So you might all understand Chavez better!

I would just like to introduce here a small piece of information quite frequently ignored and that could help to shed some light on who this Hugo Chavez is and whether he is a good president and a good leader for Venezuela.

At this moment, almost eight years into Chavez’s XXI Century Socialism, gasoline is being sold in Venezuela at 3.7 cents of dollar per liter or less than 15 dollar cents per gallon.

With this marvel of a public policy Chavez, besides stimulating a runaway consumption of gasoline with all its environmental consequences, based on the international cash-opportunity cost manages to transfer a regressive subsidy of about 10 billion dollars, or about 10% of Venezuela GDP, or about 100% of the GDP of a country like Bolivia, from the poor who do not buy gasoline, to those that love to guzzle it up.

For comparison the gasoline price in an oil country that seems to been doing things right is 52 times higher and in the USA of Mr. Bush, Chavez´ sworn enemy, and the Cuba of Castro, Chavez´ best buddy, the price is only about 25 times higher. Even in the land that has inspired the term of oil-Saudism the price is seven times as high.

Now you try to draw your own conclusions of what Chavez is all about! Are you clear now?

Now so to also help you understand the current opposition groups that are against Chavez, let me inform you that they do not mention this issue either. Are you clearer yet?

Oil, Citgo, and gov't policies

An interview by Daily Journal’s Leopoldo Taylhardat 

The DJ recently interviewed columnist Per Kurowski on his views regarding the Venezuelan and international oil industry. We caught up with him with his foot virtually on the plane's steps for a flight to Guatemala. He was committed to a week's work there for the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).

As usual with him, his statements were clear and frank. Per has been writing well-balanced opinion articles for the DJ for several years now.

PK: "The OPEC Summit Conference results? In general, very good. Results will depend on the unity of OPEC and its decision to defend its interests in very specific areas such as the fiscal and environmental discrimination against oil.

“I hope I'm not seen as ungrateful, but it looks to me as a poor beginning when we give so much publicity to the donation by the European Union of 250 million euros, almost one year after the Vargas disaster, because we all should know that even the least discrimination against our oil will, in the mid-term, easily save the EU that amount - through volumes and prices - in one-month additional revenue. 

“The good future results for Venezuela we may get from OPEC depend mainly on how we push the organization's lazy bureaucrats, normally afraid of the risks involved in any change. Let's not forget that the high-taxes problem has been affecting us for several years. Why didn't they point it out before? 

"About the San José Pact I can't say much. I'm not familiar with the subject but-and it seems to be an international procedure -any country has, I thinkthe right to use any strength it may haveto defend its interests in any way it feelsreasonable. At least it seems politicallyproper when it's done by the world's superpowers. The New York candidate to Congress, J. Lazio said, during a debate with Hillary Clinton: ... ask our allies and those who went to bat in the Desert Storm War, to think about our needs ...'- or words to that effect. So, if someone can send some of his own people to fight and die for the oil, what's wrong with giving out some oil, out of good will or, as some people claim, because of foolishness? 

"The volume of oil involved in the San José Pact is very small, so selling it at discount to other poorer countries may be a minor sin, if anything. Except when it is used for purely political reasons - now that would be a major sin.”

"On the other hand, Venezuela need not feel guilty for the difficulties other poorer countries may experience due to increasing oil prices. We are innocent infants compared to those countries selling renewable products such as medicines at prices thousands of times their cost, including raw materials and production. Let's stop sucking our fingers ... 

“Let me elaborate some more on this subject that, after all, is in fashion. The discussion over "fair prices" is, in my opinion, irrelevant. As long as oil is needed and scarce, its price will be high. If it becomes abundant and could be replaced by some other energy source, its price will go down. Any reference or comparison to the prices of other products is irrelevant, because regularly and naturally, the prices of any product or group of them can go up while others fall.

“Fairness is, to me, a matter of participation: the products obtained from a barrel of crude oil are sold in Europe for the equivalent of $200. Laborers housewives, teachers, and so on must pull out of their pockets that $ 200 and pay in cash. So it is evident that this is the market price for it. In other words, oil has never before been so valuable.

"On the other hand, we the oil owners and producers, we do not get much for a barrel of oil. Our share is only about $30 - or 15 percent - out of the $200. The rest is shared by refiners, transporters and distributors, who get $25, and the ever-hungry European government that grabs up to $160 - 80 percent.So it's unfair for the country selling that non-renewable resource to get only percent of the market value. It's like selling our house and being obliged to pay the real estate office over 80 percent of the price." 

Will the current Venezuelan government's oil politics contribute to change the world oil panorama? 

"I'm not sure. It depends on the government's capacity to strengthen the country and to encourage the nation to defend our interests. All our interests, not only the oil. Since consumer countries do know how to defend their interests, including oil, we must be continuously defending ours. Not just spasmodically. Results will depend on the strength of will displayed by all of us. What cannot be denied is that the oil politics promoted by our current government were not only necessary, they were taken just in time, at the eleventh hour." 

Shouldn't we emphasize conservation over production? 

"We must either preserve or sell our oil. It's up to us. What we must not do is fall into the death trap of producing while the price stays above the cost of extraction and shipping – that is, accepting as valid the idea that we must be satisfied as long as the oil pays for its production and transportation. 

"I am definitely against that. The nation must obtain a higher level of added value. And that's what we have OPEC for. If we get only 15 percent on the selling price of our product, then we are such poor users of our buried-for millions-of-years-wealth that we deserve having the wells locked up so future generations can benefit from oil. That also applies to the use of oil revenues. If we continue being as inefficient as in the past, we don't deserve to benefit from the nation's oil.” 

The appointment of a Venezuelan as " Citgo president is it convenient or not? 

"A Venezuelan as president of Citgo? Why not? Of course, it depends on who that Venezuelan is. Personally, I believe the Venezuelan state must control 100 percent of the exploration, extraction and basic refining operations. This is the only way it can have the possibility for using it as a weapon for geopolitical negotiations or ensure its value via, for example, OPEC. Until someone convinces me of something different, I insist that anything else the Venezuelan state tries to do with oil means a loss or a net reduction of the benefits brought by the first phases of the operation

"Because of that and the fact that I have seen the corporation's reports, I still can't understand the economic reasons for having bought and kept Citgo. There is evidence in the reports that it's being subsidized by PDVSA. 

“And, for those who argue so much in favor of privatizing PDVSA, I challenge them to make an IPO for Citgo, subject to their obligation to purchase oil products at market prices."

PS. I am still for Venezuela getting rid of Citgo

The world’s real petro-pirates!

This week's column is dedicated to those meetings up in Seattle this week.

When, as a citizen of an oil producing country, Venezuela, I see oil being valued by the market at US$ 150, and we only receive about US$ 20, I believe that I have the right to feel a bit let down by all those who promised us a rose garden if we duly signed up on all the international commercial agreements peddled by GATT; and lately by the World Trade Organization WTO. What do I mean? 

From one barrel of oil, one can approximately and simultaneously obtain 84 liters of gasoline, 12 of jet fuel, 36 of gas oil, 16 of lubricants and 12 of heavy residues. 

In Britain today, educated consumers are paying (voluntarily and out of their own pockets) US$ 1.38 per liter of gasoline (sorry, petrol) using the traditional way of establishing a product's value. 

Even if we just consider the gasoline, we obtain a value of about US$ 116 per barrel of oil and then by adding the rest of the products, we should be close to US$ 150 since refining and distribution costs are fairly small. 

I am well aware that the value US$ 150 is achieved by the taxman forcing himself in at the point of sale of gasoline, as an extremely expensive middleman, keeping 85% of the gross. But, was this not exactly the things that world governments agreed not to do, in order to foster free trade and growth ... and that which we believed when we signed up on all those reductions of protectionist duties, accepting to lend the developed world a hand, collecting, their pretensions of royalties for intellectual property rights? 

Today's result is therefore that, when an oil producing country is selling it's non-renewable and scarce resource to the world, it's only getting a fraction of the real value. 

The hurt and pain I feel at seeing so much poverty in my country, that could be alleviated by just a little bit more of justice by the developed consumer countries themselves, is made worse by thus adding salt to the wound.

Their bankers sold us on the idea, in the mid-seventies, that oil was going to increase in value, and therefore that we could calmly take on the responsibility for servicing a huge country debt ... they never told us that all the increase in the value of oil, which has actually occurred since then, was going to be confiscated by their taxmen.

We producers were, and still are, the remaining scapegoat for all inflationary pressures derived from any price increase in gasoline and other derivatives ... even when these were just the result of higher taxes.

We oil producers were, and still are, branded as the most wanted criminal in environmental issues when, in fact, we are the ones paying 100% of the cost of all the protection plans that through their taxes reduce world demand for oil.

Today we hear of even higher future oil taxes when Germany (for example) announces a plan of annual increases as a way to reduce their workers' social security payments and discriminate against us by not taxing coal and other energy sources.

For what it's worth, I would like to remind the developed world in good conscience that, when you're giving generous assistance to the under-developed world, much of it is with money properly belonging to the oil producing nations. 

When I see the suffering of my more destitute fellow countrymen, I blame myself, I blame all those lousy governments we have had ... but I also rightly blame the taxmen in the consumer countries, who are the true petro-pirates of the world.

http://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1999/12/worlds-real-petro-pirates.html

Fighting for one's country

Today, debates of the “cross-fire” or “opposite poles” type in which participants each defend opposite or extreme positions are very popular. 

I recently had the opportunity to be present during one of these debates, live, between to prestigious personalities from a European country. In simplified form, one represented “one trend” (the right), the other represented “the other trend” (the left) and the debate was about “exactly the opposite” (the third way).

 

The debate, needless to say, was excellent. I enjoyed the intellectual capacities of the debaters, as well as the abilities in the art of debate both of them displayed. Taking advantage of the presence of such distinguished personalities, of the serious academic environment in which the debate took place and the invitation to ask questions, I took it upon myself to ask the following:

 

"Gentlemen: It is well known that in the country you come from, a tax that is often above 800% is levied on the value of gasoline.

This type of tax is without a doubt the main reason why our country does not perceive more income from its oil exports. As a citizen of an oil producing country, I ask how, in your opinion, and from the perspective of “exactly the opposite”, the existence of these taxes can be explained in the context of the commercial aperture that is being developed worldwide?"

 

That was the end of “cross-fire” and “opposite poles”. My question immediately fused the opinions of the debaters into one, as if by chemical reaction, and both seemed liberated from any type of academic requirements. 

Almost in unison both responded something like: "Boy!" (I am almost 50 years old now, but the response was basically as if I was being treated as “Boy”). 

You should know that these taxes are imposed in order to reduce gasoline consumption and save the world’s environments from contamination. 

Additionally, you should be aware of the fact that your country’s main problem is that it is wholly dependent on oil and in this sense it should thank us for any help we can give you in order to reduce this dependence."

 

This response, the result of a solid defense of national interest over and above any ideological consideration, was for me a true lesson in the policy of economic development. It clearly indicated that any country that cannot rally its people to fight the commercial war, body to body, that globalization has initiated, is utterly and completely lost.

 

The taxes on oil based products that I have mentioned above are no small matter. According to information obtained for June, courtesy of the Petrol Retailer’s Association of the United Kingdom, a liter of gasoline was sold at the pump for the equivalent of Bs. 661. The distribution of this amount is basically as follows: Bs. 47 (7%) for the distributor, Bs. 68 (11%) for the producer and Bs. 552 (83%) for the British tax authorities.

 

The taxes apparently have no limit. Governments such as the United Kingdom and Germany have recently formally approved future increases. The Sunday Telegraph of the 29^th of August estimates that the gallon of gasoline in England in the year 2010 will be sold at £ 6.90, which is equivalent to Bs. 1,800 per liter. Out of this amount, the producer and the distributor must divide 10% since the taxman intends to keep about 90%. 

 

There is no doubt that should these taxes not exist, Venezuela would today be selling more oil at better prices. There is also no doubt that these taxes represent a major threat to the future of our oil industry. In this sense, the problem should be one of national interest.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there has been an absolute absence of formal protest in Venezuela. What is worse, only a tiny fraction of its citizens are aware of the problem. 

Worse still, the majority of those that work in the oil industry or that are experts therein, express surprise when confronted with the magnitude of these taxes.

 

Oil prices have recently risen. These increases are historically very modest. The European press, however, is full of attacks on the “bad boys” of the OPEC. In The Observer of the 5^th of September in England I read that the fault was attributed to “a number of far-flung dictatorships (and the odd democracy)….”, and the fact that OPEC had reduced its production somewhat, and OPEC's petroleum-addicted economies were suffering”.

 

In Venezuela, we see nothing in the way of response in the sense that the real “petrol-addicted” entities are the fiscal authorities of consumer nations. Our dailies basically limit themselves to reproducing articles that reflect preoccupation with possible inflationary pressures, making the uninformed Venezuelan feel like he is at fault for potential world crises.

 

It is high time that Venezuela begins to defend itself in a globalized world. For me, the negative effect to the country of having part of the value of our non-renewable assets commandeered by the taxmen in consumer nations is exactly as the same as if guerillas from a neighboring country come across the border and carry away a few barrels. Why do all our patriots have blinders on?

Petropolitan: http://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1999/10/fightning-for-ones-country.html  

Close to crying 'Yankee go Home'

I am a Venezuelan of European background and was born a few years after the end of World War II. I grew up under the influence of Audie Murphy movies and comic strips that extolled the valor and sacrifice of American soldiers in their efforts to save Europe from the clutches of fascism. As an adolescent, although against the Vietnam War, my little piece of American heart prevented me from participating in public protests outside the US Embassy, and even more so from flag burning.

However as I am nearing my fiftieth birthday, I suddenly have an incredible urge to yell “Yankee Go Home”. This occurred most recently when I read another of Rowan's articles, in this case blasting away at the latest changes implemented at PDVSA.

Theoretically, had we successfully arrived at the end of the opening of the oil industry, the recent cuts in production, which have had such positive effects over the last few months, would have been impossible to execute since the private sector would have to be compensated. The oil opening per se implied a departure, albeit clandestine, from OPEC. Since I have never been convinced that OPEC was losing relevance, I publicly opposed this oil opening policy, asking that its implications be democratically discussed.

I also considered that the Venezuelan oil industry benefited from being divided into several different entities. Even though this evidently represented additional costs, it was a good way of achieving mutual and cross supervision by experts in the industry. 

Therefore, when we were sold a restructuring based on supposed and overestimated savings (an annual figure of US$ 2 billion was brazenly bandied about) and which simply implied a total centralization of power, I loudly cried foul.

We were told that due to the lack of internal resources it was necessary to invite foreign capital to participate in the development of basic activities such as exploration and production.

Soon after, as if by magic, resources suddenly appeared tand were quickly invested in the “strategic” but very poorly explained building of gasoline stations that could also sell fast food. I felt misled and publicly informed PDVSA that the risk of Kuwait building a gas station in Las Mercedes in Caracas in order to compete directly and sell its ultra-light gasoline to the local market was really very slight.

I also protested, and continue to do so, when PDVSA, in the face of an upward trend in outsourcing of services, created the CIED in order to sell seminars and courses to captive clients. I protested and continue to protest when PDVSA, without much explanation, used an inmense amount of resources to finance studies of commercial ports in rivers in the eastern part of the country, for example.

The President of PDVSA should occupy his post as if he were a soldier on a battlefield on a sacred national mission. It wrenched my soul to see how he thinks he is a General Patton instead, and finds his way onto an entire page of the Wall Street Journal as Executive of the Year. Perhaps it should have been Entrepreneur of the Year.

Three years ago, as I traveled in the interior of the country, I observed how high interest rates, new taxes and a foreign exchange policy that in real terms strongly revalued the national currency were taking the country on a wild ride towards recession. 

At that point, while expressing my anguish at the possibility of a permanent loss of jobs, the then President of PDVSA, as if he were any common politician on TV, happily informed whoever would listen, that Venezuela was "condemned to success”. I almost cried with rage.

Last week, Rowan wrote that PDVSA’s ex-President, Luis Giusti, had produced a bonus of US$ 2.3 billion for the state with the oil opening - as if this were not simply the fruit of oil income perceived in advance, unfortunately already frittered away.

Rowan wrote: “Giusti’s strategy was brilliant. From a national perspective, Giusti was a patriot”. With respect to the recent changes at PDVSA, he wrote: “The development of this country has just been set back twenty years. The only institution in active transition to modernization, professionalism and meritocracy in Venezuela has been sacked. It’s been vandalized, ruined by ideologues from a Dark Age”.

I recently registered a NGO called Petropolitan, and through it I am fighting against the taxes on oil products imposed by a majority of the oil consuming countries of the world. These charges prevent oil-producing countries from receiving what they should rightly be receiving from the sale of their non-renewable resources.

The real value of an item of goods is normally measured at the consumer level, and in this sense the average value of a barrel of oil in the world might have already surpassed US$ 100. Of that value, up to a few months ago, the producer only received US$ 10, and today still has to settle for a meager US$ 20. I hope that someday when the absurd confiscation by taxmen in the developed world is eliminated, they will receive, say US$ 40 or more. If this defense of what is rightly ours classifies me in Rowan’s world as being one of the ideologues of the Dark Ages, then that is exactly what I am, and am proud of being so.

Daily Journal, Caracas, September 24, 1999

Petropolitan: http://petropolitan.blogspot.com/1999/09/close-to-crying-yankee-go-home.html