Venezuela Takes Control of Total Oil Field

[phantom power]

April 03,2006 | CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuela has taken control of an oil field from France's Total SA after the company refused sign an agreement to turn the site over to a state-controlled joint venture, the company said Monday.

State oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA, or PDVSA, "took control of our operations at Jusepin. It was during the weekend," Total spokeswoman Patricia Marie told The Associated Press by telephone from the company's headquarters in Paris.

Total operated the oil field independently under a contract with the government. Marie was unable to immediately provide further details, including how many Total employees work at the site.

The Jusepin oil field in eastern Venezuela produces about 30,000 barrels a day. PDVSA awarded Total a 55 percent stake in the field and British Petroleum PLC a 45 percent stake under a 1993 license agreement.

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8GOILQG3.html

[acmavm]

1. Gee, how uppity of Venezuela to want control of their assets.

:sarcasm:

[dcfirefighter]

2. How would you feel if your state seized your home?

Would they just be uppity in seizing their own assets?

Property law is a very important thing. Venezuela will have trouble attracting voluntary investment now. Likely they (and you) don't care. Why bother building something if the government can and will sieze it?

Certainly, foreign investment has been exploitive in the past; in fact, I consider allowing anyone to 'purchase' oil rights as exploitive. However, the capital that Total installed: the wells drilled, the pumping stations, the pipelines, etc., are real investments. Getting another private / foreign agency to build something in Venezuela might be tough from here on.

[400Years]

3. reclaiming what was their to begin with

Just because the crooks who were in control of Venenzuela's oil in the past made bad deals does not mean that they should not try ot modify those deals or declare them null and void outright.

[dcfirefighter]

6. What is the nature of ownership?

By what means was it 'theirs'. I mean this philosophically. What is the moral justification of ownership? The power of the state? If this is the justification, power, then the US is justified in taking whatever they can from whomever they can.

Was it theirs because it was within their borders? If this is the justification, then the state can sieze anything (or anybody) within it's borders.

What is the moral justification for property?

(I know, but want you to think about it)

[400Years]

7. the entire concept of private property has long been discussed

You ask about the moral justification of ownership? You are making a mistake if you think I have not gone down the road to seeking answers to these questions, because I have. But first, let me explain a few things to you about the origins of the idea of property. I will use an example to illustrate the problematic nature of the concept of property. In the Mexican state of Oaxaca there are vast tracts of land that has always been common to all the people in the area. Nobody officially "owns" the forest and there is no provenance or official record of ownership and all the indigenous people use the resources of this land in common. However, there is an effort afoot to change this situation. Look up Plan Panama Puebla. The effort is to say to all of these people that they will subdivide the land and issue deeds. This effort will formalize and make official the "ownership" of the land and turn it into a commodity, the real goal. Once that is done, the same old economic forces that have been in place since the 1600's will impoverish those who once were collectively land rich. Here you have a case of introducing the private property concept in a place that it had not existed and it gives you clues as to the genesis of this idea.

You might want to spend some time studying history a little more. I would suggest World Systems Analysis by Immanuel Wallerstein as a good starting point.

[dcfirefighter]

8. Thanks for the recommendation, but you completely misunderstand me

And you are making a mistake if you don't think I understand and support the idea of 'commons'.

Though I would say that those lands in Mexico don't necessarily belong to the people in the area, but rather to all of humanity - as commons.

And I agree that what you describe would be a horrible idea.

But, claiming those lands in common for the local indigenous people, by necessity excludes other people. It is the very same argument that the British Royal Family could use to justify their ownership of most of Britain. "We've had it for a very long time, so therefore it is ours". How long then, does a newcomer have to remain somewhere before he can 'own' property, or at least have access to the commons? Every group of people was a newcomer once, and given the nature of history, they probably, in the distant or not so distant past, killed or otherwise displaced the people who were already there. In other words 'the commons' should truly be held 'in common' for all humanity, or as large a group as is practical otherwise.

Holding the Venezuelan oilfields as common property of all Venezuelans would be the best we could hope for. However, seizing the man-made property of the Total Oil company is unjust.

The basis of property is in the theory of self-ownership. You own yourself, and no one else does. You own the products of your labor, though you may agree to trade them for a wage or other compensation.

The concept of property is important for complex social interactions. In a hunter gatherer society, with a relatively low population density, landed property isn't an important concept, though who's spear & knife is who's might be. In an agricultural society, knowing who has the right to sow and reap in which fields is important. In an industrial and post industrial society it is still important to know who may build where.

[400Years]

9. Given the history of subsidies to those in the petroleum industry

I will cry no tears for Total. In fact, here in the U.S. I think seizing the everything
Exxon-Mobil has would be easily justified given the nature of policy that has been made
on their behalf for so many years.

It is interesting that you brought up the concept of self-ownership, as opposed to slavery.
Proudhon wrote extensively about this subject.

Anyway, I don't think we disagree all that much.

[dcfirefighter]

10. I didn't think we disagreed either

And, emotionally, I've no problem with seizing E-M for their real and apparent historical subsidies, but...

As for Proudhon, while I agree with him on the labor basis of ownership, I believe that through industry and parsimony, you should be able to save up the products of your labor and purchase (or build) accumulated Capital, and be paid just for owning it.

The check-valve, if you will, is that without taxes on it and capital, and with full availability of land (through public rent sharing), labor would be fully used, and even the labor of laborers with no skills or property would be relatively valuable.

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Well, at least they siezed an oil field in their own country...

Unlike some places I could think of (Cough, sneeze). But you're right, I wouldn't want to be building a factory there right now.

[JohnWxy]

4. another increment in the probability of an oil supply disruption in the

next 1 to 5 years. But let's not get prepared for it by mobilizing and incentivising increase in ethanol production and importing more ethanol from Brazil to QUICKLY get ethanol to 5% to 10% of our fuel supply.

Let's just close our eyes, cross our fingers and hope no disruption in the oil supply happens.

Thank you George Bush. Thank you Republican Party (Exxon-Mobil,et al).