Newly discovered oil reserves to benefit all Brazilians

Source: Xinhua

Newly discovered oil reserves to benefit all Brazilians
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2008-08-29 10:18

RIO DE JANEIRO -- Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Thursday that the recently discovered pre-salt layer oil fields are a national asset, which will benefit all the Brazilians.

"Brazil is not to be a mega exporter of crude oil," said the president, "instead, we want to build a strong oil industry in Brazil to add value to our oil and export the byproducts."

He said an inter-ministerial committee had been created to establish new regulations for the oil fields' exploitation.

The reserves, with an estimated capacity of about 70 billion barrels of oil equivalent, could turn Brazil into a large oil producer in a few years.

"We should not forget that everyone in Brazil is to be benefited ...I want to invest a part of the pre-salt layer oil fields' revenue in education," Lula said.

According to Brazil's constitution, the oil reserves belong to the whole nation.



Read more: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-08/29/content_6980815.htm

:)

What a foreign concept... :crazy:

Usually it goes to increase other things--handouts that don't have a long-term return, gov. buildings, rulers' pockets, military equipment.

Dubai and Qatar are among the few that eventually decided to put a fair amount of money in education, investing in people (as opposed to merely paying them).

Sa3udi Arabia put it into salaries, mostly: Lots of white collar, middle management, mostly incompetent and non-productive. Lots of government jobs. It pays people, it lets them have lots of kids and houses, but when the money dries up you wind up with a large, unemployable workforce. Sa3udiyya also put it into education--the problem being that far too many of the degrees are essentially pieces of paper with little meaning in a useful sense--Islamic Studies PhDs outnumber all science/engineering degrees PhDs awarded. But it keeps kids out of the labor force, and gives them "dignity".

Equatorial Guinea puts it in the rulers' pockets. Nigeria builds big buildings and engages in corruption. Russia seems to be using it to nationalize companies--not improving efficiency or making long-term plans, except to increase state control. Mexico used it to beef up welfare rolls and pay executives; a lot of its general government funding is oil revenue, with no real push to make sure the revenue goes for investment.

Venezuela's doing a mix of Mexico and Russia. Some welfare-style stuff with few long-term payoffs. Independent audits of some of the literacy programs show that the 99% success rate is easy, since the definition of "literacy" is low; some of the higher ed institutions are following the Sa3udi model--get a degree, but with little academic rigor.

Dubai and Qatar may have funnelled lots of money into rulers' pockets, into big (sometimes useless, sometimes not) building programs, into welfare. But they learned early to make sure that talented people get top-notch educations in business, industry, and even science, and are lured back to work there. Once the oil money's gone, they're likely to keep their heads above water. Mexico's already starting to hurt.

It'll be a miracle if Squiddy (i.e., Lula) manages to keep the oil revenue as "revenue plus", instead of having the politicians--even himself--stupidly use it for politically advantageous short-term goals.

to recover the grease from visiting oil exec slime balls hoping to grab some of the action.

Apart from that it's obviously good news especially the way in which the revenue will be used to enhance education.

Imagine that!

Too bad if we do drilling over here, we already know who and only who the oil will benefit.

It's the law. Talking to some of the scientists there, they are loving all of this. The government there has never funded science at a decent level, now they are rolling in it!

"add value to our oil and export the byproducts"

Isn't that privatizing the profits, and socializing the costs?

So there will be more oil use then? Well, you can't force them not to do that. The increased impact on the environment won't help in any of those plans we have for decreasing the impact we have on the environment though. Just another individual government acting in its own greedy, I-got-mine-so-screw-you interest I guess. The Brazilian government represents only a small percentage of humans. It's not enough to nationalize it anymore. If we're all on the same boat, you have to globalize it.

It highlights (or should) the difference here: No amount of drilling here will affect domestic prices or availability. Oil found here goes on the open market and is shipped to whoever pays the highest price. We have nowhere near enough oil or production capacity to affect the world market.

There is no mechanism to keep domestically found oil for our own use.

We can't build a sustainable future with carbon based fuel.

This thread will be absolutely unreadable in another hour... :rofl:

:applause:

Chavez has been an authoritarian disappointment, but the rest of South America's left-wing leaders I really like!

Viva Lula!
Viva Morales!
Viva Correa!
Viva Lugo!
Viva Bachelett!
Viva Kirschner!

people fired up. They have almost all gone for the Bolivarian Revolution at this point. They have taken their continent back. They should be proud. The oil fields and the wealth that come with them are a great reward for indiginous people who have been repressed for so long. The Wests portrayal of Chavez is not much different than whats going on with Putin now. He stands in the way of what our media/gov't wants. Which is of course OIL/NATURAL GAS DOLLARS.

Putin's an imperialist tsar-wannabe.

I know the MSM has been spewing a lot of BS about Chavez, and he is a lot better for Bolivia then some right-wing US puppet, but that doesn't change the fact that he has been often acting in an authoritarian fashion.

I've researched every item on the "Chavez is authoritarian" list, and I have found it to be an entirely bogus charge. Not one of the items holds up, when you research it (find out the context, find out the precedents, understand the history). I will give you just one example: Chavez "rules by decree." That sounds bad, right? That's why the propagandists like it so much. Truth: Previous presidents of Venezuela also "ruled by decree." It is a common practice in Venezuela, and in South America. The legislatures grant broad powers, on specific issues, for a limited period--most often, to solve some critical problem that the legislature doesn't have the time or resources to solve, or because there is so much internal wrangling, nothing can get done, so they dump the whole problem in the president's lap. Lula da Silva, in Brazil, recently "ruled by decree" to protect the last, uncontacted indigenous tribes in the Amazon (who are gravely threatened by disease, and by logging and mining)--a good use of the decree powers. Alan Garcia, on the other hand, in Peru, recently "ruled by decree" to suspend civil rights in an area where local campesinos and the indigenous are strongly protesting theft of their lands--a bad use of decree powers.

You have to look at each "rule by decree"--is it good? is it bad?--to evaluate Chavez's use of the LIMITED powers of decree that the National Assembly granted to him. You cannot call Chavez an "authoritarian" because he uses decree powers granted to him by the (democratically elected) legislature, without making the same charge against rightwinger Garcia and center-leftist Lulu.

And it is also just laughable to do so, if you are a U.S. citizen, whose president routinely overrides laws passed by Congress with "executive signing statements," and doesn't give fuckall for our own Constitution, our laws or international law.

Chavez is NOT "authoritarian." He has been running a beneficial, scrupulously lawful, democratic government for ten years--elected, in the last presidential election (06) with 63% of the vote. That's why they hate him, and slander him relentlessly. They're deathly afraid he might give us ideas about, oh...transparent elections, good government, our own sovereignty, social justice.

The specific powers of decree granted to Chavez by the National Assembly (the decree powers that just expired) were mostly economic. One of them, for instance, had to do with a steel industry strike that threatened to paralyze Venezuela's economy. Another had to do with purchasing the Bank of Venezuela--which used to be a nationalized bank, got privatized, and was recently put up for sale. Chavez nationalized the steel industry (something Harry Truman threatened to do, as I recall), put new management in charge, and settled all the workers' grievances. And the Chavez gov't bought the Bank of Venezuela--that is, RE-nationalized it.

As to the latter, with the Bank of Venezuela for sale on the open market, the threat to Venezuela was very real, that some hostile party would buy it and crash it, or use it against the elected government in a destabilization effort. The Carlysle Group? Exxon Mobil? Bank of America? The Rev. Moon? Some rotten fascist multi-billionaire?

Those two Chavez actions protected Venezuela's economy and its sovereignty. They were good uses of the decree powers, from what I can see. Strong action by a smart, social justice-oriented, leftist leader is not the same thing as authoritarianism. And, of course, the fascists and Corpos hate it. They hated FDR, too, and called him "a dictator." That doesn't make it so. Repetition of this lie doesn't make it so. Get the facts! Clear their goddamn propaganda out of your head, and find out for yourself. PLEASE! Our recovery of our own democracy depends on it--it depends on you and all of us resisting propaganda, researching the facts, and coming to our own conclusions, and then, of course, addressing our own humongous problems--such as the loss of transparent vote counting in the U.S.A.

A couple years back. His getting term limits repealed also bothered me; that's not to say were not reasons to repeal it, but it just felt bad in my gut.

The "rule by decree" thing doesn't bother me actually, it doesn't seem much different from executive orders here in the US.

Make no mistake, I have absolutely NO problem with what Chavez is doing economically, and I really can't blame him for authoritarian tendencies after the US-backed coup attempt. I'm just really jumpy when it comes to things that smack of authoritarianism.

and still never grasped what happened with RCTV, here's a summary:

RCTV’s most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him – while permitting no response from the government.

Then RCTV ran nonstop ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chavez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovision ran manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.

After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV’s biased coverage edged fully into sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: “Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters

Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt – and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez’s government allowed it to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.

Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/may/30/opinion/oe-jones30

But since you're throwing around the phrase 'authoritarian' in describing Chavez without providing an example, I'm not surprised you got the country wrong.

Do your own research, don't take the word of our media - they've lied to you before, and they're lying about Chavez.

Abrete los ojos.

Putin like Chavez did a few things to wrinkle the West's feathers in regards to oil and in my mind that's why our media goes after both of them. What both of them did was obviously in their own nations interest as their economies have been steadily growing. I have visited Russia 4 times and every time the amount of change I have seen is astounding. New business's, new construction, new cars, new restaurants, people speaking 3 or more languages, western style grocery stores, hell even mega stores. Make no mistake they are growing fast and that is because Putin has worked to get back what Yeltsin gave away. Corruption and crime would be my biggest Russian complaint. But that is something all of Russia tends to look the other way on. Sadly.

in the private sector (not including oil). Very importantly, Chavez is concentrating on correcting the huge mistakes of the previous rightwing regimes--which utterly neglected local manufacturing (they were importing the machine parts needed for the oil industry, for godssakes!), local and regional infrastructure, land reform, housing and other bottom line requirements of a healthy economy, and whose dereliction on services to the poor (basic bootstrapping--education, medical care, etc.), as well as on Venezuela's food self-sufficiency, is utterly scandalous. Our rich elite used to understand its responsibilities to society, for one thing because we had a president, FDR, who set the tone. (--and who ran for, and won, four terms in office, please note!) They squirmed under the requirements of democracy, and screamed and yelled, and called him a "dictator," but they paid their taxes, created jobs, respected labor unions, and sometimes did good works (founding libraries and museums, and various charities). Our rich elite has now become looters and brigands--and killers. That is Bush's legacy. The rich no longer feel responsible for society as a whole. Well, just imagine a series of Bush juntas in Venezuela, and throughout South America, and what that did to their looted, oppressed, uncared for, increasingly impoverished countries.

Basic infrastructure neglected. The vast poor majority--and all their potential industry and creativity--neglected. Vital national security issues like food self-sufficiency, neglected. Job creation, ignored--even as more and more poor indigenous farmers got pushed off their land, by big landowners, and driven into urban squalor. The police more and more repressive, due to this growing and dangerous divide between rich and poor.

Sound familiar? What we are becoming--the biggest "banana republic" on earth--Venezuelans and South Americans have suffered throughout the last century, and it really only began to change in 1998, when Chavez first got elected. Venezuela was the spearhead. The people of Venezuela led the way. Chavez is an expression of their far-sightedness, and their long struggle for clean elections and real democracy. And now the entire continent is heading in their direction--toward democracy and social justice.

Venezuela's oil was nationalized long before Chavez--as it is in many countries--but the rightwing governments gave the profits away to multinationals--10% to Venezuela, 90% to the multinationals, and the poor never saw any benefit from that 10%. It all went into the pockets of the rich elite, whose governments created an artificial, oil-dependent, glitzy urban culture of pampered greedbags, who neglected the most basic of the country's needs. Chavez has, a) been re-negotiating the oil contracts to give Venezuela a better deal (most recently 60% to Venezuela, 40% to the multinationals), and b) is using the money to bootstrap Venezuela's poor, and to help the region's poorest countries, as well as to support initiatives (like the Bank of the South) to foster national and regional sovereignty (freedom from dictation from Washington DC).

The Bolivarians--led off by Venezuela--have converted oil from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of democracy, social justice and liberation. Yes, there are problems with oil (and other resource-based) economies. Pollution is one. Another is, the need for diversification. The Chavez government, and the other Bolivarians, are addressing this issue, unlike the previous rightwing regimes, which were just living off the resources. They are also, because they are democratic governments--and because they are attuned to the values of the indigenous--addressing environmental issues. Compare and contrast with Soviet Russia and China (communist dictatorships), and Bush U.S.A., where the environment is merely for plundering. It takes democracy to create advocates for the environment*. Environmental issues in South America are certainly a worry--for one thing, because we all depend on the Amazon forest to impede global warming (among other vast benefits). Democracy gives the environment a voice--a fighting chance. Ecuador's previous government let Chevron pollute a vast area of Ecuador with dreadful cancer-causing toxics, and let them just walk away from it. The current leftist president, a strong ally of Chavez, is supporting the victims' lawsuit and demanding reparations (including cleanup). The Bushfucks also call him (Rafael Correa) a "dictator," but he is no more a dictator than Chavez is. Dictating to Chevron, and Exxon Mobil, is not undemocratic. It is what democracy is for (the collective power of the little guys against the big bullies and ripoff artists).

The sad part is that, if we keep going in the Bushite direction on Latin American policy--and, really, Obama has said some things that point that way--the U.S. will become more isolated and excluded and despised by the people of Latin America. Evo Morales said, "We want partners, not bosses." That is the issue. They will create mutual benefit and prosperity for all, with those who will partner with them, and increasingly squeeze out the bullies and the bosses of the behemoth to the north. Paraguay, of all places, just elected a leftist president who is in sympathy with the Bolivarians. Honduras (Honduras!) just joined the Bolivarian trade group. The handwriting is on the wall. El Salvador will be next. Guatemala is already moving in that direction. And then Mexico. It is going to be Latin America's century, not ours, unless we become partners.

----------


*(Cuba is the one exception. It has strong pro-environment policy, without political democracy. Cuba tends to be an exception on a lot of issues. I think the key to it is that Cuba is not a dictatorship on the Stalinist model. It is different, and unique--a peculiarly Cuban creation, which produces many social benefits--a first class medical education, and highly rated medical care, for instance--and an island that is still beautiful and untouched (unlike the horror that Miami has become). We would probably not be happy living under Cuba's "king" (that's what I think Fidel Castro most resembles--not a brutal dictator, but rather a guiding monarch, a more benevolent figure than Stalin, certainly--and hard to define), but the positive aspects of the Cuban revolution cannot be denied--and protection of the environment is certainly one of them. Most of the world recognizes this--including most of Latin America. Just about everybody, except for our own insane government, has normal diplomatic relations with Cuba. That is one good thing in Obama's Latin American policy--he seems to want to normalize relations with Cuba, or is tending that way. I hope it doesn't result in the Miamization of Cuba. That would be a great loss.)

The leaders whom you claim to "like" don't agree with you about Chavez, however. And, if you like them so much, you might want to do some research on their views of the matter. Lula da Silva, the president of Brazil, for instance, recently said, of Chavez: "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy." Nestor Kirchner--another leader on your list--when word came down from the Bushites that South American leaders must "isolate" Chavez, replied, "But he is my brother!"

Most of the people on your list are close, warm friends with Chavez, and they are all involved in the democratization of South America, a movement of which Chavez is one of the strongest, most visionary and courageous leaders. Chavez and his government understand, for instance, that topdown distribution of government money to the poor does not develop good citizenship and leadership, and does not foster their goal of maximum citizen participation. Instead, the Chavez government created a system of community councils all over the country--councils in which anyone in the neighborhood can participate and earn leadership positions, and which have real power over federal dollars. The community councils prioritize their community's needs and design their own projects. This system not only prevents waste and corruption, it also helps to bypass the old corrupt political crony system, which never served the real needs of the community, and utterly neglected the basic needs of the poor (adult literacy classes, local medical centers, street lighting, a paved road, an equipped baseball field).

The Chavez government also presides over the most transparent, most honest, most verifiable election system in the western hemisphere, and one of the best in the world--an election system that puts our own to shame. I've researched many of the Chavez government's initiatives. Every one contains the core aim of DEMOCRACY--citizen participation, enlivening of the citizenry, empowerment of the people--especially people who have traditionally been excluded--lively debate, vibrant, active, participatory politics, by all of the people.

Here is one other little, telling example: The Chavez government distributes copies of the Constitution to everyone--the tiny blue books that are given away free. Portions of the Constitution are printed on the grocery bags in co-op stores--and everybody reads it. (Can you imagine George Bush doing this--urging people to read the Constitution?) When the violent rightwing military coup occurred in 2002, the first thing on peoples' lips was not 'Bring back our kidnapped president,' but "What about our Constitution!"*

In the broader region (as well as at home), the Chavez government seems to understand that real, vibrant democracy--dignity, sovereignty--is not possible without a basic economic underpinning. For instance, how democratic was Argentina with a basket-case economy induced by the World Bank/IMF? The World Bank smashed them and looted them, and raided all social programs. The Chavez government, flush with oil profits, loaned Argentina the money, on easy terms, to get out from under World Bank debt. Venezuela thus not only fostered democracy (freedom from the tyranny of first world loan sharks) in Argentina, it also created a healthy trading partner for Venezuela, Brazil and other countries. The oil profits (in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and other countries) are fortuitous, and are being used to good purpose. What better purpose could oil profits be put to--than giving the poor and poor countries a leg up--a chance at creating democracy, social justice and a healthy, equitable society?

Here, we let the poor drown. There--with the rise of the Bolivarian revolution--the "American Dream" that we tout is actually being realized: bootstrapping of the poor, giving the poor a chance. Venezuela's loan to Argentina was also the seed of one of Chavez's best ideas, the Bank of the South: a locally controlled development fund, one of whose chief tenets is social justice. Democracy is not just the mechanics and transparency of voting, and the freedom to speak out and run for office, and it is not just a local issue, restricted to one country. Democracy--that is, the sovereignty of the people--is a regional issue. It must extend across borders, and create a healthy context in which both democracy and trade can flourish.

If all important decisions are dictated by Washington DC and its Corpos, what good is voting--in Venezuela, in Bolivia, in Argentina? Like here, a lot of people--especially the poor--didn't vote, didn't participate, some because of brutal repression, all because of despair. What good is voting, when it's all rigged in Washington? This is one reason why all of the Bolivarian countries have re-written, or are re-writing, their Constitutions--to invest themselves with sovereignty over the land and its resources, that has been taken away by corrupt, fascist, U.S.-supported governments.

Chavez has in fact done more for democracy in South America than any leader in its history--and the reason is that Chavez and his government understand democracy at a profound level. It is a matter of sovereignty, local control and local empowerment, and cooperative action among groups and countries, to defend their most fundamental rights. And that is why Chavez and the Bolivarians are so hated by the Bushites and their Corpos and their Corpo 'news.' They are doing it right. Democracy is not rule by the rich who put on a dumbshow of democracy for the exploited and the powerless. Democracy is the empowerment of the majority in all spheres, for the benefit of everybody. You cannot have a democracy and you cannot have a healthy, prosperous economy and society, if the rich rule--whether it's the local fascist elite, or distant CEOs and their lapdog U.S. government.

All of the leaders that you list above agree with Chavez, to one degree or another (mostly enthusiastic agreement), and support the same or similar goals, which can be summed up in one phrase: real democracy (not the fake kind we have here). And all of them have refused to bend to the Bushite propaganda (lies, disinformation) that Chavez is a "dictator" and is somehow harming Venezuela and South America. Your view that Chavez is "authoritarian" lines up with the view of the wrong people, I'm afraid--and here is one of the worst of them:

"The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants Like Chávez," by Donald Rumsfeld, 12/1/07
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113001800.html

So explain to me why you agree with the mass murderer of 100,000 innocent Iraqis to get their oil?

How is Chavez "authoritarian"?


------

*(See: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," the Irish filmmakers' documentary on the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela. Other info sources: www.venezuelanalysis.com, www.BoRev.net)

Does no one else remember how he hugged and praised Mugabe as a "freedom warrior?"

Devil Chavez. Chavez all bad. Chavez the dictator. Can't Chavez make a mistake? Yup, he sure can. That's why Lula da Silva said, "You can criticize Chavez on a lot of things, but not on democracy." Know what they means? That Chavez can make mistakes, and also that Chavez listens, that he is not "authoritarian."

I think Chavez, and the Chavez government, and Chavez's many supporters--cuz, you see, it's not just Chavez, it's an entire government, and a people--have made a number of mistakes. Much as I would like to have seen an equal rights amendment for women and gays passed by the voters in Venezuela, it was a political mistake to include it in the package of 69 amendments proposed for a vote of the people last November. (Get that? A vote of the people!) The inclusion of equal rights for women and gays gave the rightwing the edge they needed to defeat the entire package--given that Venezuela is a Catholic country with a particularly rightwing upper clergy. In fact, the whole thing was a mistake--putting such a complicated package of amendments, which included pensions for street vendors (half the work force), free college education for all, a slightly shortened work week, lifting the term limit on the presidency, equal rights for women and gays, and more, all piled into one up or down vote of the people. The Chavistas lost, very narrowly (50.7% to 49.3%), and they really shouldn't have lost on some of these issues.

Big mistake. Hubris. They thought they could translate Chavez's personal popularity into approval for a long, complicated, laundry list of leftist proposals, hammered together by all the disparate leftist parties in Venezuela. Chavez probably should have acted the dictator and said "No!" on some of this. He didn't (because, guess what? --he's a democrat with a small d). And they lost--and gave the fascist coup plotters, and rightwing dirtbags, and the Bushite funders of rightwing causes (using our tax dollars) a boost in their dreams of hacking up leftists and throwing their body parts into mass graves, as they do in Bush-funded Colombia.

I think Chavez's coziness with Iran was probably a mistake, too--although he has every right to do so, as the head of state of a country that is a member of OPEC, and as a head of state period. Venezuela has a right to make whatever alliances, trade deals and other agreements that its legitimate head of state deems beneficial to Venezuela. It is a bit ironical that Chavez, who proposed equal rights for women and gays, would ally with Iran, but why do we think that influence always goes one way? Maybe Chavez's friendliness toward Iran will influence Iran for the better. In any case, did he have to be so friendly? Maybe some public talk about equal rights in both countries would have been in order --chastise his own country, chastise Iran--using self-criticism as diplomacy. I don't know. I just know that it gave the Bushites more ammunition, stoked their hatred, and god knows what that might lead to. It was a mistake to embrace Iran so fulsomely. But Chavez has also embraced, and been embraced by, the leaders of Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Paraguay, and, most recently, he had a friendly meeting with the president of Colombia (who, weeks before had been calling Chavez a "terrorist lover") to "bury the hatchet" and build a new railroad together.

We can hardly criticize Chavez for any of these associations, when our own president holds hands with the sheiks of Saudi Arabia. Chavez is the legitimate, elected, popularly supported head of state--unlike Bush. He is acting in the interest of his people--unlike Bush. He makes mistakes. He takes risks. He is entitled to lead--and must take the heat if he's wrong. Unlike Bush, he doesn't have global corporate predators and war profiteers covering his ass and preventing accountability. Indeed, these same people who are protecting Bush would slit Chavez's throat if they could. Can you imagine living with that threat, day in, day out? It's a wonder he doesn't make more mistakes.

something I never took time to realize until reading your comments a moment ago.

If anyone's going to look down on Chavez for welcoming business with Iran, they REALLY should question the _Bush puppet, Uribe. I have NEVER heard of anything approaching his level of dirty, violent methods of controlling his population attributed to Iran.

Amazing that ALL the leftist-haters universally protect and support the relationship _Bush created with that little murderous monster in Colombia.

Ele tem feito muito bom!

Vive Brasil! Minha amada segunda Patria!

:shrug:

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=PBR">Petroleo Brasileiro SA (ADR) is very attractive at $53/share.

but not in the Northern hemisphere.

Anyone want to splain that to me?

But at least the people didn't get totally screwed on the profits.

It's doubtful Brazil will be adding to the problem the world has now.

They also have nuclear energy from 2 reactors, and get 25% of their electricity from Paraguay's dam, largest in the world, Itaipu Dam, on the Guarani River.





Also, they are deeply involved in biofuel:

~snip~
As international oil prices soar, that bet has put Brazil at the forefront of a "biofuels" movement in which many countries view sugar cane, corn, soybeans, beets, cornstalks and native grasses as cleaner, money-saving substitutes for oil produced in politically unstable countries. Ethanol is higher in power-producing octane than most gasoline and can reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and harmful particulates.

~snip~
About a third of the fuel Brazilians use in their vehicles is ethanol, known in Brazil as "alcohol." That compares with 3 percent in the United States. All gasoline sold in Brazil contains at least 26 percent ethanol, but motorists driving flexible-fuel cars have the option of filling up with pure ethanol, or E100, which currently is selling for about half the price of the blend.

Use of pure ethanol will rise sharply as carmakers in Brazil such as General Motors and Volkswagen make more flexible-fuel cars. Half the new vehicles sold this year will be able to use either pure ethanol or the blend, according to the Sao Paulo Sugar Cane Industry Union.

More:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8262015/

~~~~~~~~~
You make a valuable point in underscoring the fact Brazil will be spending money on essential human services, not lining the pockets of true parasites craving more and more excessive wealth which benfits only them.

Since the end goal is not massive profit for a corporation, things will (I hope) be done in a careful fashion, meaning no skimming on things like safety controls, etc.

Next best thing, progressive/lefitst leaders control oil profits, which go to education and other bootstrapping of Brazil's vast poor majority, and logging and mining are strongly regulated, to protect uncontacted indigenous tribes, anti-global warming forest values and biodiversity. The latter is only possible with democratic, leftist government.

Rightwing fuckwads in league with global corporate predators NEVER protect the environment, NEVER help the poor and NEVER take responsibility for social progress, and they in particular aim at destroying the sovereignty of local governments over their resources. Local rightwing governments--whether they are corrupt-democratic or heinous dictatorships--always do this: sell their country's sovereignty away, and with it, all hope of environmental regulation and sustainable policies. (They also put bullets in leftists' heads and throw them out of airplanes, or hack up union leaders and throw their body parts into mass graves, in service of their own and U.S. Corpo greed.) So, if extraction/distribution of the new oil finds is going to happen--if that is a given, whatever I think about it--I would rather it bolster leftist government and the poor, because that way holds the most hope for environmental conservation via democracy, social justice, general prosperity, respect for the views of indigenous tribes (strongly pro-environment) and a strong middle class.

South America's economy, environment and the sovereignty of its countries and peoples is a complex issue, not given to easy answers. If you shut down state-run oil industries, millions will die from starvation, neglect and disease. This is a wrenching human dilemma, since fossil fuel use drives global warming (climate disruption). Not exploiting the oil resource is not an option, in South America. It is not going to happen. But what can happen is proper use of the profits, for the long term health of the society, and strong regulation of extractive activities, to prevent pollution and other damage to the environment.

Example: Chevron left an enormous toxic spill in Ecuador, which destroyed a vast swath of river/forest ecology, and has caused high rates of cancer in the local population. The previous rightwing government let Chevron walk away from this--no cleanup, no compensation. The new leftist president is supporting the victims' lawsuit against Chevron. It is critically important, a) who is doing the drilling, b) that they can be held accountable for their actions, and c) that the profits bolster local democracy, sovereignty and social justice (empower the people to be able to protect themselves and their environment).

Another example: Previous rightwing governments in Venezuela gave away most of the oil profits to multinationals, enriched themselves and totally neglected the vast poor majority. Venezuela got 10% of the profits. The poor saw no benefit from this. The multinationals got 90%. (Note: Venezuela's oil was nationalized long before Chavez.) When Chavez got elected, he began re-negotiating the oil contracts to give Venezuela a better deal. It is now Venezuela 60%, multinationals 40%, and Venezuela's profits are used for schools, medical care, infrastructure development, development of local manufacturing (jobs!), land reform, and other benefits to the poor and to the society as a whole. For environmentalists to come in, now that the poor are getting benefit from the oil, and say, 'shut it down, it's bad for the environment,' is not only unrealistic and arrogant, it is oblivious to the underlying problem of governance, which could perhaps be summed up by the fact that corporate resource extractors kill environmentalists, with impunity, under rightwing/fascist governments. You have to empower the poor, and foster democracy, and establish a viable justice system, before you can even get to advocating for the environment.

In another example, in Venezuela, there are gold mining and coal mining controversies, with indigenous tribes on one side, trying to protect the environment, and big bad corporations on the other. In Venezuela--which, for the first time in its history, has a real democracy, with strong leftist leaders--it is a controversy. It is being argued out. Indigenous rights have been enshrined in the Constitution. And the government is trying to find the right solution, the balance of environment concerns vs. profits/jobs, the rights of the tribes vs. the enticing profits from exploiting the resources. The government leans toward the environment and the indigenous. But--most important of all--it protects the rights of debate, of protest, of advocacy, of the 'little guy' vs the 'big guy,' and the 'big guy' cannot kill the 'little guy' with impunity.

Another example: In Ecuador, the new leftist president is presiding over Ecuador's re-write of its Constitution, and one major issue is indigenous land rights. The indigenous wanted a veto over large extraction projects. The president prefers an acknowledgment of indigenous rights and their right to participate in such decisions. Now, just imagine what Auguste Pinochet or Dick Cheney would do in this situation. They would, first of all, kill tens of the thousands of the indigenous, and then have Chevron's and Exxon Mobil's lawyers write the Constitution. No leftist president, no controversy, no discussion, no debate, no hope.

You want Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil, to stop off-shore oil drilling? You have to start with democracy and electing leftists. Only then will the country get aimed in the right direction, at good environmental and social policy. The indigenous in Ecuador, and throughout South America, have had no rights, in the past, and their lands have been routinely stolen and ravaged. Leftist governments in two of these countries, Venezuela and Ecuador, are currently dependent on the oil resource (and in Bolivia, gas and oil), for creating social justice, democracy, infrastructure development, and a diversified economy for the future. Brazil--a much bigger country--is not so dependent on one resource, but nevertheless has comparable problems--a vast poor majority that needs bootstrapping, for the society to prosper. Brazil's leftist government has made some questionable decisions for short-term gain--notably on bad, corporate biofuel production. But at least the government is aimed in the right direction, dissent and advocacy are permitted, and, when dissenters and advocates are harmed (which has happened in the Amazon), something is done about it. Also, the leftist president of Brazil recently "ruled by decree" (something Chavez is unfairly criticized for) to protect the last uncontacted indigenous tribes in the Amazon (and the environment around them). Democracy and leftist (majorityist) government is a bottom line requirement for protection of the environment.

Protecting the planet is a worldwide struggle. And we have to understand all of the complex factors in that struggle. Protection of the rights of campesinos (small peasant farmers) may well be THE most important factor in saving the planet. They are the best producers of organic food, and the best protectors of the land. The campesino movement has been one of the most important components of leftist victories and the success of democracy in South America. Their voice and activism in government and politics--their empowerment by means of democratic, leftist government--and also that of the indigenous tribes, is far more important, in the long run, than whether or not Brazil is going to increase off-shore drilling. With Exxon Mobil and Chevron ruling over us all, the planet will die--soon (the World Wildlife Fund gives us 50 years to the death of the planet, at present levels of pollution and consumption.) With the campesino movement, and leftist government in South America, we have a chance to reverse the damage. Without them, we do not. The new South American left is the strongest force for protection of the environment on the planet, outside of the EU. Deprive them of oil profits, and their progress will come to an abrupt halt. They are converting oil from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of social justice and democracy--the key requirements for environmental protection.

That is the dilemma, and it is a tough one, for sure.

Brazil's capital reserves to double boosted by newly discovered oilfields
www.chinaview.cn 2008-08-30 11:11:10

RIO DE JANEIRO, Aug. 29 (Xinhua) -- Brazil's revenue from oil found in pre-salt reservoirs will help the country double its official capital reserves, Finance Minister Guido Mantega said on Friday.

At a meeting on the international economy organized by the Campinas University in Sao Paulo state, Mantega expected the capital reserves to increase from 200 billion U.S. dollars to 400 billion dollars thanks to the revenue from the exploitation of oil in the pre-salt reservoirs.

"We will be able to invest part of the revenue in other sectors of the economy," he said, adding "the petroleum reserves represent a great advantage for Brazil."

"Brazil is to become a great oil producer and exporter, which will stimulate Brazil's economic development and benefit all Brazilian people," Mantega noted.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/30/content_9738933.htm