A.M. Mora y Leon has responded (scroll down) very quickly to my post, and for that I am appreciative. But he fails to acknowledge that he corrected his own post in light of his carelessness with words. That's OK, though.
First, let me respond by saying that it's been a long day, and I'm not really in the mood for a fight (or for obnoxiousness). So I don't plan on treating Mora y Leon with the condescension he exercised with me.
Second, Mora y Leon was under the impression (originally) that the oil production he was talking about was ALL the oil production in Venezuela, not just that of 32 fields under review. He also was confused by the difference between the words "output" and "new drilling". That certainly changes things, doesn't it?
And yes, sir, I know what the word "none" means, but you had no idea what you were talking about, so really you're deflecting the issue with a puerile attempt at humiliation. Plus, your lecture on the word "none" pursues the point by completely disregarding your own acknowledged failure to differentiate fields-in-total from fields under review.
Next, you're right. I don't know all that much about the oil industry. However, I do know that oil doesn't cost $40 to extract from the ground, as you claim. So neither of us are experts, then. But I know a thing or two about logic, and you seem to possess little.
Where the reference to "fallen output" from Dow Jones fits into your reasoning, or your point, was lost on me. Yes, sir, I know what "fallen" means, but don't know what that has to do with the discussion at hand. If anything, it supports my original point. But then again, I assumed you understood the difference between output and drilling. Ooops, there's my lack-of-knowledge of the oil industry creeping back in...
On to your point about the Russia deal: First, I did read the FT article, and didn't see anything about a collapse. Second, I agree entirely. They didn't used to do this sort of thing, but then again they didn't have to. Nor is it CLEAR that they have to now. It's certainly convenient, and I'll grant you, probably necessary.
Regardless, my point had nothing to do with defending Chavez, or his management of his nation's oil industry. In fact, in your haste, you must have skipped over the part at the end where I said as much. You were probably too busy contriving a rejoinder for the part of my post you didn't address in your response, about the transparency of Venezuela's "books". You didn't take me up on my request to show me the errors of my ways, which is surprising, considering how much attention you lavished on the rest of my comments.
I'm sorry you were offended by my questioning whether you were an anti-Chavez propagandist. But that doesn't make me a Chavez apologist. If you've read my other posts (and I see you did), then you know that at best I find him amusing-but-dangerous, and at worst, just dangerous.
I don't expect us to see eye-to-eye on this, or presumably, other matters. But I do hope that we can have a more friendly exchange of ideas in the future. I'm happy to see others out there taking the time to think about a subject (namely Latin America) that's generally disregarded in the popular media. It would be constructive to have non- and bi-partisan debates on a region that plays an increasingly important role in American foreign affairs.