Venezuala: Where 'State Owned' means 'State Stolen'

A couple of years ago, I wrote a post in which I argued that Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, wasn't the horrific dictator the right-wing portrayed him to be. This is because I am occasionally the poster child for the politically ill-informed.

Today reminded me that Hugo Chavez is, in fact, every ounce the corrupt sleazeball the wags at Fox News portray him as being. In an act of socialist skulduggery worthy of any tinpot South American dictator, Chavez coolly 'appropriated' 11 oil rigs belong to US company Helmerich & Payne, who had been drilling off the coast of Venezuela for the past 52 years.

Chavez was frustrated because two of the rigs had stopped drilling for his beloved 'black gold' back in January, and the other nine rigs were scheduled to stop drilling in July. This is because PDVSA - the state-run oil company in Venezuela - had racked up a cool $100 million in unpaid payments to the American rig owners.

It's theft, plain and simple - and not exactly unprecedented. Last year Dallas-based Ensco International stopped drilling after PDVSA racked up $35 million in late payments and instead of just paying what they owed, Hugo Chavez 'resolved' the situation by 'nationalizing' (i.e. stealing) the American rigs.

This kind of behavior is a neat little reminder that Hugo Chavez is, essentially, nothing more than a swaggering gangster and his version of 'socialism' is very far removed from anything Karl Marx (or others) envisioned.

In the great scheme of South American tinpot presidentes, Chavez doesn't rate high as much a malevolence - but neither is he the legitimate character many liberal-minded Americans (including some with unprecedented access to the White House) like to pretend he is.

Who picks up the cost of the Gulf Oil Spill?

"I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown. In this case a $20 billion shakedown."

With that heartfelt apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward, Republican Joe Barton neatly pointed out where accountability really lies in Washington.

Joe Barton, a congressman from Texas and chairman of the House-Senate energy conference committee, made his remarkable statement even as millions of gallons of spilled crude threaten to wash up on the shores of his own district - devastating the lives and livelihoods of millions who voted for him.

However, the fate of those voters obviously means less to him than the $1.8 million he's received in campaign contributions from the oil industry, including BP itself.

But Barton's comments do more than just reveal the level of corporate corruption in Washington - they also remind us of who will inevitably end up paying for the mistakes of others - the taxpayers and those affected by the disaster.

When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, thousands of homeowners discovered that their homeowners insurance didn't cover the damage caused.

When floods and storms caused devastation and destruction across Mississippi, many business owners discovered that their Mississippi business insurance neatly circumvented responsibility for any of the specific 'acts of God' which befell their premium payers.

In fact, if you go and look at your Insurance Information right now, you might be alarmed to find out just how much it doesn't cover. In New Jersey - notorious flood territory - many homeowners are distraught when they realize that the insurance premiums they've been paying for years don't actually cover the damage caused by the very eventuality they bought insurance to protect themselves against.

In fact, it's a very good time to remind everybody that when you get a Netquote insurance for business or homeowner's insurance, you need to go through it line by line to see just how much your 'discount premium' might actually cost when disaster arrives.

And we shouldn't be surprised by this. In fact, venerable reader Siger recently reminded me: "The business of insurance is to avoid paying claims."

When it comes to BP and the oil spill devastating the gulf, the question of responsibility is slightly wider. I totally resent Joe Barton's 'apology' to Tony Hayward.

Barton is a Republican who has argued for years that government should be smaller - yet when it comes to the responsibility of paying for history's greatest oil leak, he wants to avoid hurting 'big business' (and his campaign contributors) and so argues that the taxpayer should cover the cost of cleaning the mess up instead of those responsible.

Just to clarify, that means Joe Barton is against government spending when it comes to preventing home foreclosures or protecting thousands of auto worker jobs in Detroit - but he is all for it when it prevents a robustly successful company paying for the damage it alone has caused.

Although while we're on that subject, 'it alone' isn't a fair appropriation of blame for the BP spill.

Siger neatly pointed out that President Obama's swaggering about, alluding to 'whose ass he's gonna kick' has been more about political peacocking than anything constructive - and "British Petroleum," as he incessantly keeps calling BP - hasn't been called that for years.

It's true. I remember going to the headquarters of so-called 'British Petroleum' back in the early nineties and even then it was located in Norway, not Norwich (the guy who showed us around was also called Kris Kristofferson, but apparently wasn't the famous country and western singer.)

Obama neatly avoids mentioning that, or this next point - especially during the World Cup:

BP isn't actually even a British company any more. UK shareholders own 40% of it, but the US holds 39% - making us about even (just like we were in our soccer match!)

And when it comes to responsibility for the disaster itself, it's worth pointing out that the rig which exploded - at the cost of all those lives and the world's greatest oil disaster - is owned and operated not by 'British' BP, but by an American-owned company called Transocean, registered in Switzerland.

And here's the kicker: The company that actually does the drilling on the rig that exploded - the ones ultimately responsible for letting this environmental catastrophe happen - are none-other than Halliburton - the Liberal left wing's version of corporate Lucifer.

Halliburton is the company Bush, Cheney and the Republican party are so deeply involved in that they practically allowed them to sponsor the Iraq War.

Considering it's these 'All-American' companies that will be working to finance the $20 billion 'shakedown' of BP that Rep. Joe Barton complained about, I can see now why that sleazy, corrupt idiot was so anxious to avoid them having to actually pay for it.

It seems like insurance companies aren't the only ones eager to wriggle out of paying their dues.

Drill, Baby, Drill

One of the most passionate refrains during the 2008 Presidential Election was Sarah Palin's cry of 'Drill, Baby, Drill!' It was particularly pertinent given the fact that petrol prices were topping $5 a gallon at the time.

'Drill, Baby, Drill!' might not have been enough to win the Republicans the election, but it did generate enough popular sentiment to make moderates question why America wasn't exploiting its own natural resources, instead of continuing to churn money over to the Saudi Arabians for their overpriced oil.

Well, we can't claim that Obama doesn't read people's t-shirts any more. On Wednesday, Barack sided with populist opinion and authorized offshore drilling on the East Coast and other formerly protected areas in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.

In one fell swoop, "Drill, Baby, Drill!" went from Republican battle cry to official White House strategy.

"And see this F-18 behind me? This motherf**ker runs off biofuel, bitches."
Obama's actual statement at Andrews Air Force Base, paraphrased for comedic value.

It's a stop-gap measure, Obama's the first to admit. There's not enough oil and natural gas to make the United States energy-independent; and even if there was, it undermines his determination to move to country towards adopting cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy.

However, it's a start.

Just as I suggested in my review of The Audacity of Hope, its a move that reveals Obama to be a pragmatic realist; willing to tackle the day-to-day issues facing average Americans (high gas prices, dependency on foreign oil), rather than cast their problems aside in favor of tackling esoteric, typically Democrat concerns like promoting overly conservative environmentalism and protecting polar bears (who have big teeth and claws, so should theoretically be able to look after themselves.)

Of course, not everybody's happy about it:

"Short of sending Sarah Palin back to Alaska to personally club polar bears to death," argued Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, "the Obama administration could not have come up with a more efficient extinction plan for the polar bear."

[Actually, in a Palin vs. Polar Bear smack down, my money's on the bear. Just sayin' - Editorial Bear]

It's also another maverick move that makes those who demonize President Obama deeply uncomfortable. How can he represent everything that conservative Americans stand against when he capitulates to one of their most vocal demands?

However, it just goes to show that this administration is dedicated to actually solving problems, instead of just cranking the meat-grinder of self-defeating political rhetoric and perpetuating the seemingly interminable stalemate that exists in Washington.

Ten Things Bush did right?

Over on CK's blog, he has listed the 'Ten Things Bush Did Right.'

I find myself unable to agree with more than one of them.

CK claims (and I respond):

1. He stood against global warming. Which has proven to be a prudent decision. Standing against a popular theory because of conflicting evidence is heroic. Standing against a popular theory because you're knee deep in shenanigans with the oil industry and Saudi Arabia is merely self serving and crooked. While some have claimed that 2008 is the year 'Global Warming was Disproved', I don't think that had anything to do with Bush's 'stand.'
   
2. He enhanced interrogation of terrorists. He condoned torture. How anybody could possibly claim that this was a 'good' thing is beyond me. Civilized societies don't perform torture. A society that condones torture to 'protect' itself isn't a society worth protecting. At least John McCain (the only Republican who's actually BEEN tortured) had the guts to stand up and attack this absolutely indefensible precedent.
   
3. Rebuilt presidential authority. For a start, the reins of power in the Bush administration were held by Dick Cheney. An incumbent President who defers to his Vice President isn't exactly wielding much authority. But consider other actions Bush condoned - helping cover up the conspiracy to 'out' CIA agent Valerie Plame, dismissing US attorneys for political gain, misleading the public into a costly foreign war and leading the country into the worst economic crisis for a generation. His was a presidency of cronyism, deceit, fraud and disrespect towards the American people and the beliefs outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
   
4. Unswerving support for Israel. I will admit, my sympathies are generally towards Israel - I have Israeli friends and I can understand that they can't exactly sit on their hands when Hamas or Hezbollah are firing rockets at civilians. However, as far as the diplomatic situation in the Middle East goes, this 'unswerving support' for Israel is one of the major sticking points that has left America open to terrorism. Unswerving support isn't what Israel needs. It needs support dependent entirely on responsible behavior.
   
5. No Child Left Behind. While No Child Left Behind has seen test scores improve, Bush let the side down by supporting billions of dollars for totally ineffective abstinence-only sex education, which left many teenagers with children of their own! In addition, he allowed the religious right to force their propaganda into the curriculum across the country, teaching a generation of kids Biblical fairy tales as if they were fact. In addition to vetoing the health care extension for children, Bush actually left many, many kids behind in the interests of courting the religious right.
   
6. Promoted democracy. Bush won his first term through the Supreme Court, rather than the electorate. He promoted unilateral military action in opposition to the democratic principles of the UN. The Patriot Act, amid other legislation, undermined all American's constitutional rights. Bush's presidency was marked with a sharp departure from responsible, transparent government which has made some of America's actions overseas appear deeply hypocritical.
   
7. Medicare prescription drug benefits. Finally, George does something right... Kind of. This expansion actually led to the current situation in the United States, in which Americans pay vastly inflated prices for drugs pharmaceutical companies sell cheaper in neighbouring Canada. It's a cash cow for pharma, and a huge waste of money for taxpayers.
   
8. Supreme court appointments, John Roberts and Sam Alito. Conservatives often accuse liberals of using the Supreme Court as a way of 'legislating from the bench.' They would know. Alito and Roberts were appointed to pad the Supreme Court with conservatives in order to support a right-wing agenda that had little to do with the law or the constitution.
   
9. Foreign relations with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and India. Good Lord, I can hardly contain my excitement! I don't wish to undermine Bush's achievements, but foreign relations weren't exactly terrible with these nations in the first place. Had he made headroads with Iran, Syria, Cuba or Venezuela, then I'd be impressed.
   
10. Troop surge. The surge worked, don't get me wrong. However, it's questionable whether Bush can claim to have 'done right' when the surge itself was in response to something he'd 'done wrong.' The war in Iraq is arguably Bush's most damning legacy. The surge was merely a response to that. When somebody breaks a glass full of milk, do they get to claim credit for merely mopping the mess up?
    

Fingers out of my 401k, Obama!

We all hate the oil companies.

Is used to cost $20 to fill the 14 gallon tank of my old Firebird. Now, barely five years later, it's pushing $50 to fill the same-sized tank of my new one. Petrol, pushing $4 a gallon, has never been higher and it's not looking like it's going to come down any time soon.

Yet, simultaneously ExxonMobil, the world's largest privately owned oil company, has reported whopping profits of $40 BILLION. High prices? High profits? Surely the two are connected...

Barack Obama certainly thinks so - and he's promising to hit the likes of ExxonMobil with huge 'windfall profit taxes' to redistribute that disgusting profit to the like of the little guy (like me?)

The problem with this plan?

That wealth was already being redistributed to the little guy like me - plus millions of other working and middle class Americans. 98.5% of ExxonMobil stock is owned by institutional investors - much of that on behalf of regular Americans in the form of mutual funds, 401ks and retirement accounts.

I have a 401k - and ExxonMobil's profits help my monthly investment grow - so when I finally retire, I've got enough to live off (because the government has bankrupted Social Security.) So what's the point of investing my hard-earned money if Barack Obama's just going to pluck out the potential profits and give them to somebody else?

It's not just mine, either. It's millions of Americans. In many cases, the same Americans who ignorantly support Obama's cries to tax the oil companies. It's not ExxonMobil who are donating this money for Obama to redistribute - it's regular folks like you and me!

I think people are just too ignorant of the big picture... They don't realise that their relationship to 'big oil' goes beyond their twice weekly fill up (or twice daily if you drive a Hummer.)

Obama - if you want my support, get your grubby mitts [Is that politically correct? Editorial Bear] out of my 401k!

NOTE: As of today, the Republicans decided to do something useful for a change and blocked this proposal before it went anywhere. Nice to see somebody awake in the Senate!

Ethanol...

While we're on the subject of fuel (see my previous post, The Great American Gas Swindle Revisited) I thought it might be worth writing a bit about ethanol.

I'm not an expert! This is just stuff I've read online and in The Economist. But it all seems pretty credible to me.

What is Ethanol?

Ethanol is a petroleum substitute made from various organic sources, such as sugarcane or, in the United States, corn. Presently, a mix of 10% corn-fuel ethanol is added to most of the petrol in the United States, reducing our reliance on foreign oil.

On the surface of it, ethanol looks absolutely fantastic as a replacement for petroleum. First off, it's pretty much a standard replacement. Most modern cars could run on 100% ethanol fuel without any adjustment whatsoever. Even old clunkers like mine could run pretty easily on ethanol once some of the gubbins had been adjusted.

Secondly, we can produce ethanol fuel in the United States, which is awesome. It's a renewable resource, unlike oil (which is rapidly running out. Currently, the supply can barely meet the demand.) Additionally, the three major suppliers of oil to the United States are Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Venezuela and Iran hate our guts, while 'friendly' Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of no less than 15 of the 19 hijackers responsible for 9/11.

So on the face of it, roll on the production of corn-ethanol! Let's cut the apron strings from the likes of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. We'll see how far their anti-American rhetoric gets them after their economy is robbed of American oil-dollars.

But, sadly, it's not as simple as that. Is it ever?

Corn vs. Petrol.

The problem with the type of ethanol America produces is that it's not an efficient source of fuel.

Although production of ethanol in Brazil and other southern countries seems to work very well, this is because it's based on ethanol produced through sugarcane. Sugar is a highly efficient energy source and it takes just 1 'unit' of regular energy to produce 8 'units' of ethanol energy.

Unfortunately, sugar doesn't grow very well in the United States, so we're left using corn. The problem is that corn doesn't have a very good energy balance. In fact, it takes almost one and a half units of regular energy to produce a single unit of ethanol energy.

This simply doesn't make sense. If you're using traditional sources of energy to produce corn ethanol, you end up burning more oil or coal than you produce. It's utterly unsustainable.

Secondly, corn-ethanol requires crops to produce it. A lot of crops. To replace the 140 billion gallons of imported fuel used by America every year, you'd have to plant corn over every single inch of the United States... and then some.

Not to mention that corn-ethanol produces just as much CO2 as regular petrol, meaning it's just as bad for the long-term future of the environment (contributing to global warming.)

As it is currently, it doesn't look like corn ethanol makes any sense as a replacement to imported foreign oil. But there is hope...

The future...

Cellulosic ethanol is a possible alternative source of ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is fuel produced from lignocellulose - the 'stuff' that plants and trees are made from.

This type of fuel is made by breaking down the lignocellulose with water or gas and then fermenting the generated sugars. Basically brewing a type of rum your car can drink!

The advantage is that garbage itself (like cardboard and wood) could be used as a base to produce this fuel - and the production itself generates 80% less CO2 which will make a dramatic reduction in America's contribution to global warming.

But the best part is that it takes just 1 unit of regular energy to make 5 units of cellulosic ethanol - and it's cheap, too. Within 10 years, it's estimated that the cost of a gallon of cellulosic ethanol will be about $1.07. That's compared to regular petrol, which costs between $1.20 and $1.50 a gallon.

It's still early days for this fledgling fuel - but it's an exciting proposition. Perhaps within the next decade, we'll see the clock turn back to the golden age when the United States was self-sufficient!

With the economy in the doldrums and the news looking ever bleaker, it's quite exciting to peek at something positive on the horizon.

Roll on cellulosic ethanol. The gas-tanks of both my American guzzlers are eagerly awaiting their first taste!

Taking a Spin in the No-Fact Zone

BEFORE you angrily leave a comment - read a follow-up posting here...

Clearly following in the footsteps of Bill O'Reilly and other ill informed political pundits, my rant on the Great American Gas Swindle had a couple of inconsistencies readers of this blog pointed out.

For example, I wrote: "American car manufacturers boast about getting 'an incredible 25mpg' while in Europe our mid-sized cars effortlessly deliver 40mpg."

My father very wisely pointed out a problem with my theory - a significant difference between the US gallon (3.750 litres), and the UK gallon (4.546 litres). The mid-sized car that effortlessly delivered 40mpg in England would only do 33 mpg by American standards.

An anonymous contributor also took exception when I wrote: "European unleaded is 95 Octane... ...Regular American gasoline is a mere 87 Octane...."

According to a website they linked to, Octane Explained, there is a difference in the way Americans and Europeans measure octane ratings, too. The RON and MON ratings are significantly different so British petrol rated at 96 octane via RON would only be considered 92 octane on American gas pumps - our anonymous friend said: "American [Super] 93 is the equivalent of European 97, for example."

He also pointed out that some cars (he gave the example of a highly tuned Honda V6) run more efficiently on lower octane fuel. That might well be true - although my Lincoln and my parent's friend's Jaguar V12 both seem to purr more smoothly - and drink less - on 'the good stuff.'

Now I had actually done some research into this - the almighty Wikipedia (which is written by the ill-educated likes of me, I should remind you) explicitly states that: "octane ratings are higher in Europe than they are in North America and most other parts of the world."

Which seems to support my original comments.

I guess further research is needed - or if you're a fan of Bill O'Reilly, just go with what you think is the 'truthiness' - what you know intuitively, "from the gut," without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.

After all, that's what many of us bloggers rely on instead of research!

With thanks to my father and my anonymous commenter.