 | Let's Discuss: H.R. 6107, the American Energy Independence and Price Reduction Act | The Oil Drum | Why new ideas take time to have impact |  |
45 comments on Portugal getting a hand on Venezuela's energy riches
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I wonder how this fits with the US plans to destabilize the region.
The US military plane's incursion into Venezuelan airspace.
The US efforts in Bolivia to split the country.
The US disinformation campaign about Hugo Chavez.
The FARC raid that was sanctioned and aided by the US.
All of these paint a picture of the US flexing it's intelligence and military muscles ahead of something bigger.
What that is remains to be seen but an invasion of Venezuela for oil comes to mind.
double post, please delete.
Good question. I think there is a lot of arms wrestling going on behind the curtains: "If you do this, we will do this to you", etc.
If one follows the Economic Hitman -> Jackal -> Coupe -line of reasoning, Venezuela will be squeezed first through economic means (under way right now) and attempts are mostly of internal de-stabilization. Not that Chavez is making it any more difficult for them :)
Then again, a balance of mutual dependency acts upon some of these relations. Venezuela currently needs US, just as US needs Venezuela for the oil trade.
It is one thing to flex muscles in the public and gather additional support from the constituency at home, but another thing altogether to actually start using those muscles abroad.
PS In general Resource wars is not an actively discussed subject @ TOD threads, because poster nationalities wary and things can get heated up quickly. Without trying to take sides, I think it is still worthwhile trying to understand the realities of the situation and how various 'sides' think.
You have not read my war gaming posts then :)
Venezuela's big problem is the US can blockade them in a heartbeat without effecting any other oil producer.
It's very different from Iran so we don't have to invade Venezuela its trivial to lay siege to the country.
I think in general the US would like Venezuela oil to flow towards China until we get our draft going but anyone that becomes dependent on them should recognize the flow of oil could be cut off in a instant.
Portugal is making a fairly dumb move here. The EU won't support them when the US cuts the flow.
Heh.
The US's big problem is that it imports 1 million barrels of oil per day from Venezuela; so a blockade would have to be mounted in conjunction with a daily release of similar quantities to US refiners from the SPR. Frankly, the US is in no position to lose 10% of its crude imports to China under any circumstances these days, so they're not exactly happy at the prospect of Venezuela diverting its exports Eastward or Euroward under any circumstances. It'd also be worth pondering that one of the knock-on effects would be an immediate embargo of Ecuadorian and Brazilian oil supplies to the US, who will under no circumstances accept such an act - so you can more or less double the daily compensatory draw from the SPR to 2 million bpd.
This wouldn't address the issue of Venezuela's other export customers who, in the absence of compensatory deliveries from the US SPR, would have to source alternate supplies in the markets, thereby driving oil prices up. Needless to say, this effects everyone, globally; any assertion to the contrary is, well, just plain silly.
I'm not going to bother about the various international legal issues that blockading Venezuela would raise for the US administration that was stupid enough to do it without explicit agreed legal standing, or speculate on the legal fallout for those down the chain of command tasked to carry out the policy - although I would add at this point, EVERY person involved in said blockade would have to deal with the prospect of legal jeopardy in numerous jurisdictions. Then again, I doubt that any US naval officer would attempt to impede the lawful passage of a Chinese registered tanker, for example, as it would be an act of war.
If you cast your mind back to 2002 and the anti-Chavez coup, the US immediately recognised the very short-lived government, and then had to back down sharpish.
Basically, your "game" kills the SPR in less than a year and probably would be settled when the dimwits who thought it might be a good idea are paraded around the Hague in chains before being thrown to the lions.
Interesting points.
On a related note, I don't think USA has or will give a hoot about ICJ @ Hague, except of course when it's to their own advantage. They have not nor will in the future give any US citizens to be put on trial at the ICJ.
As such, I think ICJ remains what it is: a puppet show for the (European) masses, as the real players do what they can anyway - and that can is limited by aforementioned resource/geopolitical issues and not international legislation.
The bit about the Hague is, er, a rhetorical flourish which wasn't meant too seriously.
However, it should be borne in mind that without explicit legal standing, anyone participating in a maritime blockade is committing an act of war against both the blockaded country AND the shipping of any third party that is denied freedom of passage, and is therefore liable to prosecution in multiple jurisdictions, under a wide variety of international statutes, and the plaintiff doesn't have to be a sovereign entity - which is basically a career killer for any active service US naval officer in the chain of command who can't avail him/herself of a diplomatic passport when subsequently travelling abroad.
LOL
That was funny as hell. I believe the intention is to commit a act of war in the first place.
Its not against the law to occupy a country take its resources and send it back to the stone age.
As far as I know you just have to file the right paperwork within 24 hours of invading if you choose
a surprise attack. All kinds of secret executive orders are also legit. So its fine to have the legal
paperwork but make it top secret so no one can see it.
Outright genocide and use of concentration camps is frowned upon at the moment but its not clear how long this will last.
But surely the Americans believe in free trade.
/endsarcasm
The US requires some very sophisticated machinery and pilots to drop an incendiary on a Venezuela target. Venezuela requires a dollar for bus fare and a cigarette lighter to drop an incendiary on a US target. Who do you think is more likely to win a war?
There are fifty million immigrants and their children in the US. We aren't at war with Iraq, we are at war with a bunch of thugs in Iraq, or we would already have lost as the US electrical net shut down from attacks by the one million, that is 1,000,000, Arabs in the US.
If they ever get pissed at us, we are going to have a lot more to worry about than the price of oil.