Registered user login:

Venezuelan oil judgement

Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Published 18 March 2008

We hear from the Royal Courts of Justice and the unfreezing of £6bn of Venezuela's state oil firm's assets following a battle with Exxon

It hasn’t been a good week so far for the US corporate sector. The big Wall Street bank Bear Stearns was gone like a puff of smoke on Monday morning, absorbed by a rival, JP Morgan in the midst of the squeeze on credit generated by some particularly irresponsible mortgage lending in New York. Worth $18,000 million in April last year, Bear Stearns went for $236 million, a pittance. Rumours circulate that the same fate awaits other former big beasts in New York’s financial jungle.

On Tuesday morning the unprepossessing surroundings of the basement of the Royal Courts of Justice, Court 22 were the venue for the final main round in a battle royal between the US company Exxon, the world’s biggest private sector oil giant, and PDVSA, the state oil company of President Hugo Chávez’ Venezuela which last year took control of its operations.

The Venezuelans were seeking to lift an embargo on assets worth $12,000 million that Exxon’s subsidiary Cerro Negro had obtained from the British courts in January so as to ensure it would be compensated for any loss. The oil company had obtained it as part of its fight against the nationalisation by Chávez. In the event the Venezuelans won their legal fight on Tuesday and Exxon took a big hit.

The court was littered with ungainly packing cases full of documents, the public gallery had clearly been transformed into a temporary store room and had not room for onlookers. The public and journalists ended up squashed awkwardly into whatever space in the court they could find. The proceedings went ahead with the judge Mr Justice Walker, the court officials, the barristers and the solicitors unrobed: they had laid aside their wigs and gowns for the drabbest of business clothes. Solemn and imposing it was certainly not. But it have been worse. “Sometimes the judge allows the lawyers to take off their jackets”, commented one experienced observer

Whatever the inelegance the import of Paul Walker’s judgement will have widespread international repercussions, as Samuel Moncada, the Venezuelan ambassador who was present in court in the final stages, was quick to point out. “This judgement is a good one for Venezuela, a good one for OPEC and a good one for countries which want to control their own natural resources”, he explained with quiet jubilation in the Victorian Gothic spendour of the main floor of the building above Court 22 before he went off for television and radio interviews. The media in this home country which had been agog to get the verdict which had been expected a week ago. The lawyers representing Exxon limited themselves to a tight-lipped “no comment”.

Venezuela had come to an agreement with other international oil firms which had been nationalised but claimed that Exxon exaggerated the value of its property which the Venezuelans put at no more than $750 million. President Hugo Chavez has accused the US government of being involved in the dispute as part of its general offensive against him.

The British judgement is not quite the end of the affair. Courts in the Netherlands and in the Netherlands Antilles also froze PDVSA’s assets and will have to make their own decisions about whether to continue such measures. Nevertheless it is clear that Tuesday morning’s judgement in London will is likely to have a big influence on what they decide. Thereafter it is expected that the arbitration will continue between the two sides.

It will also be a boost to the cohesion of OPEC itself, much criticised by the oil-importing countries at a time of high prices. A motion was adopted unanimously at this month’s OPEC meeting in Vienna which expressed its support to Venezuela "in the exercise of its sovereign rights over its natural resources, in accordance with international law". It had, moved by Galo Chiriboga, the OPEC representative and minister for petroleum and mines Zambrano of Ecuador. The South American country, whose leader Rafael Correa is an ally of Chávez, rejoined the Organisation last October after a rather mysterious, politically motivated absence of fifteen years.

Britain will gain a small benefit from the case. British diplomats in Caracas have been worrying that the fact that Exxon was suing PDVSA in London was throwing a dark shadow over British relations with Venezuela.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

16 comments from readers

Richard Irons
18 March 2008 at 18:25

A sensible decision. Now is the time for Britain and the EU to take up constructive engagement with Venezuela, rather than follow the aggressive approach of the Bush administration.

antileft
19 March 2008 at 02:55

"Now is the time for Britain and the EU to take up constructive engagement with Venezuela"

How so? It's still moving towards communism, which doesnt work and can only lead to financial ruin.

With or without the good fortune to be faced with a free and fair Western court, it's still virtually impossible to buy meat, bread or milk in Venezuela. And that's at over 100 dollars a barrel! Amazing what communism can do...

Carl Jones
19 March 2008 at 09:39

antileft; capitalism has failed and in light of finite space and resources, some form of global communism must come to pass.

antileft
19 March 2008 at 15:20

Oh it's failed has it?! Well, at least it was possible to get bread and milk when venezuela was a capitalist country- even before the world's biggest oil boom!!! Why dont you explain to me Carl Jones- how does a "functional" country get into that situation? Or are you saying that the solution to the problem of finite space and resources is not to develop clean technologies but to instead simply stop producing things? Because you should know that the reason Cuba is clean is not because it's communist- but because it's economy is stagnant- and if the castros could have done something about that with their current system then they would have. Unfortunately, they cant.

Jonty Stang
19 March 2008 at 15:35

Carl, certainly time for world communism - I think we all know that you're to man to lead us into the light. Hail Big Carl!

antileft
19 March 2008 at 16:45

Yes, hail big fatass carl who also doesnt produce anything! Im sure he could bring the odd loaf of bread to communist venezuela (as long as oil stayed above 100 dollars a barrel)! Maybe theyd even get a little milk too!

Cybertiger
19 March 2008 at 21:44

@Jonesy

"antileft; capitalism has failed and in light of finite space and resources, some form of global communism must come to pass."

Out of the darkness of too many people - like Harryantileft - I think a massive 'cull' is in order. I believe the Amerikans - and Harryantileft - should go first. No doubt that Jonty fella will limp along in their wake.

antileft
20 March 2008 at 07:54

Oh go and do something else cybertiger. As Ive told you before, youre not intelligent enough to post here.

harold53
20 March 2008 at 22:21

antileft - have you noticed the banking crisis in USA? And that's the best , most advanced capitalist country. It's a crisis that is based on the failure to invest by US based capitalism depending on repatriating capital from everywhere else in the world - be it Iraq or Latin America. Ethiopia, Nigeria, Haiti are capitalist. There are people without food there. Sudan follows the recommendations of the IMF - look at the result.

You may not be aware that Exxon froze $12 billion of Venezuelan assets in Britain, a strange sum when Venezuela only had $8 million. The reason they pursued that course was because as a multi-national, they chose Britain thinking that would be the best court to win their case. The court proceedings were hardly anything to do with law, but for all intents and purposes a show trial. They failed.

However,I'm sure you're pleased that Venezuela has the right to decide itself what to do with its oil, rather than be told by a multi-national. Maybe you don't and you think the oil companies should run the country?

Also, most of Venezuelan enterprises are privately owned. Are there state farms as there were in theSoviet Union, I don't think so. Agriculture wasn't producing before Chavez as most food was being imported, I believe. You're not suggesting that the private sector and the market is failing in Venezuela? It sounds to me as if agriculture was neglected for some time before Chavez, so If there are food shortages, then maybe there would be justification for state control of distribution and even food production. There clearly needs to be investment in agriculture, so if private means fail, there's no other choice. Personally, I'm happy with private agriculture producing for the people's needs, but it looks as if the market won't do it.

Whereas there should always be room for enterprise, it is wrong to suggest that the market solves needs - it simply doesn't and Chavez has only nationalised industries that haven't delivered for the people - I believe telecoms, electricity whilst all other developments have been encouraged in the private sector. Hardly like pre-1991 Russia.

It seems taht much social progress has been made under Chavez, but given that his predecessors stripped the country of any investment in agriculture and relied on oil revenues for their wealth, I'd rather see Chavez deal with the problem, quite frankly.

antileft
21 March 2008 at 05:30

Oh dear, what an idiot.

"Ethiopia, Nigeria, Haiti are capitalist."

Ethiopia is excessively poor largely due to it's communist past, nigeria is growing very fast economically, but it hobbled by a large inefficient state, and haiti is just haiti- good luck finding a solution to that one. Capitalism has made a number of rich countries, but communism has only ever brought poverty. Thats the fact that you need to focus on rather than just looking at a few failures.

"Sudan follows the recommendations of the IMF - look at the result."

Sudan is growing at around 10 percent annually. Did you not know that?? The economy certainly isnt the problem out there! Do some research, idiot.

"The court proceedings were hardly anything to do with law, but for all intents and purposes a show trial. They failed."

Yes, because they were faced with a free and fair trial- not the kind of show trial that you find in communist countries.

"Also, most of Venezuelan enterprises are privately owned. Are there state farms as there were in theSoviet Union, I don't think so."

Well, then again you should do some research. Venezuelan farms have been steadily taken over (and ruined) by chavistas during the last few years, and price controls have made the remaining private ones unprofitable. The state has made it impossible for them to produce anything. Now venezuela hardly produces anything other than oil. The fact that you are unaware of this suggests you really have no idea about the situation.

"You're not suggesting that the private sector and the market is failing in Venezuela?"

Oh come on! Even Polar is moving to colombia. You really have no idea about venezuela, do you?!

Why dont you explain it to me then, mr "I read an article once and I think I know everything now". Why is it that in venezuela its now very very hard to buy bread, milk, or meat, where before it was very very easy. At 100 dollars a barrel. Cant explain it? I didnt think so. Time to read something other than the newstatesman I think, you armchair leftie.

harold53
21 March 2008 at 06:23

Antileft - you seem to be only able to insult people who have a different view. There might be profitable growth for the wealthy - which is how economic imdices are in the end measured, but you might have noticed the civil war there. Iraq has shown growth in oil and I've no doubt that we'll get data to show economic growth soon. Being so intelligent, I'm sure you will have noticed other problems in Iraq.

IMF brings poverty, not Chavez.

As you are obviously an expert, what percentage of food was imported before Chavez? High wasn't it. That tells me something about the agricultural infrastructure which suggests the need for state intervention. There are food shortages, but nothing like you suggest. I can be honest and find out, but your blinkered answers tells me nothing.

It seems to me that you do exactly what you condemn others of doing - you put the blame down to Chavez when in fact agriculture operates on a free market basis. Your answers explain nothing as to why its not working.

It's not true that Venezuela only produces oil, now. Before 1998 that was clearly the case.

Most of the world's population suffers food shortages. Most of the world's poor live in countries that have a capitalist economy run on IMF terms. Your insults tell us nothing, I'm afraid

antileft
21 March 2008 at 06:45

"you might have noticed the civil war there."

Well the civil war cant be blamed on capitalism, can it?! Unless youre one of those naive lefties who seems to think that communist countries are just "better" and so dont start wars (which might suggest you need to study a little history).

And what the hell has iraq got to do with it?! Honestly- if youre left wing and your point is weak, bring up Iraq...

"IMF brings poverty, not Chavez."

Tell that to India, China, Vietnam, Chili, or any of the other countries that are growing at fast rates.

"As you are obviously an expert, what percentage of food was imported before Chavez? High wasn't it."

Im not an expert- but clearly Im the only one here who has actually tried to buy milk and bread in the country, or indeed read about anyone who has tried to buy milk and bread in the country. Maybe you should try it? You might learn something. You dont need to be an expert to know its a high number! I also used to try before chavez, and it was a lot easier then. It is now very, very difficult to do.

"That tells me something about the agricultural infrastructure which suggests the need for state intervention."

How does that figure?! You think that countries with high levels of state intervention produce more?! Come on now!!! Take a look at the world- its pretty obvious that youre wrong!

"There are food shortages, but nothing like you suggest. I can be honest and find out, but your blinkered answers tells me nothing."

Well put. You dont know, you wont find out, but- youre sure Im wrong. There are food shortages- there are even fights when some food arrives on the shelves. The fact that you dont know this is simply because you know absolutely NOTHING about the situation.

"you put the blame down to Chavez when in fact agriculture operates on a free market basis. Your answers explain nothing as to why its not working."

Yes, they do. Are you even aware that venezuela has imposed strict price controls? Are you aware of the take-overs of privately run farms? Of the constant land invasions? Of the beaurocratic harassment of anyone who owns land and isnt from the state? You dont even know about this do you?! Why do you even bother to discuss this if you dont have any idea about the basic facts?!

Cybertiger
21 March 2008 at 17:26

"Oh dear, what an idiot. "

Oh dear, you've been looking in that mirror again, haven't you, Harryantileft? I think you've cracked it this time!

antileft
22 March 2008 at 03:43

Again Cybertiger, do something else. Youre not intelligent enough to post here, and I think you know it, which is why you dont bother to articulate any debate. Go to Yahoo chat- go on, youll enjoy it.

Cybertiger
22 March 2008 at 12:51

@Harryantileft

"Youre not intelligent enough to post here, and I think you know it, which is why you dont bother to articulate any debate"

But you're the only one who knows anything about Venezuala, Bolivia, Cuba or anywhere south of Houston - some debate!! And everyone else's an idiot - skillful, articulate, intelligent, debating tactics.

PS. I'm a commentator with some deft daftness of commentary. Who cares about intelligent debate? What can you tell us idiots about Japan, Amerika - or intelligent design?

antileft
22 March 2008 at 13:05

Do you think your purile childish tripe is funny? Be careful Cybertiger or Im going to show everyone how thick you are by debating you. You remember the humiliation Ive put you through before? Im willing to do that again, if you dont give up and do something else.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Read More

Vote!

Are your savings now safe?