831.6363/1–2749
The Ambassador in Venezuela (Donnelly) to the Secretary of State
No. 56
Sir: I have the honor to report that the security survey of the petroleum industry in Venezuela directed by the National Security Council has now been conducted. The complete report,1 with recommendations, will be prepared in Washington, D.C. and immediately made available to the Department.
Messrs. James W. Coulter, Reuben E. Peterson and Paul L. Hopper, who were specially assigned to the Department of State to make this survey, arrived in Venezuela on November 21, 1948, as the Department was previously advised. They were personally introduced by a member of the Embassy staff to the officials of all the oil companies operating in this country, and they explained directly to these officials the scope of their survey and the action which would be requested of the oil companies on the basis of their recommendations. Mr. Coulter made specific mention to each of the companies visited that the survey was being conducted under the direction of the Secretary of State on the authorization of the National Security Council; that its purpose was to appraise the present security of the oil producing, transporting and refining facilities in Venezuela so far as they concerned the national interests of the United States; that the information furnished by the companies would be held in strict confidence by the survey team and its dissemination restricted within the United States Government, the companies to feel free to single out any material not for dissemination; and that the recommendations made would be carried out by the companies voluntarily, and in accordance with their own individual judgment. The assistance of the oil companies in arranging the field survey was requested and was in all cases readily granted, including the British directed Shell Caribbean Petroleum Company and its affiliates.
I arranged to introduce the members of the survey team to the Minister of Fomento, Dr. Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso, on November 23, [Page 796] 1948. The situation created by the military coup of November 24, 19482 made it inadvisable to make a direct introduction of the visiting experts to officials of the new Military Junta of Government but toward the middle of December, the opportunity was presented to make informal mention of their mission, which I did, meeting with a cooperative response. A few days later, Dr. Eduardo Acosta of the Ministry of Fomento was assigned to accompany the visitors in the field, and he remained with them from January 2, 1949 until their return to Caracas.
In as much as considerable preliminary work was necessary in Caracas in order to gather up-to-date data from the oil companies and to plan the field survey effectively, the two weeks following the coup were occupied by the survey team at the capital. On December 10, 1948 they flew to Curacao to undertake the survey of the refinery installations there and at Aruba and, proceeding by tanker from the latter place on December 30, 1948, they were able to get a first hand picture of the Lake Maracaibo bar and the sea transport route for oil from the Maracaibo basin.
The work of the team in the western oil fields around the Maracaibo basin and the eastern oil fields south and west of Puerto de la Cruz was conducted between January 2–22, 1949, at which time they returned to Caracas. They have gathered a large volume of material for their report and have discussed directly with the field officers of the various oil companies the problem of defending the vital oil installations of Venezuela against aggression from within or without the country. On January 24, 1949, they visited the Minister of Fomento, Dr. Pedro Aguerrevere, and received from him a demonstration of friendly interest and support, without any specific discussion of the views which the present government may take concerning their work or their recommendations. The discussion entered into by Dr. Aguerrevere on this occasion is the subject of another despatch from this Embassy, No. 58, dated January 28, 1949.3
The team departed on the following day, January 25, 1949, by air for Washington.
The members of the security survey team impressed me as well equipped by experience and training for their mission, Although I have had no opportunity to observe their work in the field, and the results of same are not yet available, I am advised by a member of the staff that the overall impression made by them on oil company officials was one of competence and seriousness. The unforeseen delay in commencing [Page 797] the survey after their arrival, due entirely to the political crisis and its aftermath, did not hinder the ultimate attainment of their objective and they demonstrated good spirit in putting up with the many inconveniences which this occasioned.
As the Department is aware, this survey has had my very strong personal interest and backing, since I regard the problem of security in the strategic oil industry in Venezuela as one of primary importance to this Embassy and our Government. The recent general strike in the Maracaibo area has again demonstrated the difficult and vulnerable position occupied by the oil industry and underlines that its domestic dangers, between labor strife and political unsettlement, merit equal consideration from the security viewpoint with external dangers of a military nature. For these reasons I have endeavored to give this survey the strongest possible backing and impetus and I await the results with close concern.
A copy of the complete report is expected by this Embassy, which will carefully review it and pass the applicable sections to the interested companies and the Venezuelan Government.4
Respectfully yours,
- Not printed.↩
- For documentation on the coup d’état and the question of maintenance of diplomatic relations with Venezuela, see Foreign Relations, 1948, vol. ix, pp. 126 ff.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Department of State instruction No. 95, June 16, 1949, not printed, indicated to the Embassy in Caracas those recommendations of the Security Survey Team on which the Embassy was to initiate action (831.6363/6–1649). Documentation on the implementation of the recommendations is contained in Department of State file 831.6363.↩