Bush Told To Plan For Chávez Oil Shock

[Purveyor]

Richard Lugar, chairman of the US Senate foreign relations committee, has urged the Bush administration to adopt specific "contingency plans" for a potential disruption to oil supplies from Venezuela.

In a letter sent to Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, last Friday, a copy of which has been obtained by the Financial Times, Mr Lugar warned the US that it needed to "abandon" reliance on a "passive approach" to energy diplomacy.

Mr Lugar's warning follows the release last month of an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that the US was ill-prepared for an oil embargo by Venezuela, the world's fifth largest ex­porter. President Hugo Chávez, whose government has been emboldened by a torrent of oil revenues, has several times warned that he would "cut off" oil supplies to the US if Washington persisted in allegedly plotting his overthrow.

"Venezuela's leverage over global oil prices and its direct supply lines and refining capacity in the US give Venezuela undue ability to impact US security and our economy," Mr Lugar wrote in his letter to Ms Rice.

---end of article excerpt---

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14001903/

[Bush_MUST_Go]

1. Energy independence? Nah. There's no oil profits in that.

[Roland99]

26. Best to pay hundreds of billions in DEFICIT spending to keep us addicted

to foreign oil instead of working on a renewable energy source like Brazil has done.

[kurth]

2. Time to give some freedom and democracy to Venezuela

Next New York Times headline: Chávez eats babies.

[benburch]

3. Sounds like they are planning to sieze the US refining assets.

"Nationalization" is what it is usually called.

[krkaufman]

23. Don't forget, we'd be "freeing" already nationalized refineries...

... so we'd be the good guys.

[L. Coyote]

37. Because Chavez is subsidizing fuel for poor U.S. neighborhoods ???

Bush/Cheney logic?? Now there's an idea, nationalize oil companies if they sell fuel too cheap!! An inverse excess profits tax. Someone tell Byron Dorgan. ;-)

from http://en.ce.cn/subject/EnergyCrisis/ECworld/200605/12/t20060512_6934874.shtml

"Chavez... has even begun subsidizing fuel for poor U.S. neighborhoods....

"Chavez has extended Venezuela's fuel subsidy to poor Americans through a well-publicized jab at the U.S. government that offers 40 percent discounts on heating oil distributed by Venezuelan-owned refiner Citgo.

"Flush with cash from high oil revenues, Chavez has also shored up regional alliances by providing low-priced fuel to Central American and Caribbean nations he says have been snubbed by the United States. ..."

Perhaps the idea of nationalizing the big oil companies should be seriously considered, instead of giving them mineral rights for free. Payback.

[bullimiami]

4. bush diplomacy. the sweet smell of success.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Lugar's right about one thing: Venezuela will become THE leverage

point of global oil prices and control OPEC if prices per barrel remain high! Venezuela has more 'tar oils' than all of the ME combined. When oil is selling above $50 a barrel, it makes going after tar oil worthwhile.

I pray that this isn't the rumblings for a non-"passive approach" and I pray for Chavez's safety.

[Purveyor]

10. Venezuela and Russia have become quite the 'buds' also. n/t

[BrotherBuzz]

13. China is on that dance card, too

[ugarte]

15. It takes two to dance

And Bush has pushed Chavez into Russia's arms.

[ThomCat]

6. So, are they planning the invasion of Venezuela yet?

You know it's on the agenda.

[gratuitous]

7. "Allegedly plotting" Chavez' overthrow?

Apparently, Lugar, Bush and NBC have all forgotten 2002, when Bush actually did try to overthrow Chavez, and as usual fucked it up. But I guess that doesn't count as an attempt to overthrow someone any more than the anthrax killings count as a terrorist attack. Which is to say, if the Bush administration calls it something else, it doesn't count.

[goforit]

11. It's too late, It won't work! Socialism is now alive and strong in SA.

[CraigHinTenn]

20. Like they would have had a plan that would work before??

[INDIA]

25. Could you post a link??

That information is new to me. Was it direct or indirect action? CIA? Funding political opposition? Do tell!:shrug:

[gratuitous]

27. From our friends across the pond

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez

Observer Worldview

Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday April 21, 2002
The Observer


The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established. They have long histories in the 'dirty wars' of the 1980s, and links to death squads working in Central America at that time.

Washington's involvement in the turbulent events that briefly removed left-wing leader Hugo Chavez from power last weekend resurrects fears about US ambitions in the hemisphere.

* * *

Some commentary stateside:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020506/marccooper

The Coup That Wasn't
Marc Cooper

During the two-day opera buffa that was the on-again, off-again military coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice played a brief but memorable role. Throughout the long day and night that the democratically elected Chávez was sequestered and the military's handpicked provisional president, Pedro Carmona, dissolved all constitutional institutions--the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the attorney general's office and the national electoral commission--Rice and the rest of the Administration remained approvingly silent while sending spokesman Ari Fleischer out to say in effect that it was Chávez's own fault. Only after the elected president was rightfully restored to office did Rice take to the boards to scoldingly tell Chávez that he, not the coup-makers, should "respect constitutional processes."

* * *

And a precis of the action:

http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/2002_12_03.htm

BUSH ADMINISTRATION PUSHES "REGIME CHANGE" IN VENEZUELA

By Mark Weisbrot

In our amnesiac political culture, half a year can be an eternity, more than enough time for history to be rewritten and slates wiped clean. But it was barely more than six months ago, on April 11, that opposition forces overthrew the democratically elected government of Venezuela. They installed the head of the business federation as president and dissolved the legislature and the Supreme Court.

The Bush administration at first welcomed the coup, retreating the next day after it became clear that other countries in the Americas were not going to recognize the illegal government. And of course administration officials denied having anything to do with the coup.

There is a pile of evidence to the contrary, indicating that they had a lot to do with it. There were numerous meetings between Bush administration officials and coup leaders in the months preceding the coup. We also know that the opposition received money from the United States government.

__________________________

Man, we forget quickly in this culture, don't we? I wonder why that is? Oops, no time to think about that now! Matlock's on!

[bahrbearian]

8. Is Lugar addmitting to plotting Chavezs overthrow ?

[goforit]

9. Yes Bush and Israel!!! Have a World War against every one in World.

[mom cat]

14. Ding! . ding! . ding! What a groovy idea. Then we can bomb the

whole world into deMOCKracy and wrap the carcasses in trade agreements!

[ShockediSay]

22. That's the 2d time I've heard Bush, Israel and WWIII in as many days

Now where is that ol' exploding A-Bomb icon when you need it.

[SoCalDem]

31. This is his world view..

[BrotherBuzz]

33. Don't forget Poland!

:hide:

[goforit]

41. Hilarious!!!

[MGKrebs]

12. Terrorist ties to Chavez will be found, courtesy of

an informant named "screwball" or something equally predictable, Venezuela's assets in the US will be frozen, eventually to be sold off to the highest bidder. Perhaps the UAE!

[Strelnikov_]

16. Syriana Anyone?

The real reason was contained in the last sentence.

One of Mr Chávez's policy goals is to reduce dependence on the US as its main market and send more oil to China.

Translation: How dare he sell OUR SUV go-juice to someone else.

[underpants]

17. He isn't going to just stop selling it

he is just going to stop selling it to us.

[BrotherBuzz]

18. And the irony will be lost somewhere in the shuffle

China will be trading our debt to Venezuela for that go-juice. :shrug:

[maxrandb]

19. WTF!!

"abandon" reliance on a "passive approach" to energy diplomacy.

Can someone please point to me where there has been "passive approach" to energy diplomacy that this mis-administration could "abandon".

His entire "pretzle-dency" has been nothing but hubris, arrogance, swagger and aggression.

This is some scary shit. I guess Lugar thinks we should go to war with Venezuela. That's a much less "passive approach" to diplomacy.

Is the entire Republican Party brain-dead?

[goforit]

28. So so true!!! Brain dead? Understatement for sure!

Absolute lunacy!

[Richard Steele]

32. Their definition of "passive approach": they aren't dropping bombs yet.

I say that because the only ACTIVE approach they ever use
is military.

[Reckon]

38. The Repubs are insane!

[cliss]

44. You noticed that too?

WTF...I thought. "abandon reliance on a passive approach to energy diplomacy". WTF....?

PASSIVE to me means not doing anything about our dire energy situation. NOW the truth is, the US is NOT passive. We're involved in all kinds of trouble making around the globe. In particular, oil rich countries like Iran, Nigeria, Venezuela, all these countries have had visits from US advisors. There have been attempted coups, I've read that we are funding the rebels on the Ivory Coast.

So there are lots of things happening.

....but maybe Mr. Lugar means we need to ratchet up the "passiveness" a bit.....

[Auntie Bush]

21. Another example of bush's brilliance...make enemies with the

biggest supplier of oil in the western hemisphere. Probably orders from the Saudi's so we'll have a good reason to buy theirs and keep the house of Saud in the money!

[warrens]

24. Keep in mind...

Our refineries were built with Venezuelan oil in mind. It's much closer to gasoline than mideast oil. The loss of that oil is disproportionate to the amount we import.

[okmonyj]

34. I thought ME oil was more easily refined.

[klyon]

36. yes

sweet crude
less sulfur

[Jersey Ginny]

47. Where did you get your info on this?

I have not read this and I've read quite a bit about oil. If you could point me in the direction of your information, I'd appreciate that. I have read that Saudi oil is most coveted because of it's low sulfur, like the reader below said.

[outofbounds]

29. This sounds like all the reason they need to

tap Anwar, and the Shale Valey is it? You Watch.:mad:

[SoCalDem]

30. "..."passive approach" to energy diplomacy..." WTF?

If Iraq is passive, WTF's aggressive:scared:

[xchrom]

35. america can always tell lies about countries weaker than themselves

and suffer little or no ill effects.

[IndyBob]

39. Headlines will soon start

regarding Venezuelan terrorist activities that must be stopped. How dare these brown skins fail to worship our divinely inspired neocon leadership. Their insolence will not go unpunished.

[xchrom]

40. we just have no army left to fight this fictitious war.

[IndyBob]

42. Small details like this

will not deter our current leadership. It certainly has not yet. Besides, how much of an army do you need, the newly liberated Venezuelans will greet us with flowers and candy, and the whole she-bang paid for with oil revenues.

:sarcasm:

[Vidar]

43. Bush will "stay the course" regardless of how many Americans

freeze next winter.

[eggbeater]

45. Interesting thing about all of ths.

"Venezuela's leverage over global oil prices and its direct supply lines and refining capacity in the US give Venezuela undue ability to impact US security and our economy," Mr Lugar wrote in his letter to Ms Rice.


and refining capacity in the U.S.

Venezuala at this point needs the refineries in the U.S to provide the fuel to the U.S.
In short, If Venzuala decides to cut off the supply to the U.S then all that has to be done is for the U.S to throw Venezuala out of this country, take over the refineries and offset the loss by actually using our own oil that we currently ship to japan.

Venezuala would not be able to build refineries quick enough to replace the loss, while at the same time the U.S would see just a minor delay in production.

Regardless of who our President is we can not as a country allow some second rate dictator to hold us hostage.

[Judi Lynn]

46. Why don't you provide some evidence that Hugo Chavez is a dictator?

What evidence do you have Hugo Chavez is holding you hostage?

Maybe you should write to your pResident and ask him to have him kidnapped again.

[Toots]

50. Venezuela is the fifth largest importer of oil

Our domestic supplies would have a difficult time replacing such a huge cut. Why not concentrate on alternative energy instead? Ooops that doesn't work from an oil soaked Administration does it? They don't give a rat's ass about the security of America or they would not be sparing one dime to find a way to get off foreign oil dependence. They are too busy making money off the War Profiteering going on. If only Americans would look to Chavez as an example of how a Leader should operate for his country instead of trying to get rid of him. We are currently spending over a hundred thousand dollars a second on Deficit which is contibuting to our National Debt which we are paying a half million dollars a minute in interest on. Just on interest which is going to foreign countries like China. Chavez has almost eliminated their National Debt and he is spending their money on the people and infrastrusture. Wouldn't that be nice if our leaders cared enough top spend our money on us and our country?

[eggbeater]

51. I agree with the alternate energy

But there are more problems with this than just perfecting the methods.

the cost of switching over to an alternate method of energy could be more expensive to the consumer over a given number of years than continuing on with the current overpriced method.

example.
I drive a pick up truck for work. I get an embarrassing 11mpg with it, yet the alternative to do what it does is not there for me. so, im stuck.
My wife did switch to a hyundai from a Grand Cherokee for her commute so I feel like we did something. (I still have the Cherokee for those bad snows that seem to be coming less and less, and to pull the boat)
My highway car is an 86 Lincoln Town Car that I have had since new and only used on long trips since buying. it currently has 112k on it and still runs like new. it gets 24 to 26 on the highway. I refuse to get rid of it and step down in comfort for long rides.

now, look at what I own, and what I use it for and someone tell me how I can use an alternative method to get from point a to point be without it costing me more over the life of the vehicle than what I currently am spending.

I am however awaiting the hydrogen car and I expect that I will replace at least two of my current vehicles with that should it become available.

[hatrack]

48. I saw Charlie Maxwell talk about this at an oil conference last year

It was pretty interesting. He's the guy who pegged the 1973 oil shock best part of a year out.

Anyway, he made an absolutely key point. It's about 35-40 days from Ras Tanuri and other Gulf ports to the LOOP, meaning that any potential shutdown or disruption from that part of the world has some built-in slack - some time for us markets to make up missing supplies from other points.

From Venezuela to the LOOP is about four days by tanker, and considering that Venezuela is our biggest source of imported oil, there's a lot of potential here not only for a big price shock, but a very sudden one. Maxwell's best guesstimate was that a resisted coup in Venezuela or an attempt which resulted in a split government and potential damage to their oil facilities would mean $100 oil within a week or less, possibly in two or three days.

[Toots]

49. "abandon" reliance on a "passive approach"

Does that mean some Bush* diplomacy? You know at the end of a gun...