Post New

Trump had his meeting with all the big oil companies yesterday, and it went kind of how you would expect. The oil majors had tons of questions about how this could possibly make sense for them, and by most accounts it looks like there aren't really any great answers yet.

With oil prices <$60 per barrel, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense for those guys to spend billions in Venezuela even if the country was in better shape. And it's not in better shape - it's still being run by the same guys who stole all the oil majors' money last time, with a dollop of extra political risk thrown in because the head of state just got forcibly removed. Which makes the big energy companies hesitant.

As noted in our other discussions, Trump could try to line up a lot of financial sweeteners to try to subsidize the oil majors into going in. But that requires Congress, and that's going to be a rough lift for him. Especially since there's going to be some opposition from domestic oil producers who are already smarting from low prices, and aren't going to be excited to see federal resources going to support a foreign source of oil that's going to compete with them. So his strongest allies in Congress, who come from energy producing states, are going to be a little whipsawed from their constituents.

It's still very early days, but it's easy to imagine that the Administration's focus on massive investments in Venezuela will end up very much like their focus on massive investments in Gaza. Something that they fondly imagine, but don't really have the political resources (domestically or globally) to make it happen. Or to solve the governance/security situation so that private market players will make it happen. And since there's so many other bright shiny objects on the horizon to capture the Administration's focus and resources going forward (Greenland! Cuba! Colombia! Iran!)...well, we'll see how this goes.

With oil prices <$60 per barrel, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense for those guys to spend billions in Venezuela even if the country was in better shape.

The heavy oil in Venezuela would not even be profitable until the price reaches $80 per barrel.

How is that +$20 per barrel going to be bridged?

Especially since Trump is promising lower gas prices?

Somebody is lying. I wonder who?

Somebody is lying. I wonder who?

We won't know for years.

My wild-ass guess would be Rubio and Miller. I think Trump very much believes that this will work, and I think part of why he believes that is Rubio and Miller oversold him on the prospect of the current regime being willing to turn around and comply. Because it was in their policy interests to do so.

Knocking out Maduro and parking the better part of the Navy off the coast puts them in a position to advance their portfolios. Rubio gets to neutralize Venezuela for a while and destabilize Cuba in a way they may not be able to recover from, simply by being in a position to prevent oil shipments for a few months.

And Miller has to solve Venezuela to meet his deportation goals. A huge chunk of the unauthorized immigrant population has some sort of protective status that bars them from being deported (about 40%), and the biggest chunk of that are the Temporary Protected Status grants that were given in past administrations, and the biggest population of TPS folks (like half) are from Venezuela. Going after people who were previously protected, but have had their protective status cancelled, is the low-hanging fruit of deportation. These are folks who are visible - they've registered with the government and they're out in the open, having obtained jobs and joined community groups and enrolled their kids in schools and whatnot. So they're the ones that are real easy to round up, because they haven't been hiding. But to do that, you need Venezuela to take them back and have a change in the circumstances that you can point to in court as being a justification for the revocation of the Temporary Protective Status.

albaby1: Trump had his meeting with all the big oil companies yesterday, and it went kind of how you would expect. The oil majors had tons of questions about how this could possibly make sense for them, and by most accounts it looks like there aren't really any great answers yet.

What!? No details on what they'll get for their $100 billion investment?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya'.

I did like it when Rubio slipped Dementia Don a private note and he read it out loud. What a doofus.

On the bright side, at least he didn't fall asleep.

Trump’s gaffe was part of a larger trend of cognitive decline, as the aged president has spent the last year in office appearing to fall asleep during meetings and giving incoherent, confused rants.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-79-accid...

albaby1: Rubio gets to neutralize Venezuela for a while and destabilize Cuba in a way they may not be able to recover from...

You 'spose any of those geniuses have given any thought to the 11 million Cubans 90 miles from Florida who, in desperation, very likely will try to travel to the United States?

With oil prices <$60 per barrel, it doesn't make a lot of economic sense for those guys to spend billions in Venezuela even if the country was in better shape. And it's not in better shape - it's still being run by the same guys who stole all the oil majors' money last time, with a dollop of extra political risk thrown in because the head of state just got forcibly removed. Which makes the big energy companies hesitant.

Minutes ago, I read a piece on my Yahoo news feed, that, besides Trump showing off his new lapel pin, had a lot of information about the "arty oil deal". Of course, I can't find it again.

So, here's plan Steve:

1: Bomb Kharg Island, to take Iranian exports off the market, sending gas prices in the US soaring (remember 1979?)

2: house trained media goes into full hype and hysteria mode about "oil shortage". (remember June 2008?)

3: the goobers than can't think past their next tank of gas screeeeeeeeem.

4: Under pressure, Congress gives Trump authority to do "whatever it takes" to secure the oil in Venezuela. (there were things in that article about Trump promising, without details, that he will assure big oil will make big profits, with no risk, in Venezuela.)

5: big oil says "that $1B donation in the summer of 24 is the best money we ever spent"

Steve

Trump promising, without details, that he will assure big oil will make big profits, with no risk, in Venezuela.)

Ah, found an article with the Trumpian phrase:

In the meeting on Friday, Trump promised oil giants 'total safety, total security' as he tried to drum up investment in Venezuela's oil infrastructure to the tune of $100billion.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15451463/...

I'm sure Trump can steamroll Congress as easily as Bush 43 did. That "war on terror" cost us taxpayers something like $8T, but the propaganda value to the regime, and the profits to cronies, were sizeable.

Steve

So, here's plan Steve:

Sure, but that's not plan Trump. Trump doesn't want high oil prices. He wants oil prices to be lower. He doesn't care that his oil company donors want oil prices to be higher.

That's why his policy is internally inconsistent. But since high oil prices are far worse for him than disappointing his oil company donors, he's going to go with low oil prices. So his donors won't get all of what they wanted from their donation. Shocker that going into business with Trump doesn't always work out for the people who go into business with him.

Trump wants China out of the western hemisphere. He'd rather US oil companies be the ones rebuilding Venezuela than Chinese ones.

Trump wants China out of the western hemisphere. He'd rather US oil companies be the ones rebuilding Venezuela than Chinese ones.

Putin wants the US out of Europe, and Xi wants us out of the western Pacific. He’d rather Chinese chip makers control high end chip fabrication.

Putin wants the US out of Europe, and Xi wants us out of the western Pacific. He’d rather Chinese chip makers control high end chip fabrication.


Great.

Putin wants the US out of Europe, and Xi wants us out of the western Pacific. He’d rather Chinese chip makers control high end chip fabrication.


Great.

Then we’re back to “spheres of influence”.

It didn’t work when that was the presupposition that guided statecraft. And in our interconnected world, that is an even greater recipe for disaster.

For one thing, in another contemporaneous thread, you seem to be arguing (as Trump seems to be arguing) for intervention in Iran-in Russia’s backyard.

And this highlights the utter bankruptcy of “spheres of influence” statecraft. We’re all for keeping Russia out of the western hemisphere, but feel no hesitation about intervention on their doorstep.

Trump doesn't want high oil prices. He wants oil prices to be lower.

Why? Us peons can't benefit him in any way at this point. He's done with the masses. I would expect him to do whatever benefits him the most, and that would likely be what the oil companies would bribe him to do.

Then we’re back to “spheres of influence”. And?

Do you think it's better to have a Chinese dominated narco terror state helping destabilize South America?

Do you think it's better to have a Chinese dominated narco terror state helping destabilize South America?

So now we’re the ones destabilizing South America.

Then we’re back to “spheres of influence”.

It's a shame about USAid. It bought us a lot of influence and goodwill. Now it's dead. Meanwhile, China has their Belt and Road initiative, which is buying them influence and goodwill.

The sphere is the entire planet. We are so interconnected, communication is instantaneous, and troops can move very quickly, that it isn't just regional anymore. If we help some African nation, we also make Chinese investment in that same nation less attractive to them. We gain influence, China doesn't. It's no longer enough to think Monroe Doctrine ("Americas for the Americans"). Too myopic. We need to be thinking about Africa, and the Philippines, and Japan, and India, etc, etc.

As I recall, we blew it and the Chinese now have a foothold in Africa (Djibouti). Which gains them influence in the Indian Ocean, and the Horn, and the Red Sea. Ooops.

We would do better trying to win the Venezuelans over so they will accept our help, instead of bullying them and they turn to China. We need to keep China out of the Caribbean / Gulf of Mexico (NOT Gulf of America). If Venezuela allows a Chinese base that close to our territorial waters, that would be bad. And we're giving them no reason not to.

Especially since there's going to be some opposition from domestic oil producers who are already smarting from low prices, and aren't going to be excited to see federal resources going to support a foreign source of oil that's going to compete with them.

Yep. US Shale drillers are not pleased at the prospects.

"Shale chiefs warn Trump that Venezuelan oil will hobble US drillers...
President’s effort to drive down crude prices will hit sector struggling to sustain output growth.

“We’re talking about this administration screwing us over again,” said a top executive at one of the country’s leading shale groups, describing the plans as “against American producers”.

“If the US government starts providing guarantees to oil companies to produce or grow oil production in Venezuela I’m going to be . . . pissed.”


https://www.ft.com/content/f498bdcb-c5df-4b10-a390...

So now we’re the ones destabilizing South America.

Yeah, that explains the near-universal support among Venezuelans for ousting Maduro.

The left wing position on this and pretty much everything else is kinda...indefensible. The raging TDS prevents any of them from rationally analyzing things from a global geopolitical perspective: because it's Trump it Must Be The Most Evil Thing In The World.

Look at what that attitude puts you on the side of: narcro terrorists influenced by China, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

Yuck.

Yeah, that explains the near-universal support among Venezuelans for ousting Maduro.

That's a gross exaggeration, based on what I've been able to discern. There seemed to be roughly equal crowds lamenting the kidnapping (and decrying America) and those celebrating his capture. It would appear Venezuela is very divided (sorta like the US). Evidently, Maduro has pretty strong support in his nation. Just like Marcos did, or Putin, or Castro, or numerous other authoritarians. I should probably include the Felon here, too. He has lots of support even as he tramples on the law and civil rights.

Which isn't really a surprise. Rarely does a nation agree that a leader has to go. Some fraction of it does, and usually ends up dead. A leader that has no support isn't a leader for very long.

That's a gross exaggeration, based on what I've been able to discern.

Well I disagree based on...pretty much every clip that's out there. You're free to your own opinion.

Why? Us peons can't benefit him in any way at this point. He's done with the masses. I would expect him to do whatever benefits him the most, and that would likely be what the oil companies would bribe him to do.

Because he doesn't want the Republicans to lose the House. Partially because he doesn't want to lose that second half reconciliation package, which will be his only chance to get some of his economic policy through Congress. And also because the House has oversight authority. And even though he's done with the masses, the rest of the GOP is not - and if the House starts digging into all this stuff, it will get very difficult for him to keep them completely at arm's length. Especially as he enters the lame duck segment of his Administration.

But also because he's vain, and he wants to be able to brag that he's better than any other President. So he doesn't want gas prices to be notably high.

It's not an opinion, it's an observation. I have no opinion about the level of support for Maduro. I've read numerous articles (well, five or six) that indicate there is a lot of "loyalist" (i.e. pro-Maduro) support and demonstrations. Some of them may just be anti-American, rather than pro-Maduro. There are also lots of demonstrations in support of his kidnapping. I don't have solid numbers for either group.

A quick check does indicate he is not very popular as politicians go, with most of his support coming from the military and the former Chavez supporters. Given that, I'd say we were both wrong. It's not really equivalent, but it's not overwhelming, either. Thirty percent (in a fair election) was enough to put the National Socialists in power in Germany. If a fair election was held, he would probably have lost to the other guy. The best numbers I could find was that he lost the last election ~60% to ~30%. A "landslide", but not "overwhelming".

Though we are talking semantics. To me, your statement was an exaggeration, but I admit I was wrong about "comparable". His support is less than 2:1.

Trump wants China out of the western hemisphere. He'd rather US oil companies be the ones rebuilding Venezuela than Chinese ones.

Then perhaps he shouldn't have gutted the foreign aid apparatus.

China's able to use Belt and Road to gain influence around the globe because it is implemented by the government. It's an exercise of soft power using the economic resources of their government, so the government chooses how to allocate the funds.

But if you're trying to do the same thing with private companies, it won't work. To recycle a quote from another discussion of this topic, “[i]nvestors don’t care about energy dominance. They care about energy dividends,” said Clay Seigle, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

That's why China's been able to use the BRI to develop allies and establish 'client' states around the world - they're willing to provide economic resources for reasons other than making a profit. They're using their economic resources to advance geopolitical strategic goals. But private U.S. oil companies aren't going to make those decisions that way.

As a much broader observation, there is a difference between the goals of the Administration and the likely outcomes of the things they're actually doing. Trump might want U.S. oil companies to rebuild Venezuela. But this conversation is mostly about whether that's actually going to be the result of what we're doing. If you allow the existing regime to remain in place, try to keep oil prices low globally, and don't commit large amounts of U.S. public funds to "nation building" in Venezuela, you're unlikely to get what the Administration wants.

overcomplex explanations have failed miserably.
unless it impedes the trump groups' grift train in 3 years, no dice.

and that means MAGA past voters are for trump, at best, a barely relevant clingy pep squad that once claimed to care about affordability and pedophilia.
only MAGA entertainment remains, so they are still slightly higher concern than any other voter, but lower than musk or wealthy co-grifters.

Then perhaps he shouldn't have gutted the foreign aid apparatus.

So USAID drilled oil wells and maintained pump jacks? I learn something new every day.

But if you're trying to do the same thing with private companies, it won't work. To recycle a quote from another discussion of this topic, “[i]nvestors don’t care about energy dominance. They care about energy dividends,” said Clay Seigle, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Unless Trump gives them some other incentive, yes.

As a much broader observation, there is a difference between the goals of the Administration and the likely outcomes of the things they're actually doing. Trump might want U.S. oil companies to rebuild Venezuela. But this conversation is mostly about whether that's actually going to be the result of what we're doing. If you allow the existing regime to remain in place, try to keep oil prices low globally, and don't commit large amounts of U.S. public funds to "nation building" in Venezuela, you're unlikely to get what the Administration wants.

You know what also results in putting the US in a bad position? Doing nothing while China exercises inordinate influence with their loan shark operation.

We're playing catchup after doing very little to counter China for the last, oh, 20 years. We can continue to do nothing or we can put them back on their heels. Hence Venezuela.

I'll also note that Rome wasn't built in a day.

Trump believes he is right on the issues and the Left is....insane, and anti-American.

On the eve of the bisequecentennial, he wants to continue to lead American to the next great 250 years!

Trump believes he is right on the issues and the Left is....insane, and anti-American.


What the media doesn't understand (to be fair, few do) is that the focus is China.
We're in a race to re-arm and move them into a position where they believe that war with us isn't something they should even entertain.

Making it so that they don't have access to certain resources, making it so that they don't have the ability to distract us with things that drain resources and cost American lives, and letting them know that anything they try carries a heavy, heavy price...these are the goals.

Hence Venezuela. This isn't that hard.

But if you're trying to do the same thing with private companies, it won't work. To recycle a quote from another discussion of this topic, “[i]nvestors don’t care about energy dominance. They care about energy dividends,” said Clay Seigle, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

A bit longer quote of the assurances the American Colossus astride all the Americas, Trump, gave at the oil company meeting:

"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-...

"Massive wealth" for big oil, with the bill paid by Proles, and Venezuela cut out of the "arty deals".

Steve...long big oil, because join the corruption, or be crushed

What the media doesn't understand (to be fair, few do) is that the focus is China.
We're in a race to re-arm and move them into a position where they believe that war with us isn't something they should even entertain.

China is a serious threat, but not an existential threat, as long as we prepare - you are actually more of an existential threat right now. We have to waste time dealing with you tearing down the government, an extreme focus on immigrants and what appears to be a force that may be turning brutish, but the continuous onslaught combined with the grift, directly ordering investigations, returning gunboat diplomacy and spheres of influence, obsessions with Greenland, oil and trying to justify it all by creating an existential threat when these are the normal hard tussles of a superpower and we aren't throwing our democracy out the window for that.

China is a serious threat, but not an existential threat, as long as we prepare - you are actually more of an existential threat right now.

This post is existentially dumb. Congratulations.

The whole thread is dumb.

Trump has a meeting with oil execs who appear luke warm to his notion of them investing in Venezuela.

We get a long, LONG series of diatribes and punditry from someone who evidently fancies themselves an expert on everything and who can apparently see into the future or something. Also, he's a mind-reader and knows what Trump and everyone else at the meeting was thinking.

Thinking outside of the box, as Trump often does, is forbidden.

Not just forbidden, the lefties don't even understand it.

Said board Nostradamus also believes that high powered presumably Machiavellian business people freely reveal their plans, goals, strategies, and tactics to the media, to their competitors, to the government, and to the general public.

A classic negotiating technique or let's say a business technique is to feign disinterest in a possible business idea,opportunity, resource, or acquisition target. No one wants to find themselves in a hotly contested auction environment.

Crying poor is also a way of trying to cadge tax breaks or other incentives from the government.

But aside from the ridiculously literal interpretation given by leftie "experts" to whatever they read in that morning's NY Times or WaPost, apparently they've never heard the notion of "floating a trial balloon" or "shifting the Overton window" or "running an idea up the flag and see who salutes."

That's bad. New, creative ideas are bad.

Yeah, that's the ticket. That's how Edison successfully developed the light bulb. He got it right on the very first try because he only tried the perfect idea that magically came to him without any effort.

Trial and error is for losers.

That's why Trump has no money and no success in any sphere of activity and the "internet experts" know everything.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.