Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I live in an oil town. I live 10 blocks from work. I'll be walking to and fro when the weather is better -- and I'll be getting a bike in the spring.
 

But... but...I was under the impression - from my conservative friends, you understand- that trying to change the damn laws WAS "jumpin ugly" of the oil companies.

I am assured by my Republican friends that the oil companies will go plumb under the ice if we burdon their poor scabby backs any more.
 

Dadgum that dadgum ol' democracy! Dadgum ol' Americans votin' to rein in the oil bidness!

Hey, because I've lived in the oil patch my whole life, I do know that what comes around goes around. Nobody in the rest of the country gave a rat's when oil was $9 a barrel and whole dang downs dang near dried up and blew away.

So, I'm slow to jump ugly on the oil bidness for takin' a profit. In fact, I will not begrudge them their profits.

But I AM perfectly willing to tax the shit out of 'em when times are good, for the same reason I'm willing to give 'em breaks when times are bad.

Dr. ER says: Why not national Exxon? That way, Venezual's action against Exxon would get it totally out the court systems and make it a state matter. Might be easier to deal with, she says.

Part of me is all for that -- the same part that things that all resources that contribute directly to the nation's survival should be in the hands of the state. (And here the ghost of former Vice President Henty Wallace is stirred to come hang around ER's blog!)
 

I'm speaking here from the strain of social democracy that resides within.
 

All I can say, is to echo one of your comments. My family oil royality checks have gone from 90 cents a month to several hundred a month.(low yeild and stripper wells don't pump at all until the price of oil gets above about $50 a barrel) No doubt they will be back in the decimal point payment range sooner or latter. Why anyone would invest long term in any energy company is beyond me.
Yep, I know they are all theives.
 

By the way, the Venezuelan crude is thick crud with high sulphur content. They have no way to refine it on their on. Most of their crude has to be refined in the U.S. refineries along the gulf coast which are designed to handle it.

Venezuela versus Exxon. I wonder who would win. Who would the world banks back in a show down? Which one would the courts outside of Venezuela find in the wrong?
If Venezuela cuts off oil to the U.S., then finally maybe we will open up the Colorado Oil Shale's and the Alberta Oil Sands. If Americans were willing to pay $4.50-$5.00 a gallon we wouldn't have to import a single barrel five years from now. We could kiss Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran bye bye and bring our children home. Let China and Europe take over there. They would need it but we wouldn't.
 

I heard this story on NPR this morning, and part of the problem, it seems to me, is that Exxon and the courts are treating the contract between the Venezuelan national company and Exxon as a traditional business contract, rather than a semi-contract, semi-treaty. Venezuela's position is pretty clear - it nationalized the oil companies, and told outside companies that bought its oil that the new rules of the road in Venezuela meant renegotiating the contracts, including making Venezuela a controlling partner in the businesses. Exxon deferred, and rather than negotiate, took 'em to court here and in Europe. If Henry Kissinger had been in office, of course, we would be gearing up for a serious coup, a la Chile in 1973. Chavez is lucky that, while certainly desirous of such an event, the folks in Washington today are simply too inept to do something like that (they tried and failed a few years ago; I doubt they'll try again).

Venezuela's share of the American market is probably not large enough to effect the overall price of oil. They probably are also negotiating themselves out of serious petrol-dollars world-wide, if this is their position with all oil companies.
 

Actually 10% of American oil comes from Venezuela, and over all we consume 60% of their output. Exxon however can simply shift to other sources to make up its difference.

Even if Chavez cuts off Exxon that won't cut back on the volume of oil coming into America from Venezuela in that they will just shift it to their State owned company CITGO which does most of its business here.

Exxon of course does not make treaties so working this as contract law is their only recourse. Interestingly Chavez's timing is way off, Most of his oil ends up as winter heating oil because of its low quality, and winter is almost over.
Also all he owes Exxon at the most is $2 billion while the court seizure is $12 billion and puts him in a bad position in that claims on it may be made by other companies that have broken contracts with him as well. He would have done well to negotiate Exxon down a few hundred million and paid up. Now he is going to have to come up with "in country cash" to do business over seas in Europe or America and maybe even other places. Not to mention that no corporations or investors are going to want to do business with him for fear of losing heir money.
Hell, Washington couldn't have tied him up in as good of knots as this even if they had wanted too.

I sometime believe that the real solution to War is to litigate it in the courts. Lawyers can coagulate almost any forward movement of anything anytime.