No. of Recommendations: 2
The Pirate King says US big oil will exploit the daylights out of Venezuela, the exact same thing Bush claimed would happen in Iraq. Big oil CEOs seem to be a bit less enthusiastic about Venezuela.
So, what happened in Iraq, after the US tore up all the oil contracts that Saddam had negotiated, so the leases could be auctioned again, with US companies participating. These days, the dominate players are China, Russia, and a smattering of EU companies.
I asked the net sifter how and when the Chinese became the biggest player in Iraq.
Chinese companies began dominating Iraq's oil industry after 2009, capitalizing on low-risk, high-return deals after Western firms shied away from instability, securing major stakes in fields like Rumaila and Ahdab through early contracts and ongoing aggressive bidding, eventually managing over two-thirds of Iraq's oil output by the mid-2020s. Their "do-more-with-less" approach, focusing on service contracts over reserve rights and offering significant capital, made them preferred partners, diverging from Western supermajors' reluctance.
How China Gained Dominance
Early Entry & Debt Relief: China was an early entrant post-2003, offering significant debt relief to Iraq in 2007, paving the way for oil deals, notes Kalam (Chatham House) and The Jamestown Foundation.
Strategic Bidding: Chinese firms secured large contracts, like CNPC's stake in the Rumaila field (2009) and the Ahdab field, often winning bids where Western companies showed little interest, say Amwaj.media and Atlantic Council.
Favorable Terms: Unlike Western firms needing to satisfy shareholders with reserve growth, Chinese companies accepted service contracts with low per-barrel fees, focusing on quick, practical implementation, explains The New York Times.
Political Favor: Iraq's government saw China as a stable, non-intrusive partner, diversifying away from the U.S. and creating mutually beneficial profits, notes Clingendael and American University
Key Timelines
2006-2008: Initial welcome for Chinese firms, with oil minister visits and renegotiations of Saddam-era deals.
2009: Landmark deal for CNPC at Rumaila, marking a significant shift, reports Amwaj.media and Semafor.
2019: Chinese investment in Iraq exceeded $20 billion, with major contracts in oil, services, and power, say Manara Magazine and Middle East Institute.
2024: Chinese firms dominated new oil and gas block auctions, solidifying their leadership, according to Atlantic Council and American University.
Iraqi production, which, before the war, was restricted by UN sanctions, has soared, since 2010, now running over 4Mbpd. Presumably, the Pirate King will expropriate Chinese interests in Venezuela, and offer the fields to US companies. But, what if, as suggested before, the objective is chaos, to interrupt production, to raise the price of US produced oil?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 5
From the background on the Iraqi oil industry post:
Western firms shied away from instability,So, what does big oil think of the Pirate Kind's op in Venezuela?
US oil giants mum after Trump says they’ll spend billions in Venezuela
Chevron, the only U.S. energy titan operating in Venezuela, said in a statement to Fox News Digital that it was following "relevant laws and regulations."
"Chevron remains focused on the safety and well-being of our employees, as well as the integrity of our assets," a Chevron spokesperson added.
ConocoPhillips wrote in a statement to Fox News Digital that it is monitoring the developments in Venezuela as well as the "potential implications for global energy supply and stability."
"It would be premature to speculate on any future business activities or investments," a spokesperson for ConocoPhillips added.
ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/us-oil-giants...Big oil seems to be obtaining all the heavy, sour, it needs from Canada. Canada is a peaceful, stable, place, where laws seem to matter. Why would they risk Billions in a Venezuelan hell hole?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 7
But, what if, as suggested before, the objective is chaos, to interrupt production, to raise the price of US produced oil?
I have no doubt Trump would sell his soul to the devil (if he hasn’t already) for a few billion in oil bribes. I mean grifts. No, I mean “gifts.”
But raising the price of US produced oil would put pressure on inflation, creating even more affordability issues.
Not that he gives a rat’s ass about the working class. I mean the “little people.”
No. of Recommendations: 2
Not that he gives a rat’s ass about the working class. I mean the “little people.”
He got what he wanted from the Proles, their votes. From that moment on, the Proles became expendable.
Why would Trump want Venezuelan heavy sour produced? He could be butt hurt because Canada would not bow down to him. The scheme may be to replace Canadian heavy, sour, with Venezuelan. That would hurt Canada, because they don't have means to move that much crude to the coast, so it could be exported. Is Trump that petty and vindictive? Yes!
We know how USian "JCs" think. If the government wants something, they can sit on their hands until the government pays them to do what the government wants. Trump made a big deal in the presser about how the investment could come out of the oil company's pockets, again promoting the narrative this won't cost USian taxpayers anything. I bet, if his objective really is to produce Venezuelan crude, he will guarantee every nickle big oil invests, and guarantee their profits, so he can hurt Canada.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 6
Why would Trump want Venezuelan heavy sour produced? He could be butt hurt because Canada would not bow down to him. The scheme may be to replace Canadian heavy, sour, with Venezuelan. That would hurt Canada, because they don't have means to move that much crude to the coast, so it could be exported. Is Trump that petty and vindictive? Yes!I think that's overthinking it. Trump views international politics in very transactional terms: there are opponents and not-opponents, resources that we control and resources that we don't control. Strong countries can dominate weak countries, and a rule-based system that constrains strong countries is bad for the strong countries. Venezuela has resources that he thought should be under U.S. control was governed by an opponent, and the only thing stopping him from taking action was a rules-based system that he doesn't care much about. Thus...we take Maduro out of the country.
The oil isn't important because of some 4D chess game to hurt Canada. It's just important because oil is a very valuable natural resource, and Venezuela's got the world's largest reserves. So that oil needs to be controlled by the U.S. Nothing more complicated than that.
I mean, it's a bad analysis for supporting what we did, because the U.S. doesn't control Venezuela materially more today than we did a few days ago. Rubio's walking that back even further today:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested Sunday that the United States would not take a day-to-day role in governing Venezuela other than enforcing an existing “oil quarantine” on the country, a turnaround after President Donald Trump announced a day earlier that the U.S. would be running Venezuela following its ouster of leader Nicolás Maduro.
Rubio’s statements on TV talk shows seemed designed to temper concerns about whether the assertive American action to achieve regime change might again produce a prolonged foreign intervention or failed attempt at nation-building. They stood in contrast to Trump’s broad but vague claims that the U.S. would at least temporarily “run” the oil-rich nation, comments that suggested some sort of governing structure under which Caracas would be controlled by Washington.
But Rubio offered a more nuanced take, saying the U.S. would continue to enforce an oil quarantine that was already in place on sanctioned tankers before Maduro was removed from power early Saturday and using that leverage as a means to press policy changes in Venezuela.https://apnews.com/live/us-venezuela-trump-maduro-...
No. of Recommendations: 4
I think that's overthinking it. Trump views international politics in very transactional terms: there are opponents and not-opponents, resources that we control and resources that we don't control. Strong countries can dominate weak countries, and a rule-based system that constrains strong countries is bad for the strong countries. Venezuela has resources that he thought should be under U.S. control was governed by an opponent, and the only thing stopping him from taking action was a rules-based system that he doesn't care much about. Thus...we take Maduro out of the country.
lol. No.
Why did Biden put a $25 million reward on Maduro?
