Please be responsible for your own actions and words, and avoid blaming others or making excuses for your behavior. If you make a mistake, apologize and take steps to correct it.
- Manlobbi
Personal Finance Topics / Macroeconomic Trends and Risks
No. of Recommendations: 26
XOM has released their prepared remarks to Trump on investing in Venezuela. In carefully crafted words, Darren Woods said that Venezuela is "uninvestable" under current conditions, and that many changes would be needed for XOM to consider investing there. He threw out some bouquets, always necessary in dealing with Trump - i.e. that he is confident that the US could achieve these changes over time. But he basically said XOM is not interested in playing in the current game.
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/news-release...For background, Paul Krugman recently published a good review of the real situation in Venezuela re oil. Among other revelations, he points out that Venezuela doesn't really have 300 billion barrels of oil reserves. The current government just raised the prior, more realistic, estimate of 100 billion barrels by declaring that all of the Orinoco deposits were economically recoverable under then current technology and prices. That is pure BS. The oil is very heavy, very expensive to produce, and has many contaminates that must be removed before refining. Kruger covers all of this. Worth a read.
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-emperors-ne...How much investment it would take to make Venezuelan oil competitive in not defined. The $100 billion is another figure pulled out of thin air. XOM did offer to send a team of experts into Venezuela to define what would be really needed provided their security could be ensured. XOM has the best major project management organization in the O&G business, so this would be a necessary first step.
Oil supplies over the long range is an important macro economic subject. The IEA has recently updated its future demand outlook under several scenarios. Unlike last year, this time they did include a scenario under current policies. Their resulting outlook was slightly higher than XOM's planning base, showing continued modest growth in oil demand. Does anyone still think the world will prioritize reducing greenhouse gas emissions over economic growth? The IEA also recognized that Africa needs clean fuels for cooking for humanitarian reasons - a point XOM has been making for years.
Since current oil fields decline about 8% a year on average due to depletion, there will be a continuing demand to find new reserves over time. Shale oil declines much faster. Perhaps at some future date, oil from Venezuela could be important as a supply source.
But right now, it's a political sideshow with a loud barker trying to divert attention from real macro economic issues in the USA.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Darren Woods said that Venezuela is "uninvestable" under current conditions, and that many changes would be needed for XOM to consider investing there.Make of this what you will
"You have total safety, total security. One of the reasons you couldn't go in is you had no guarantees, you had no security, but now you have total security," Trump said during the meeting.
"It's a whole different Venezuela, and Venezuela is going to be very successful. And the people of the United States are going to be big beneficiaries because we're going to be extracting, you know, numbers of in terms of oil, like, you know, few people have ever seen actually. So, you're dealing with us directly. You're not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don't want you to deal with Venezuela."
The president also predicted that the acquisition of Venezuelan oil would lead to massive wealth, lower taxes and "lots of jobs for Americans and for Venezuelans."https://currently.att.yahoo.com/finance/news/four-...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
The president also predicted that the acquisition of Venezuelan oil would lead to massive wealth, lower taxes and "lots of jobs for Americans and for Venezuelans."
The POTUS didn't say that the Americans would be in the military or hired mercenaries fighting Venezuelan insurgents did he?
No. of Recommendations: 0
The POTUS didn't say that the Americans would be in the military or hired mercenaries fighting Venezuelan insurgents did he?
He seems to be content to leave the apparatus of the existing dictatorship in place, so it would be Venezuelans taking the casualties.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Couldn't trust Maduro.
Can you trust Trump?
No. of Recommendations: 1
who is paying for security?
corporations : pay locals at a few bucks daily.
trump via taxpayers : pay blackwater types (or putin mercs) at a few thousand bucks per day.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Make of this what you will
It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. (Please ignore the fact that it’s not printed on paper in the first place.)
No. of Recommendations: 0
Texirish,
Excellent post summarizing XOM CEO's position and the realities of Venezuelan oil.
Much better statesmen understand the concepts of erecting a permanence in trade, industry, and partnership.
Criminals arresting criminals is unworkable.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Offered without comment:
Trump says he might keep Exxon out of Venezuela after CEO called it 'uninvestable'
Jan 11 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he might block Exxon Mobil from investing in Venezuela after the oil major's CEO called the country "uninvestable" during a White House meeting last week.
"I didn't like Exxon's response," Trump told reporters on Air Force One on his way back to Washington on Sunday. "I'll probably be inclined to keep Exxon out. I didn't like their response. They're playing too cute."
Trump said on Friday that his administration would decide which firms would be allowed to operate in the South American country.
"You're dealing with us directly. You're not dealing with Venezuela at all. We don't want you to deal with Venezuela," he said.https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-might-ke...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 11
What oil executives did suggest to Trump on Friday was that they would quite like to be repaid for their losses from the 2007 nationalization of their companies from the sale of Venezuelan oil Trump has promised to control. ConocoPhillips, for example, claims it is owed about $12 billion. “We’re not going to look at what people lost in the past, because that was their fault,” Trump told them. “That was a different president. You’re going to make a lot of money, but we’re not going to go back.”
Yesterday the government made public an executive order President Donald J. Trump signed on Friday, declaring yet another national emergency—his tenth in this term, by my count—and saying that any use of the revenue from the sale of Venezuelan oil to repay the billions of dollars owed to oil companies “will materially harm the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”
Specifically, the executive order says, such repayment would “interfere with our critical efforts to ensure economic and political stability in Venezuela” and, by extension, jeopardize U.S. foreign policy objectives including “ending the dangerous influx of illegal immigrants and the flood of illicit narcotics;…protecting American interests against malign actors such as Iran and Hezbollah; and bringing peace, prosperity, and stability to the Venezuelan people and to the Western Hemisphere more generally.” So, it appears, Trump wants to retain control of the money from the sale of Venezuelan oil.
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 5
So, it appears, Trump wants to retain control of the money from the sale of Venezuelan oil.He has said that proceeds from future Venezuelan oil sales will go into accounts in private banks, not to the US Treasury.
His crypto venture has applied to become a bank.
Money from sale of Venezuelan oil to be held in US-controlled bank accounts, Energy Dept says
WASHINGTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. has begun marketing Venezuelan oil and all proceeds from its sale will initially settle in U.S.-controlled accounts at globally recognized banks, the Department of Energy said in a statement released on Wednesday.https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/money-sale...Trump-linked World Liberty Financial seeks license to launch trust bankhttps://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/trump-...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 8
He has said that proceeds from future Venezuelan oil sales will go into accounts in private banks, not to the US Treasury.
Makes sense. He has to keep it off our books.
Not even necessarily because of grift and graft (though obviously that would be a concern). No, because if the oil revenues that Trump has used the resources of the U.S. government to obtain actually get paid to the U.S. government, then Congress has to appropriate it before it can be spent. It becomes taxpayer money, and therefore Congress decides what it's spent on.
That can't happen for his project to work. He knows that Congress doesn't want to appropriate tens of billions of dollars to rebuild Venezuela's oil infrastructure. He just went through the whole DOGE thing on America First to stop us spending money on foreign lands instead of to help Americans. And the domestic oil producers will go ballistic if we're using public money to rebuild Venezuela.
So Trump has a dilemma. Venezuela has to sell their oil, and the money from those sales has to go somewhere. If it goes to Venezuela, Trump loses control. If it goes into the Treasury, Trump loses control. So it has to go somewhere else that Trump controls outside of the government. I can't imagine how they can set that up legally, but I'm sure top lawyers are working on that as we speak....
No. of Recommendations: 2
but I'm sure top lawyers are working on that as we speak....
Given his history with lawyers (not to mention prosecutors) so far, I’m assuming you’re typing this with a smile on your face.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Given his history with lawyers (not to mention prosecutors) so far, I’m assuming you’re typing this with a smile on your face.
Of course!
But also, DOJ has always bunch of very good lawyers on their civil side, and Bondi/Trump probably haven't messed too much with the folks whose specialty is dealing with government asset disposal and finance rules. Those lawyers are the technical specialists whose fields haven't been in the political crucible that much in the first year.
So they probably still have the folks who have the technical skills to figure out how the U.S. government can "receive" a physical asset like oil and then sell it (or just receive money directly after the sale) without it landing on their books in a way where the money is subject to Appropriations. There are a lot of very specific rules governing that stuff. It's not like no one's previously thought about, say, having the military or law enforcement seize assets and then have a pot of money available. So there are explicit, direct statutes on how that money is allowed to be used or moved around - so Trump would have to avoid all of those statutes in order to get this done the way he wants.
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's not like no one's previously thought about, say, having the military or law enforcement seize assets and then have a pot of money available.
Some 600,000 people were deported in 2025. How has the government handled their assets? It may not be much, per person, compared to a tanker full of oil, but, with 600k people, it will start to add up.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Some 600,000 people were deported in 2025. How has the government handled their assets?
I doubt they've "handled" them much at all. Deportation doesn't result in forfeiture of assets. If you own stuff and you're deported, you still own that stuff. You just own that stuff in a different country from where you are now.
Most of that stuff will be either shipped along or sold for the person by friends and family. In some cases, or for small amounts of relatively low-value stuff, it might just be abandoned by the now-former owner....but that would be handled like any other abandoned property, and probably won't amount to much.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I doubt they've "handled" them much at all.
The net sifter agrees with you.
When an undocumented immigrant is deported, their assets (like houses, cars, bank accounts) aren't automatically seized;
they generally retain legal ownership rights, but managing them from abroad becomes difficult, often leading to default, foreclosure, or abandonment unless a trusted person is granted a Power of Attorney or a specific asset protection trust is established beforehand to handle property, pay debts, and manage affairs. ICE inventories personal belongings during detention, attempting to send them with the deportee or allow pickup, but the real challenge lies in property and finances left behind
Michigan has "civil forfeiture"
from the net sifter:
Michigan's civil forfeiture allows police to seize property linked to crimes, with proceeds funding law enforcement, but it's controversial due to potential abuse, though recent laws (like Senate Bill 2 in 2019) require a criminal conviction for some drug-related forfeitures under $50k. Millions are generated annually, like over $12 million in 2021 and $20.4 million netted in one recent year, with funds used for equipment, vehicles, and training, but critics say it incentivizes seizures from innocent people, per reports by groups like the Institute for Justice and Mackinac Center
How it works
Seizure: Police can seize cash or property (vehicles, homes, etc.) believed to be proceeds or instruments of crime, even without a conviction.
Legal Process: The government files a civil case (not criminal) to prove the property is connected to a crime by a "preponderance of the evidence" (more likely than not).
Owner's Role: Property owners must file a claim and can challenge the seizure, but sometimes face high bonds or fees, notes the Institute for Justice.
Recent Reforms (2019): Laws like SB 2 require a conviction for forfeitures under $50,000 in drug cases unless the owner gives up the property, adding a hurdle for some seizures, according to Sinas Dramis Law Firm.
I'm surprised the Federal government has not adopted the practice. As the deportee is in the US illegally, than anything they owned in the US would be part of their committing the crime of being in the US.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 8
As the deportee is in the US illegally, than anything they owned in the US would be part of their committing the crime of being in the US.
That's not really how it works. Forfeiture laws are (generally) tailored to required seized assets to be used in, or result from, the crime. That requires a level of causation that is typically more than just "but/for" - if you commit fraud on your car loan, and then use that car for a few years to commute to work, the government might be able to seize the car but they're not going to be able to seize your earnings from years of work on the grounds that the car allowed you to get there.
Plus, being present in the U.S. unlawfully is not a crime. It's a civil violation. Certain types of crossing into the U.S. are criminal rather than civil violations, but I doubt very many assets were acquired in connection with the act of crossing (not the later civil violation of remaining in the country).
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's not really how it works. Forfeiture laws are (generally) tailored to required seized assets to be used in, or result from, the crime. That requires a level of causation that is typically more than just "but/for"
The Michigan law is rather notorious. The net sifter pointed out the amendment that required the person actually be convicted, before their stuff is taken. Prior to that, you only had to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time, so see your car, or the contents of your wallet, seized. Hypothetical: say you were giving a lift to a friend. You had no idea he was a low level weed dealer. You deliver your friend where he wanted to go, the police jump out, collar him, and take your car. You have committed no crime, never even charged, or held on suspicion, but your car is gone. The Michigan law nets millions of dollars per year, and, previously, without that Constitutional thing about "cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Michigan law is rather notorious.
No doubt, but even under that formulation the police will seize your car and contents and what's on your person when the crime was being committed. They won't seize the money in your checking account or take your TV just because you might have used that same car to go to work or head out to Best Buy.
So going back to the forfeiture point, very few of undocumented folks' assets are likely to be seized by the government merely because they're here in the country without authorization.
Going back even further still, it will be rather complicated legally for the feds to set up a framework that allows the Administration to get a hold of Venezuelan oil and sell it and use the proceeds for what they want without having some Congressional appropriations. I have no idea whether it's possible to do that, but it will be complicated.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have no idea whether it's possible to do that, but it will be complicated. It is certainly being attempted, along with shielding what Venezuelan assets are in the country now, from liens to settle other claims against Venezuela. Seems the intent is for all Venezuelan assets, current, and future, to be controlled by one person, and distributed by one person. The mechanics are left to "staff" to work out.
Jan 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at blocking courts or creditors from impounding revenue tied to the sale of Venezuelan oil held in U.S. Treasury accounts, the White House said on Saturday.https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/trump-sign...Steve
