Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government.
Trouble is, Jebel Semroot isn’t in Kurdish territory. If Hunt Oil drills in these rocks, the company will be helping the Kurds absorb lands in Nineveh province that were historically Kurdish but are still claimed by Iraq’s Arab Sunnis.
The deal has already drawn a warning from a group of Sunni clerics who sympathize with insurgents battling U.S. and Iraqi forces.
“Those involved in such contracts will pay the price sooner or later,” warned the Association of Muslim Scholars.
While reining in their ambitions just short of independence, the Kurds are moving to expand their territory, take charge of their oil and insulate themselves in a hostile neighborhood. They are looking to Hunt Oil and other investors to help them get free of the violence and political paralysis of Baghdad. And they want to do it before U.S. troops leave Iraq.
(30 October 2007)
