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

No Subsidy In Oil, Gas Sector — NMDPRA

Published

on

The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) has said there are no subsidies in the oil and gas sector as Nigeria operates a completely deregulated market.
The Director, Public Affairs Department, NMDPRA, George Ene-Italy, made this known in an interview with newsmen, in Abuja, at the Weekend.
Reacting to the recent reports that the Federal Government has removed subsidies or increased the price of Compressed Natural Gas (CBG), Ene-Italy said, “What we have is a baseline price for our gas resources, including CNG as dictated by the Petroleum Industry Act”.
He insisted that as long as the prevailing CNG market price conforms to the baseline, then the pricing is legitimate.
 Furthermore, the Presidential –  Compressed Natural Gas Initiative (P-CNGI) had said that no directive or policy had been issued by the Federal Government to alter CNG pump prices.
The P-CNGI boss, Michael Oluwagbemi, emphasised that the recent pump price adjustments announced by certain operators were purely private-sector decisions and not the outcome of any government directive or policy.
For absolute clarity, it said that while pricing matters fell under the purview of the appropriate regulatory agencies, no directive or policy had been issued by the Federal Government to alter CNG pump prices.
The P-CNGI said its mandate, as directed by President Bola Tinubu, was to catalyse the development of the CNG mobility market and ensure the adoption of a cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable alternative fuel and diesel nationwide.
Continue Reading

Oil & Energy

‘Nigeria’s GDP’ll Hit $357bn, If Power Supply Gets To 8,000MW’

Published

on

The Managing Director, Financial Derivatives Company Limited (FDC),  Bismarck Rewane, has said that Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could rise to $357b  if electricity supply would increase from the present 4.500MW to 8,000MW.
Rewane also noted that Nigeria has spent not less than $30 billion in the power sector in 26 years only to increase the country’s power generation by mere 500MW, from 4,500 MW in 1999 to 5,000MW in 2025 though the sector has installed capacity to generate 13,000 MW.
In his presentation at the Lagos Business School (LBS) Executive Breakfast Session, titled “Nigeria Bailout or Lights Out: The Power Sector in a Free Fall”, Rewane insisted that the way out for the power sector that has N4.3 trillion indebtedness to banks would be either a bailout or lights out for Nigeria with its attendant consequences.
He said, “According to the World Bank, a 1.0 per cent increase in electricity consumption is associated with a 0.5 to 0.6 per cent rise in GDP.
“If power supply rises to 8000MW, from current 4500MW, the bailout shifts money from government into investment, raising consumption and productivity. And, due to multiplier effects, GDP could rise to $357 billion.”
The FDC’s Chief Executive said “in the last 30 years, Nigeria has invested not less than $30 billon to solve an intractable power supply problem.
“The initiatives, which started in 1999 when the power generated from the grid was as low as 4,500MW, have proved to be a failure at best.
“Twenty-six years later, and after five presidential administrations, the country is still generating 5,000MW. Nigeria is ranked as being in the lowest percentile of electricity per capita in the world.
“The way out is a bailout, or it is lights out for Nigeria”, he warned.
He traced the origin of the huge debts of the power sector to its privatisation under President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration, when many of the investors thought they had hit a jackpot, only to find out to their consternation that they had bought a poisoned chalice.
Rewane, who defined a bailout as “injection of money into a business or institution that would otherwise face an imminent collapse”, noted that the bailout may be injected as loans, subsidies, guarantees or equity for the purpose of stabilising markets, protect jobs and restore confidence.
He said, “The President has promised to consider a financial bailout for the Gencos and Discos. With a total indebtedness of N4.3 trillion to the banking system, the debt has shackled growth in the sector.”
Rewane warned that without implementing the bailouts for the power sector, the GENCOs and DISCOs would shut down at the risk of nationwide blackout.
Rewane, however, noted that implementing a bailout for the power sector could have a positive effect on the country’s economy if Nigeria’s actual power generation could rise from today’s 4,500 MW to around 8,000 and 10,000 MW.
The immediate gains, according to him, would include improved power generation and distribution capacity, more reliable electricity supply to homes and businesses as well as cost reflective tariffs.
Continue Reading

Oil & Energy

NEITI Blames Oil, Gas Sector Theft On Mass Layoff 

Published

on

The Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) has blamed the increasing crude oil theft across the nation on the persistent layoff of skilled workers in the oil and gas sector.
The Executive Secretary, NEITI, Orji Ogbonnaya Orji, stated this during an interview with newsmen in Abuja.
Orji said from investigations, many of the retrenched workers, who possess rare technical skills in pipeline management and welding, often turn to illicit networks that steal crude from pipelines and offshore facilities.
In his words, “You can’t steal oil without skill. The pipelines are sometimes deep underwater. Nigerians trained in welding and pipeline management get laid off, and when they are jobless, they become available to those who want to steal crude”.
He explained that oil theft requires extraordinary expertise and is not the work of “ordinary people in the creeks”, stressing that most of those involved were once trained by the same industry they now undermine.
According to him, many retrenched workers have formed consortia and offer their services to oil thieves, further complicating efforts to secure production facilities.
“This is why we told the Nigerian Content Development and Monitoring Board (NCDMB) to take this seriously. The laying off of skilled labour in oil and gas must stop”, he added.
While noting that oil theft has reduced in recent times due to tighter security coordination, Orji warned, however, that the failure to address its root causes, including unemployment among technically trained oil workers would continue to expose the country to losses.
According to him, between 2021 and 2023, Nigeria lost 687.65 million barrels of crude to theft, according to NEITI’s latest report. Orji said though theft dropped by 73 per cent in 2023, with 7.6 million barrels stolen compared to 36.6 million barrels in 2022, the figure still translates to billions of dollars in lost revenues.
Orji emphasised that beyond revenue, crude oil theft also undermines national security, as proceeds are used to finance terrorism and money laundering.
“It’s more expensive to keep losing crude than to build the kind of monitoring infrastructure Saudi Arabia has. Nigeria has what it takes to do the same”, he stated.
Continue Reading

Trending