BBC NEWS | Americas | Chavez seizes oil service firms »
Posted By k9kssr 6 months, 3 weeks ago in NewsMr Chavez nationalised Venezuela's main oil assets two years ago. The fresh drive comes as falling oil prices put state finances under pressure.
Read Full Story at news.bbc.co.uk »
345 Views Share Story 34 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 34 (view all)
-
-
89%
CactusAnnie6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder if Chavez is still stinging from the rebuff he received last September from the Saudis when they walked out on OPEC citing the cause as Chavez's rants and Iranian smarminess as the reason. http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/archiv...
Reply
You remember, just before all of our gasoline prices dropped so dramatically. (The lowest I paid during the ensuing months was $1.28 per gallon.)
I am sure it must have angered ole Chavez that the Saudis were more powerful than he was, they really cut him down a few notches. It must have made him crazier than he already was to be belittled like that. Now, after his recent meeting with Obama, I suppose he is trying to prove something.
I really do not believe you can reason with lunatics. Trouble is ahead.
I am sure glad that in my little realm of influence I do not have to be responsible for matters of such great impact. I do hope the powers that be deal with this swiftly and effectively! -
-
-
64%
Wolfie20076 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
56%
Dionys6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This is just plain theft, armed robbery and banditry just because it being done by the "head of a country" doesn't make it any less of a crime. Chavez is a despicable, unethical, sleazy, banana republic dictator."
Reply
How's it different from the US Government seizing hundreds of millions of acres and giving over the mineral rights to oil corporations, all while charging the American public for the building of roads, et cetera, to benefit those corporations when those oil and gas corporations give nothing back to the people?
-
-
80%
aceofspades16 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder how many of you good patriotic reactionaries are still buying Chevron gas?
Reply
And to all you who called Powell a traitor, I wonder why none of you were calling out Kennedy Jr. for making those pro Chevron & Chavez ads this winter. -
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive6 Replies
-
100%
aceofspades16 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Frank - you finished with your Hyperbole - like rant??
Reply
#1 Iraq was not a war for control of oil - it is a war conducted by egomaniacs for a plethora of reasons, not the least of which was for pure power & based upon miscalculation of how to conduct it--
But let's get back to this thread - anyone who thinks Chavez's seizure of corporatre assets was meant to return the resources of his country to his poor starving people is a naive fool-- it was out & out thievery - $ this is why -
Chavez has been losing oil income due to the drop in commodity prices - there are many unexploited & nearly depleated oil deposits in Venezuela - Chavez ASKED FOR & HIRED companies such asthe Williams Co of Tulsa. --- -
100%
aceofspades16 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
These were contractors needed to attain his goal of getting more oil out of the ground. They are owed $240 million - this company does not ship petroleum out of Venezuela- they are contractors who are owed money for work done. By expropriating their assets he is negating any payment due -- this is thievery of the first order - IT IS NOT - returning the countries natural resource to the people . It is using the power of his office to deprive companies of payments due to them. To think any differently to to be a fool
Reply-
Neutral
FrankHummel6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ace- I don't disagree with what you are saying about the particulars of the situation in Venezuela at all.
Reply
I merely observe that the whole unsavory state of affairs would NEVER HAVE COME ABOUT were it not for this nation's abject, addictive dependency on the (finite) natural resources of other people in other parts of the world --- and that that abject dependency ITSELF evidently must have DELIBERATELY (whether that has been done CONSCIOUSLY or not makes no difference) been CULTIVATED by "interests" within "our" OWN society, BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES EXIST, AND HAVE ALREADY LONG EXISTED, and COULD have been actually IMPLEMENTED LONG AGO NOW ALREADY. The fact that they WEREN'T stands ITSELF the constructive-demonstration-proof of the BAD FAITH of the generalized MIS"leadership" (by BOTH so-called "political parties"!) to which "we" have entrusted the management of "our" economy!
-
-
0%
Goppy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey . . . this reminds me of when George W. Bush stole 200 acres from citizens of Arlington Texas so he could build himself a baseball stadium.
Reply
Of course, GW used Eminent Domain to steal this land ... I guess that makes it okay to Modern Republicanism ... of course ... that also points to their fundamental Moral Vacancy.
. -
0%
Goppy6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's the link ...
Reply
http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/BallparkArlingt...
Here's a snippet ...
I try to steer clear of political controversy on these baseball pages, but I simply cannot ignore the unsavory financial arrangements behind this brick extravaganza.
It all started back in April 1989, when George W. Bush, our current president, led a consortium of investors who bought the Texas Rangers franchise for $89 million. (This, of course, was three months after his father was inaugurated president.)
Even though he only held a two percent share, which he raised by borrowing $500,000, Bush Junior became the "managing general partner" whose main duty was to promote public financing for a new stadium. His effort came to fruition in January 1991, when Arlington voters approved a $135 million bond issue for a new ballpark. (Most of the rest of the $191 million total stadium cost came from sales of luxury suite licenses to businesses.)
Three months later Texas Governor Ann Richards (a Democrat and arch-enemy of the Bush family) signed a bill creating a special stadium authority, which quickly used eminent domain provisions to seize the desired tract of land on the other side of Johnson Creek, the rationale being that a "Riverwalk" lined with cute shops was supposed to be developed next to the stadium. (It never happened.)
The owners of that land filed suit, charging unjust compensation, and eventually won a $40 million settlement. In December 1994 Bush stepped down as managing general partner just prior to being inaugurated governor of Texas, but retained his equity stake in the team. In June 1998 the Rangers were purchased by Tom Hicks for $250 million, the second-highest sum ever paid for a Major League Baseball team.
This transaction triggered the contingent 10 percent escalator bonus on top of his two percent equity share, so that Bush received a total of $14.9 million in proceeds for his $606,000 total investment. Not a bad rate of return!
Though everything was done above board and within the law, the whole affair does reek of "stadium socialism" or "crony capitalism," as you prefer. It seems all but certain that one of the main effects of the public stadium subsidy was to encourage the team's owners to overspend in the acquisition of new talent, thus perpetuating an inflationary cycle that ends up boosting ticket prices out of the range of average fans.
All this should serve as a cautionary tale for other cities. Washington-area residents are (indirectly, via business taxes) helping to pay for the Washington Nationals' $600-million new baseball stadium, under the terms imposed by MLB officials in exchange for relocating the Montreal Expos franchise to Washington in 2005
. -
83%
lloydm656 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Damn Goppy,are you complaining because somebody made fourteen million,or just because Bush did it.All during the Clinton years they were putting togather all these books that would make them one hundred million dollars.I don't have a big problem with that,but back in the eighties the democrats sh!t their britches every time a republican made a buck based on their time in office.Bush is gone, so don't watch what Obamas right hand is doing bashing Bush,keep your eye on his left hand,remember he came to us right out of the Chicago gangland.He is hell bent to screw you,tatoo and hang you on the wall. He left the state senate richer than when he went in,he will leave us a lot poorer when he leaves his present job.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.