• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Venezuela seizes oil rigs owned by US company

justabubba said:
those assets formerly owned by an American based company are located in the country of venezuela and subject to its laws/rules
American federal laws, oklahoma states laws have absolutely NO bearing there
Click to expand...

Are they really *in* the official Venezuelan *owned* land? I tried to find this out - on the Rig Company's website it lists these rigs as being in the body of water, not pertaining to a country.
To me I gather (and I'm still trying to learn more) that they're in international waters - just like Deepwater Horizon - and thus subject to international laws and still under the laws of their country of business-ownership.

I might be wrong but I think that's how it is.

Even so - they're still an American-owned company. They built them within contract with Venezuela and Venezuela breeched their contract and then took them over which is *still* unacceptable.

it doesn't matter where something is located - no other country has the "right" to take posession of it.
 
I am putting justabubba on mky ignore list. I have no interest in reading his asinine bull****.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Are they really *in* the official Venezuelan *owned* land? I tried to find this out - on the Rig Company's website it lists these rigs as being in the body of water, not pertaining to a country.
To me I gather (and I'm still trying to learn more) that they're in international waters - just like Deepwater Horizon - and thus subject to international laws and still under the laws of their country of business-ownership.

I might be wrong but I think that's how it is.

Even so - they're still an American-owned company. They built them within contract with Venezuela and Venezuela breeched their contract and then took them over which is *still* unacceptable.

it doesn't matter where something is located - no other country has the "right" to take posession of it.
Click to expand...
Rigs, ships, or water vessels have always been considered sovereign entities from which the countries it is registered.
 
I see no difference between Chavez stealing company assets or Obama stealing company assets.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What's he gonna do - seize the whole damn world!?
Click to expand...

That's exactly his idea. And the US does nothing to stop him. He is using oil to colonize small caribbean and central american countries like Nicaragua. He plans to invade Colombia and create a "bolivarian" socialist state merging Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Panama, Colombia and Venezuela, with he as the leader of course.

And Obama only says that he wants to improve the relationship with this buffoon.
 
deltabtry said:
Rigs, ships, or water vessels have always been considered sovereign entities from which the countries it is registered.
Click to expand...
would you please provide a cite showing established international law deems oil drilling rigs to be registered as an equivalent to ocean going ships

reefedjib said:
I am putting justabubba on mky ignore list. I have no interest in reading his asinine bull****.
Click to expand...
this i will wear as a badge of honor. thank you
your white flag of surrender is being returned in the mail
 
justabubba said:
would you please provide a cite showing established international law deems oil drilling rigs to be registered as an equivalent to ocean going ships


this i will wear as a badge of honor. thank you
your white flag of surrender is being returned in the mail
Click to expand...
I am afraid the burden of proof would be on you but that said, Maritime law applies to all oil platforms and to do this, now maritime law has only juruisdiction on sea going vessels towed or otherwise which in this case must be registered. This can be proven through maritime lawsuits etc., which can easily be googled. Non the less from what I understand that these platforms and personnel ceased work due to non payment from the venezuelian government, due to breach of contract and this in no way allows any government to capture property.
 
deltabtry said:
I am afraid the burden of proof would be on you but that said, Maritime law applies to all oil platforms and to do this, now maritime law has only juruisdiction on sea going vessels towed or otherwise which in this case must be registered. This can be proven through maritime lawsuits etc., which can easily be googled. Non the less from what I understand that these platforms and personnel ceased work due to non payment from the venezuelian government, due to breach of contract and this in no way allows any government to capture property.
Click to expand...
if your premise was right and the BP oil rig in the gulf is registered to great britian or another foreign nation, then that would preclude the inspections and regulations required under US law for oil rigs in USA waters. that foreign registered "vessel" would be subject to the laws of the soverign state under which it is registered rather than those of the USA
so, pick your poison. either the USA has no right to impose its laws on an oil rig in its waters (if registered under a foreign flag) or venezuela is within that soverign nation's right to impose venezuelan policy and practices on the oil rig in that nation's waters
 
justabubba said:
if your premise was right and the BP oil rig in the gulf is registered to great britian or another foreign nation, then that would preclude the inspections and regulations required under US law for oil rigs in USA waters. that foreign registered "vessel" would be subject to the laws of the soverign state under which it is registered rather than those of the USA
so, pick your poison. either the USA has no right to impose its laws on an oil rig in its waters (if registered under a foreign flag) or venezuela is within that soverign nation's right to impose venezuelan policy and practices on the oil rig in that nation's waters
Click to expand...
Your right this would preclude any vessel in being inspected and that said, this would preempt the country requesting to do inspection to deny these vessels entry to it's waters and deny any drilling. Voluntary compliance is key and expected and complied with by most companies.
 
justabubba said:
bravo chavez!
the oil company gambled and lost
the country which owns the oil under those wells insisted that the wells operate
the (former) owner balked because it was being late paid
the country did what was in the country's best interest and seized control of the wells
my guess is the former owner will be able to get them back as soon as the oil underneath is depleted
Click to expand...

Er WHAAAAT?
 
justabubba said:
but at least you do now acknowledge they are NOT - and were not - owned by the USA
progress
Click to expand...

No one ever said they were owned by the US.
They did say they were owned by an American Company.
 
justabubba said:
if your premise was right and the BP oil rig in the gulf is registered to great britian or another foreign nation, then that would preclude the inspections and regulations required under US law for oil rigs in USA waters. that foreign registered "vessel" would be subject to the laws of the soverign state under which it is registered rather than those of the USA
so, pick your poison. either the USA has no right to impose its laws on an oil rig in its waters (if registered under a foreign flag) or venezuela is within that soverign nation's right to impose venezuelan policy and practices on the oil rig in that nation's waters
Click to expand...

I'd like to find out more on this subject but I'm lost as to where to look for facts and info. . .

I imagine, however, that when working *in tandem* with a country for business purposes does not mean that you are solely working 100% *for* that country - BP is under guidance and regulation of the US government *but* they are also under guidance and regulation of THEIR government as well - and they still *own* their oil rig.

If we took over Deep Horizon - wouldn't that be *wrong*

On a separate note:
Justabubba (and others with the same though process) - If you are against "big oil" - then wouldn't you have wanted these Oklahoma-company oil rigs to have been shut down as they were going to be *instead* of taken over by a foreign government and then put back to work?

Does "big oil" only bother you when it's US oil? If not - then your view should be against the Venezuelan's from operating these 11 rigs as they obviously intend on doing.

In searching and reading I came across this (scroll to Petroleum and other resources) - it's revealing though doesn't answer questions brought around by this incident.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm

*edit*
Ah! - after reading through that link I learned of this - which is the next path to take - International Arbitration.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
I'd like to find out more on this subject but I'm lost as to where to look for facts and info. . .

I imagine, however, that when working *in tandem* with a country for business purposes does not mean that you are solely working 100% *for* that country - BP is under guidance and regulation of the US government *but* they are also under guidance and regulation of THEIR government as well - and they still *own* their oil rig.

If we took over Deep Horizon - wouldn't that be *wrong*

On a separate note:
Justabubba (and others with the same though process) - If you are against "big oil" - then wouldn't you have wanted these Oklahoma-company oil rigs to have been shut down as they were going to be *instead* of taken over by a foreign government and then put back to work?

Does "big oil" only bother you when it's US oil? If not - then your view should be against the Venezuelan's from operating these 11 rigs as they obviously intend on doing.

In searching and reading I came across this (scroll to Petroleum and other resources) - it's revealing though doesn't answer questions brought around by this incident.
Venezuela

*edit*
Ah! - after reading through that link I learned of this - which is the next path to take - International Arbitration.
Click to expand...
Here is a example from my own experience, I worked on a drill ship called the DMS Dalmahoy registered in Scotland and drilling for oil in the Gulf of Sinai in 1979. The rig it's self was owned by a company which the name escapes me now. The oil company was Aramco, the drilling company I believe was Dilcon (contractor) and we were drilling in Israeli waters. My point being is that countries just can't seize a a oil rig platform or drill ship, there is way to many interest involved and usually from different countries. Although this may not be the case in regards to this topic at hand but odds are there will be more than one entity involved in this regard.
 
If you make stupid business decisions, it’s your own damn fault when things go sour. It's called tough love. I wonder how many “conservatives” are in favor of a government bailout for this company.
 
Befuddled_Stoner said:
If you make stupid business decisions, it’s your own damn fault when things go sour. It's called tough love. I wonder how many “conservatives” are in favor of a government bailout for this company.
Click to expand...
You mean democrats..oh wait it's the big evil oil comapnies, democrats only bailout automakers, mortgage companies, perhaps even big unions, healthcare etc..BTW Obama isn't finished yet.
 
Befuddled_Stoner said:
If you make stupid business decisions, it’s your own damn fault when things go sour. It's called tough love. I wonder how many “conservatives” are in favor of a government bailout for this company.
Click to expand...

It's fascinating to see that people consider doing business with another country, especially Venezuela, to be a "stupid business decision" . . . when our entire WORLD centers around "doing business with other countries"

I'll point out that we do a HUGE a mount of trading and business with Venezuela - a lot of it directly led by our government.

I quote from the link I gave a few posts up the page:
Despite political tensions between the United States and Venezuela, the United States remains Venezuela's most important trading partner. In 2009, bilateral trade topped U.S. $37.4 billion. Venezuelan exports to the United States were U.S. $28.1 billion (accounting for at least 46% of total Venezuelan exports), and U.S. exports to Venezuela were $9.4 billion (or 24.3% of total Venezuelan imports). The U.S. is the single most important customer for Venezuelan oil. Venezuela shipped an average of 1.1 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per day to the U.S. in 2009 (through November), a figure which accounts for at least half of Venezuelan oil exports and 12% of U.S. oil imports.
Click to expand...

If we didn't import oil from Venezuela then who else would we do business *with* - seeing as how doing business with them is "a stupid business decision"

Who would be better? where does the world's oil sources come from, anyway?
File:Oil producing countries map.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <-- It's just a map, not an article, click it.
 
Befuddled_Stoner said:
If you make stupid business decisions, it’s your own damn fault when things go sour. It's called tough love. I wonder how many “conservatives” are in favor of a government bailout for this company.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding the argument.

I am not saying that we should be bailing out this company.
I am not saying that this was an unforeseeable consequence of doing business with a regime that does not respect contractual obligations.

I am saying that this is just another reason why places like Venezuela are antithetical to everything that the international economic community has worked toward.
I am saying that Chavez's short-term gain will cause Venezuela long-term harm
I am saying that when people reflexively support anything that hurts something that they think is bad, they run the risk of missing the bigger picture.
 
Venezuela seizes oil rigs owned by US company
Click to expand...

This is an act of war. Will the US do anything, with the current sitting prez? Hell no!
 
apdst said:
This is an act of war. Will the US do anything, with the current sitting prez? Hell no!
Click to expand...

It's not an act of war. Things like this have happened before with other oppressive regimes, but it's rarely a cause for actual conflict.

There's a 0% chance we would have gone to war with Venezuela over this, regardless of who was president.
 
apdst said:
This is an act of war. Will the US do anything, with the current sitting prez? Hell no!
Click to expand...

It took me a little while to find the next legal step - which is International Arbitration.
This has been sought concerning PDVSA and Venezuela in the past in which rights and issues have been in conflict.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It took me a little while to find the next legal step - which is International Arbitration.
This has been sought concerning PDVSA and Venezuela in the past in which rights and issues have been in conflict.
Click to expand...

This assumes that the contract between the parties included a provision providing for international arbitration in case of a dispute. Moreover, international arbitration only works where the party winning the award is able to enforce the panel's judgment.

edit: In an unrelated case, Exxon just won a dispute against Venezuela over Chavez's nationalization of their property:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100625-704543.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom