Connect with us

Oil & Energy

Hemispheric Implications Of Chavez’s Illness

Published

on

The recent dramatic pronouncement that Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, underwent cancer treatment in Cuba reverberated far beyond Venezuela, depressing his allies and elating his enemies.

While the leader of his self-proclaimed “Bolivarian revolution” is second only to his good buddy Fidel Castro in Washington’s black book, the fact remains that Chavez has discreetly deployed Venezuela’s vast oil and cash reserves to assist the struggling economies of a number of his Central American neighbors, which has earned him deep gratitude.

Ever the showman on alert for any opportunity to tweak Uncle Sam’s snout, in March 2006 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which damaged the U.S. Gulf oil infrastructure sending domestic prices soaring, he offered shivering New England residents discounted heating oil, infuriating the Bush administration.

Venezuela has the largest conventional oil reserves and the second-largest natural gas reserves in the Western Hemisphere.

But the reality is that Venezuela remains the United States’ fourth largest oil importer, accounting for roughly 1.5 million barrels a day. Should Chavez ever in a fit of pique turn off the taps, the only option that the US would have to replace lost imports would be to turn to Saudi Arabia, the sole OPEC member, and ask them to ramp up production, as Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC member with the reserve capacity to do so.

This in turn would create political problems for Riyadh with other OPEC members, most notably Iran, as under the OPEC system each member state has a pumping quota, and Tehran has already accused Riyadh of breaching its quotas by stealth.

Chavez certainly has reason to be mightily annoyed with US policy, which has been turning up the pressure on Chavez for years while carefully calculating how to avoid a total rupture.

In 2005 Washington classified Venezuela as a country that does not “cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking,” with government officials stating that the lack of assistance should incur financial penalties. The following year the U.S. upped the ante, labeling Venezuela as a country that “does not cooperate sufficiently with the fight against terrorism” and imposed sanctions prohibiting US arms sales to Venezuela or those from any company in the world using US technology.

Upping the ante, in 2007 Chavez announced the nationalization of the country’s oil industry. The foreign oil companies were forced to sign agreements giving majority control of hydrocarbons projects to Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), Venezuela’s state-owned petroleum company. Projects owned by companies like ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, who failed to sign these agreements, were taken over by PDVSA.

US-Venezuelan relations proceeded to deteriorate rapidly.

Most recently, on 24 June, during the “Sanctionable Activities in Venezuela” hearing in the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee, a number of Democratic and Republican House members requested that the Obama administration take more aggressive action against the government of Hugo Chavez. Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs for the Western Hemisphere head, Connie Mack, a Florida Republican, called the Venezuelan government “terrorist,” adding, “it’s time to act to contain the dangerous influence of Hugo Chavez and his relations with Iran.”

Pandering to the committee members, In testimony before the Committee, the State Department’s Assistant Under-Secretary of State for Latin America, Kevin Whitaker, stated that the administration is “seriously considering” labeling Venezuela a “terrorist state. No option is off the table and the Department will continue to study any further action as may be necessary in the future.”

Washington’s sanctions policy has isolated Cuba and crippled its economy for over fifty years, a relic of a long-gone Cold War.

It appears that Hugo Chaevz’s mortal sin in the eyes of Washington is that he did not come from Venezuela’s traditional white criollo population, less than 25 per cent of the country’s population, which had dominated Venezuela’s politics since the nation achieved independence in 1811. Chavez came instead from the country’s mestizo ethnicity, of mixed European, African, and Amerindian ancestry, which comprises about 65 percent of the country’s population and a working-class background.

Just as Obama smashed the color bar in US politics by being elected to the country’s highest office in 2008, Chavez, elected President in 1998, gave the majority mestizo non-white population not only of Venezuela, but of other nations across Latin and Central America, high hopes that one of their “own” could be elected, who would be more sensitive to their needs than their traditional white criollo elites (of whom his friend Fidel Castro is one), a political seismic shift of historic proportions.

As Washington remained fixated after 11 September 2001 on invading Iraq and Afghanistan, this political shift began to wash across Latin America, most notably with the 2006 election of Bolivia’s Evo Morales.

More important than the ethnicity of the chief executive, however, is that since the early 2000s left-wing political parties have risen to power in most Latin American countries. Besides Chavez and Morales these include Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Nestor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernandez in Argentina, Tabare Vazquez and Jose Mujica in Uruguay, the Ricardo Lagos and Michelle Bachelet governments in Chile, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Manuel Zelaya (later deposed in a coup) in Honduras, Rafael Correa in Ecuador, and Mauricio Funes of El Salvador.

Chavez has been at the forefront of attempting to wean these governments away from Washington’s influence, most notably with the establishment of the Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra America (the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America,” or ALBA), which Chavez first proposed in 2004. The initial member states were Venezuela and Cuba, but ALBA now also includes Bolivia, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicarauga and the St. Vincent and the Grenadine islands. In August 2008, shortly before the coup, which overthrew him, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya signed an agreement to join ALBA. Further threatening Washington, in October 2009 ALBA leaders agreed a cereate a regional currency, the sucre, to used used in alliance transaction in lieu of both local currencies and the dollar.

Is it any wonder then why Washington sees Chavez as a threat?

Accordingly, the 64,000 bolivares question, not only for Venezuela but Central America and the U.S. as well is – how serious is Chavez’s illness, and what are the implications for Caracas if he is incapacitated? If Chavez leaves the scene, will a new government continue his policy of providing discounted energy to his poor neighbors, most notably Cuba, which receives 64,000 barrels a day, or the Dominican Republic, which pays Venezuela for the 50,000 oil barrels per day that it receives through Petrocaribe with chicken, lard, sugar and pasta? Nicaraguan businessmen are so concerned with the “precarious health” of President Chavez that they are insisting that the Ortega administration immediately negotiate a Free Trade Agreement with Venezuela. If Chavez leaves office, will these countries become more amenable to foreign investment, having nowhere else to turn?

Will a new administration let foreign oil companies back into Venezuela? These and many more questions hinge on the health of a single man, who whatever happens has had more impact on the Latin American political landscape than any other regional political leader of the last dozen years. Love Chavez or detest him, it is impossible to ignore both the man and his impact and the smart money will be gauging carefully the depth and longevity of the impact of the man and his vision should he leave the stage.

Daly writes for OilPrice.Com.

John Daly

Continue Reading

Oil & Energy

NERC, OYSERC  Partner To Strengthen Regulation

Published

on

THE Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) has stressed the need for strict adherence to due process in operationalizing state electricity regulatory bodies.
It, however, pledged institutional and technical support to the Oyo State Electricity Regulatory Commission (OYSERC).
The Chairman, NERC, Dr Musiliu Oseni, who made the position known while receiving the OYSERC delegation, emphasised that the establishment and take-off of state commissions must align fully with the law setting them up.
Oseni said that the NERC remains committed to partnering with State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERC) to guarantee their institutional stability, operational effectiveness and long-term success.
He insisted that regulatory coordination between federal and state institutions is critical in the evolving electricity market framework, noting that collaboration would help to build strong institutions capable of delivering sustainable outcomes for the sector.
Also speaking, the Acting Chairman, OYSERC and leader of the delegation, Prof. Dahud Kehinde Shangodoyin, said that the visit was aimed at formally introducing the commission’s acting leadership to the NERC and laying the groundwork for a productive working relationship.
Shangodoyin said , the acting members were appointed to provide direction and lay a solid foundation for the commission during its transitional period, pending the appointment of substantive members.
“We are here to formally introduce the acting leadership of OYSERC and to establish a working relationship with NERC as we commence our regulatory responsibilities,” he said.
He acknowledged NERC’s readiness to provide technical and regulatory support, particularly in the area of capacity development, describing the backing as essential for strengthening the commission’s operations at this formative stage.
“We appreciate NERC’s willingness to support us technically and regulatorily, especially in building our capacity during this transition,” he added.
Continue Reading

Oil & Energy

NLC Faults FG’s 3trn Dept Payment To GenCos

Published

on

The Nigeria Labour Congress and the Association of Power Generation Companies have engaged in a showdown over federal government legacy debt.
NLC president Joe Ajaero has faulted the federal government’s move to give GenCos N3 trillion from the Federation account as repayment for a power sector legacy debt, which amounts to N6.5 trillion.
In a statement on Thursday, Ajaero said the Federal Government proposed the N3 trillion payment and the N6 trillion debt as a heist and grand deception to shortchange the Nigerian people.
“Nigerians cannot and should not continue to pay for darkness,” Ajaero stated.
Meanwhile, the Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Power Generation Companies, APGC, Dr. Joy Ogaji, said Ajaero may be ignorant of the true state of things, insisting that the federal government is indebted to GenCos to the tune of N6.5 trillion.
She feared the longstanding conflict could result in the eventual collapse of the country’s power.
According to her, the federal government’s N501 billion issuance of power sector bonds is inadequate to address its accumulated debt.
Continue Reading

Oil & Energy

PENGASSAN Rejects Presidential EO On Oil, Gas Revenue Remittance  ……… Seeks PIA Review 

Published

on

The Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria(PENGASSAN) Festus Osifo, has faulted the public explanation surrounding the Federal Government’s recent oil revenue Executive Order(EO).
President of the association, Festus Osifo, argued that claims about a 30 per cent deduction from petroleum sharing contract revenue are misleading.
Recall that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, last Wednesday, February 18, signed the executive order directing that royalty oil, tax oil, profit oil, profit gas, and other revenues due to the Federation under production sharing, profit sharing, and risk service contracts be paid directly into the Federation Account.
The order also scrapped the 30 per cent Frontier Exploration Fund under the PIA and stopped the 30 per cent management fee on profit oil and profit gas retained by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.
In his reaction, Osifo, while addressing journalists, in Lagos, Thursday, said the figure being referenced does not represent gross revenue accruing to the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited.
He explained that revenues from production sharing contracts are subject to several deductions before arriving at what is classified as profit oil or profit gas.
Osifo also urged President Bola Tinubu to withdraw his recently signed Presidential Executive Order to Safeguard Federation Oil and Gas Revenues and Provide Regulatory Clarity, 2026.
He warned that the directive undermines the Petroleum Industry Act and could create uncertainty in the oil and gas industry, insisting that any amendment to the existing legal framework must pass through the National Assembly.
Osifo argued that an executive order cannot override a law enacted by the National Assembly, describing the move as setting a troubling precedent.
“Yes, that is what should be done from the beginning. You can review the laws of a land. There is no law that is perfect,” he said.
He added that the President should constitute a team to review the PIA, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and forward proposed amendments to lawmakers.
“When you get revenue from PSC, you have to make some deductibles. You deduct royalties. You deduct tax. You also deduct the cost of cost recovery. Once you have done that, you will now have what we call profit oil or profit gas. Then that is where you now deduct the 30 per cent,” he stated..
According to him, when the deductions are properly accounted for, the 30 per cent being referenced translates to about two per cent of total revenue from the production sharing contracts.
“In effect, that deduction is about two per cent of the revenue of the PLCs,” he added, maintaining that the explanation presented in the public domain did not accurately reflect the structure of the deductions.
Osifo warned that removing the affected portion of the revenue could have operational implications for NNPC Ltd, noting that the funds are used to meet salary obligations and other internal expenses.
“That two per cent is what NNPC uses to pay salaries and meet some of its obligations.The one you are also removing from the midstream and downstream, it is part of what they use in meeting their internal obligations. So as you are removing this, how are they going to pay salaries?” he queried.
Beyond the immediate impact on the company’s workforce, he cautioned that regulatory uncertainty could affect investor confidence in the sector.
“If the international community and investors lose confidence in Nigeria, it has a way of affecting investment. That should be the direction. You don’t put a cow before the horse,” he added.
According to him, stakeholders, including labour unions and industry operators, should be given the opportunity to make inputs at the National Assembly as part of the amendment process saying “That is how laws are refined,”
Continue Reading

Trending