[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

I think you should look at the US' record in Latin America, and I think you will realize how not-shocking it would be if the US was to install a dictator in Venezuela, like they've done many a time before in many states. Hell, look what they're doing in Iraq, Afghanistan... What makes you think Venezuela, of all states, has immunity from the US? Does the name "Pol Pot" ring any bells? How about "Guevera". Or what about Cuba... are you unfamiliar with Cuba's situation? I could go on if you like. I have a feeling you're one of those people that will not consider this until Faux News is reporting Al Queda in Venezuela.



From that article, I get the impression that there is more to this story than you're catching on to.

The efforts by the United States and its allies over the last few months to persuade international banks and oil companies to pull out of Iran threaten dozens of projects, including development of Iran's two massive new oil fields that could expand output by 800,000 barrels a day over the next four years.

And as nations such as Japan begin to back out of Iran oil development under U.S. pressure, the government in Tehran is being forced to dig into its own reserve funds to get crucial new projects off the ground.

But Nejad-Hosseinian said Iran had recognized the gravity of the threat and launched steps to head it off, including new "smart" rationing cards, scheduled for distribution in March to check skyrocketing sales of cheap gasoline, and an overhaul of Iran's historically stingy contract terms in an attempt to lure big oil companies into skirting the U.S. roadblocks.

Iran also is hoping to turn to China and Russia for help. But U.S. officials already have warned that they will seek to hold China accountable under Washington's unilateral sanctions laws if it proceeds with a $16-billion project to develop Iran's North Pars gas field. China also has signed a memorandum of understanding under which it may take on development of the Yadavaran field in southwestern Iran, expected to boost production by 300,000 barrels a day.

What is going on in Iran, has almost absolutely nothing to do with oil companies, but rather the US wanting to put embargos on Iran with a political motive. According to your own article, the US is not allowing anyone to deal with Iran, which obviously will lead to a level of desperation for Iran to cooperate.

Are you unfamiliar with the Bush administration and the huge stake they have in oil? The only saving grace Iran has is that they are NATIONALLY starting projects because no international organization, state or corporation is allowed to. IF Iran had a nationalized oil company, they wouldn't have to rely on foreign investment, as that oil would be already be flowing. But since they are not nationalized they are now the US' bitch.



I love it when people's links blow up in their face. Yes, let's look at that article, shall we?


Despite its troubles, Pemex is still a giant. It is the largest corporation in Mexico and the fifth-largest oil firm in the world, with average daily production in 2005 of about 3.3 million barrels of oil, 4.8 million cubic feet of natural gas and 435,000 barrels of natural gas liquids. It is the second-largest oil source of U.S. imported oil, after Canada, at a daily average of 1.9 million barrels.
The huge rise in international petroleum prices has been a godsend for the nation, if not for Pemex itself.

The price rise -- from about $12 per barrel in 1999 to more than $70 currently -- has injected tens of billions of dollars into the federal government's coffers. Pemex's revenues this year are expected to be about $89 billion, with 59 percent of this amount siphoned off by the government through tax and dividend payments totaling about $52 billion.
This flood of revenue has allowed Fox to opt for a conservative version of economic pump-priming. Instead of boosting spending, he has overseen strengthening government reserves and cutting federal borrowing, thus allowing bank credit to expand by almost 500 percent during his term, according to government data. The result has been an explosion of consumer purchases and home building.
Lopez Obrador hopes to spread around that wealth in a more traditional Mexican way -- slashing Pemex's gasoline pump prices, which average about $2.50 per gallon, and cutting taxes on natural gas and electricity.

Mexico is a third world country, and while corupt as ****, at least some of the revenues are going to the poor people of that country - which is more than what would if it was big oil.

Dude, you need to read more than the first three paragraphs of these articles you're linking.

Obviously your post is incomprehensible partisan gibberish and does nothing to answer the points.

From your partisan position, it appears your head is going to explode if you have to honestly concede the obvious, that being that the United States of America is no where near to or interested in militarily "invading Venezuela" as the Chavez has been scaremongering.

That's the only point I made. Others brought up coups to which I blithely and accurately noted that it would take one to know one.

Second, the links very obviously support the point that without a platform that encourages the investment of outside capital, both Mexican and Iranian oil production will decline, taking their petro economies with them in all probability as well as any programming that might exist for the poor.

In the end, that probably means the socialist will be hated by the poor.

You'll note in my sentence in my first post in this thread, that I thought spreading Venezuelan petro wealth around to the poorer folks was a good idea.

However, I said its a stupid idea to scare away investment capital, particularly when, as our friend Lurch supports, you're spending all your petro dollars on corruption and the poor instead of allocating something to reinvestment so the non-renewable resource can continue to flow and support programs.

The wisest leader would probably be letting private oil companies take all the risk of developing and exploiting oil and gas fields while taking a cut to use in programs for the poor . . . . the depth of that cut obviously too much in Iran, where it appears to discourage involvement and some might say too little in Alberta where development is going overboard.

Hey, this is kind of cool . . . . I'm actually in an argument for about the second time in a year.

Cowperson