portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

corporate dominance | economic justice

Petrotreason: Bush, The Saudis, Venezuela and the price of Oil

by Michael I. Niman, ArtVoice 7/13/06.
Middle Eastern oil is generally a thin, easy-to-pump liquid. Hence, for
generations, when oil was selling for less than bottled water, oil
companies turned to producers like Saudi Arabia for their oil. The
Saudis took the billions we gave them and pumped the money back into the
US economy, basically buying up the country. Today they own an estimated
seven percent of the entire US economy. It's like having your crack
dealer or your favorite tobacco company buy the house you mortgaged to
feed your addiction. After years of fueling our economy on cheap Saudi
oil, the House of Saud now owns a pivotal chunk of our country.

By recycling our money back into the US economy, the Saudis also have
artificially propped up the overvalued US dollar during George W. Bush's
presidency, financing our war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts for the
rich, while underwriting our astronomical national debt. In essence, the
only reason the Bush government can still write checks is because they
sold the bank to the Saudis.

But a funny thing happened to global oil math a few years ago when the
price of crude hit $30 a barrel. At $30 a barrel, it suddenly become
profitable to extract heavy crude, a tar-like oil, and process it into
lighter, usable oil. So at $30 a barrel, Venezuela's oil reserves came
into play, transforming that Latin American democracy into the world's
most powerful petro-producer, sitting on the world's largest oil
reserves. Today the US Department of Energy estimates that Venezuela's
reserves are five times that of Saudi Arabia. Other estimates run as
high as 10 times the Saudi reserves.

There are major differences between buying oil from Venezuela and buying
it from the Saudis. Saudi Arabia, by all accounts, is a brutal dictatorship that suppresses all dissent. Elements within the government and the ruling family are also allegedly tied to
terrorists such as those who may have attacked the World Trade Center. Venezuela, on the
other hand, is a democracy—though if you rely on the CNN-Fox boys for your news, you might not know this. By most accounts, its elections are cleaner than ours. Venezuela's government is
immensely popular. Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, for example, took to the streets to reverse
a Bush-orchestrated 2002 military coup that unsuccessfully attempted to
unseat the president and abolish the elected legislature as well as the constitution.

Once back in power, Venezuela's government took no action against the corporate media and business concerns that supported the coup. Today, most Venezuelan media outlets are still controlled by the traitors who broadcast propagandistic lies and misinformation supporting the coup
plotters. The juxtaposition of their anti-government rhetoric against state-controlled media gives Venezuela a remarkably lively public political debate seldom seen in any supposed democracy.

Today, with oil trading at $78 per barrel, Venezuela's democratic government is awash in cash. Unlike the Saudi royal family, they are not using that cash to buy America. Instead they've
instituted universal health care and literacy programs, provided land to landless peasants
and have made remarkable steps in addressing urban poverty that historically has been rampant in Venezuela. Venezuela has also provided discounted oil to poor communities and governments throughout the Americas—including making generous grants to inner-city communities in
the United States.

This is all good for the average Venezuelan, hence the government's popularity, but it flies in the face of the Bush administration's apocalyptic economic agenda of further enriching
the rich at the expense of the world's poorest citizens. Hence, the coup

Recently our democratic, oil-rich neighbor to the south made an interesting offer to the United States. It goes like this: They will lower the price of their oil from $78 per barrel
down to $50 per barrel, effectively bringing the street price of gasoline
back to around two dollars per gallon and rescuing both American consumers and the American
economy from disaster. The catch is that the US will have to sign a long-term contract at this price, guaranteeing a return on the massive investment Venezuela would need to make to extract and process this thick crude. The guarantee protects them from a sudden temporary Saudi
price drop designed to bankrupt the Venezuelan oil industry.

The other catch is that the Bush administration would have to stop trying to overthrow Venezuela's elected government. In other words, they'd sell us their oil on the cheap as long as
we promised not to keep trying to steal it and sell it to ourselves at inflated prices.

Put this deal to a vote in the US and it's pretty clear how things would go, providing there was a fair count. We'd go for cheap oil and democracy over bankruptcy, terrorism and theocratic totalitarianism. (I think.) But in our democracy we don't get to make
these decisions. And, if you get your news from the corporate media, in
all likelihood you probably don't even know that these decisions are
being made. So we'll stick with three-plus-dollar-per-gallon fuel and
the Saudi wing of Bush's family.

The math is real simple. The oilmen who run the Republican Party don't
like cheap oil prices. By sticking with the Saudis and refusing
Venezuela's offer, they are artificially inflating the price of oil, in
turn creating astronomical profits for themselves. With consumers
tightening their budgets to pay for energy expenses, all sorts of
businesses are failing. Yet Exxon/Mobil, the nation's largest oil
company, recently became the most profitable corporation in world
history. And the Saudis—well, with oil pumping at $78 per barrel,
they'll pretty much own this country by the end of the Bush presidency
(that is, assuming it will come to an end).

So the trillion-dollar question is this: How can the Bush administration
justify not taking Venezuela's offer to supply us with more affordable
energy while cutting our dangerous dependence on the Saudis? Cheap oil
or pricey dependency on theocratic fascists? How can they justify
putting Saudi interests ahead of American interests? How can they
justify doing business with a notorious human rights abuser over a

In today's corporate media environment, no one will ask these questions.
Perhaps, it's because the answer is too dangerous to utter. Politics in
America is no longer about left and right, liberal and conservative or
Democrat and Republican. In today's complex political reality where
neo-conservatives embrace neo-liberalism and liberals seek to conserve
the Constitution, American politics may be breaking down into two clear
and distinct camps. It's really not so complicated after all. There are
the treasonous bastards that control Washington, and the rest of us.

Dr. Michael I. Niman's Artvoice columns are
archived at www.mediastudy.com.
Y Mexico?? Loss of Pemex to ExxonMobil?? 18.Jul.2006 11:06

stop NAFTA/PPP steamroller from resource theft

Calderon appears poised to sell off Mexican owned Pemex to US corporations like ExxonMobil, similar to the attempts of Rockefeller to sieze Mexican oil for Standard Oil (later renamed ESSO, now ExxonMobil) pre-WW2. This power play on the part of Rockefeller's S.O. aka Esso caused tensions amongst people in Mexico, a needed ally against the (Rockefeller/Ford/Prescott Bush sponsored) Nazi Germany. Additionally Rockefeller provided the Nazi fleets with petroleum via Mexican ports. following public outcry in Mexcio, Rockefeller gave up plans to sieze Mexican petroleum reserves/refineries and Pemex became nationalized for the people of Mexico, despite obvious corruption in later years between the ruling the PAN/PRI parties..

"Standard Oil of New Jersey, which later renamed itself Esso, then Exxon, was a major player in the foreign support of Nazi Germany from the 30's all the way into 1942. [8]

At the eve of World War II, the major stockholder in Standard Oil after the Rockerfellers was I.G. Farben, the German chemical combine, a major financial backer of Hitler and later heavily involved in using slave labor from the concentration camps. This investment was part of a pattern of reciprocal investments between the US and Germany during the Nazi years, in the midst of the Great Depression. Germany was viewed as a hot investment area.

One area of support Standard Oil provided was in tetraethyl lead, which was used in aviation gasoline. The Nazi air force "couldn't fly without it. "Only Standard, Du Pont, and General Motors had rights to it." Walter C. Teagle, president of Standard Oil of New Jersey (the largest petroleum corporation in the world in 1941), "helped to organize a sale of the precious substance" in 1938, 500 tons, from Ethyl, a British Standard subsidiary, to Hermann Schmitz of I.G. Farben, a large German chemical firm and major financial backer of Hitler. Then in 1939, "Schmitz and his partners returned to London and obtained $15 million worth." [9]

After the war started in Europe and the British were angry about U.S. shipments to Nazi Germany, Standard Oil "changed the registration of the entire fleet to Panamanian to avoid British seizure or search. His vessels carried oil to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where they refueled and siphoned oil to German tankers for shipment to Hamburg." [10]

On March 31, 1941, "the State Department stepped into the picture with a detailed report on refueling stations in Mexico and Central and South America that were suspected of furnishing oil to Italian or German merchant vessels now in port. Among those fueling enemy ships were Standard Oil of New Jersey and California. There is no record of any action being taken on this matter." [11]"

article cont's @;

This pattern of US corporations like SO/Esso/ExxonMobil supporting and funding fascist regimes has continued throughout the world including Al-Queda, Saddam and other so-called 'enemy leaders' who were initially our friends against a different enemy (Soviet Union, Iran, etc..). Within Mexico the pressure is on preventing indigenous activists like the Zapatistas from having their voice heard around the world. Too bad the Zapatistas are skilled at living in the Sierra Madre rainforest undetected, eh Mr. Rockefeller? Bet a clearcutting operation from your timber baron buddies at International Paper would just have you foaming at the mouth if Plan Puebla Panama would repress indigenous soveriegnty in Chiapas and enable IP to invade los bosques in los montanas and remove the tree cover..

In previous elections, PRI candidate Zedillo was instructed by none other than David Rockefeller himself (via his Chase Manhattan Bank) to "eliminate the Zapatistas" and the following military incursions into Chiapas by the Mexican military proved that Rockefeller has clout with the politicians in Mexico City..

"David Rockefeller's bank calls for Elimination of Zapatistas
Chase Bank internal report written by Riordan Roett calling for the elminiation of the Zapatistas.

'The government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy.'


more on Rockefeller's Chase @;

"Throughout its history, this company has owned one of the largest tanker fleets in the world. It was founded in 1882 as the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which was later the most important of the components into which John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust was broken in 1911. The name Exxon was adopted in 1972. The company was renamed Exxon Shipping Company (1982-93) and its predecessor, Marine Department of Exxon Company USA. Both used the Exxon House Flag. From 1993 to present, the company is SeaRiver Maritime, Inc."

See these ExxonMobil flags on the high seas? Prepare for boarding, matey;

We understand that David Rockefeller and ExxonMobil corporate interests would act in collusion with International Paper and other timber corporations to invade southern Mexico for the purpose of resource theft, Coca-cola (former CEO Vicente Fox, PAN party) would sell of the aquifer agua in San Jovel, Chiapas, ExxonMobil would buy out Pemex (with Calderon's help, PAN party) and International Paper would clear-cut the forests of the Sierra Madres..

"In 1997, Mexico passed controversial reforms to subsidize its failing timber industry, which cut its production in half between 1995 and 1996, and lost a third of its jobs, despite an increase in domestic consumption. International Paper was one of the Mexican law's primary authors. After the collapse of Mexico's economy in December 1994, International Paper promised to invest in Mexico if it would offer financial incentives. In a 1995 letter to Zedillo's office, International Paper Forest Division Director Edward Kobacker said "Mexico is wasting a clear opportunity. If Mexico is to be globally competitive, there should not be limits on the size of privately owned sections of forest ... and the country should legislate incentives to promote the establishment of commercial plantations." So Mexico made land purchases easier for forestry companies and explicitly gave commercial forest plantations a special legal status. International Paper is planning a 50,000-hectare tree plantation in Chiapas and several other projects.

In 1996, IP began negotiations to buy pine and encino paper pulp from Mexican ejidos in the Sierra Madre. High level officials of the SEMARNAP (Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources and Fish) were present at some of these meetings. A contract with the Ejido of San Alonso was signed in June 1996. In August, the Commission of Solidarity and Defense of Human Rights (COSYDDHAC) received a document signed by 13 ejido members from who expressed their concern and opposition to the volume of the proposed logging, which could double the ejido's timber cut."

more on IP profile @;

All this and more raping of Mexico's Madre Tierra is possible if Calderon is declared winner of the Mexican presidency, PPP joins NAFTA and the Zapatistas are suppressed via the Mexican military. Of course ExxonMobil and other corporations's didn't count on popular support in Mexico (and worldwide) for PRD party candidate Obrador..

Obrador is with the PRD party, an alternative to the conservative pro-NAFTA PAN party and the do nothing PRI party. Over the last several years the leftis PRD party has faced severe repression in Mexico..

"Across Mexico over 400 activists of the party of Lopez Obrador have been assassinated, or died mysterious deaths since the late 1980s. Two poll workers for the Party were added to the victims list this past July 2.

The intimidation factor facing the PRD was apparent in my drive through 17 Mexican states prior to the 1994 presidential election. PRI propaganda was common on roadside homes and businesses, and a few upscale neighborhoods had PAN signs, but PRD was virtually invisible outside of the capital."

more on Obrador's PRD party @;
 link to www.berkeleydailyplanet.com