But I will add this. The United Nations passed their General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII) way back in 1962 on the subject of "Permanent sovereignty over natural resources".
1. The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned...8. Foreign investment agreements freely entered into by or between sovereign States shall be observed in good faith; States and international organizations shall strictly and conscientiously respect the sovereignty of peoples and nations over their natural wealth and resources in accordance with the Charter and the principles set forth in the present resolution.
I am not sure why there is so much emphasis that the US is going in to Venezuela for the oil? Google AI says that the US is the largest oil producer in the world. Why does the US need Venezuelan oil?
ReplyDeleteI look forward to the day when people with money decide that, actually, they have enough money.
DeleteThe United Nations should send their military.
ReplyDeleteAmerican and Venezuelan oil are different. To quote a Guardian article:
ReplyDelete"Venezuelan oil is particularly dense and sticky. The high-sulphur crude more closely resembles a semi-solid tar than the far clearer liquids produced in US shale heartlands, making it more difficult to extract and process into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and feedstock for the chemicals industry. But it is exactly what many refineries in the US were built to treat.
As a result, the US remains a major importer of crude to feed its refineries, despite being one of the biggest oil exporters in the world. Access to Venezuelan crude at an attractive price could play an important role in sating Trump’s appetite for cheap energy to fuel the “reindustrialisation” of the US economy."
Here is a link to the article:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/05/venezuelan-crude-oil-appeals-to-us-refineries
Venezuelan and US oil are different. Quoting a Guardian article:
ReplyDelete"Venezuelan oil is particularly dense and sticky. The high-sulphur crude more closely resembles a semi-solid tar than the far clearer liquids produced in US shale heartlands, making it more difficult to extract and process into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and feedstock for the chemicals industry. But it is exactly what many refineries in the US were built to treat.
As a result, the US remains a major importer of crude to feed its refineries, despite being one of the biggest oil exporters in the world. Access to Venezuelan crude at an attractive price could play an important role in sating Trump’s appetite for cheap energy to fuel the “reindustrialisation” of the US economy."
Link to the article: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/05/venezuelan-crude-oil-appeals-to-us-refineries
Thank you, anonymous person. Good to know.
DeleteHess and Venezuelan state oil company Hovensa used to have a special refinery in St. Croix designed for processing the Maracaibo heavy sour. This refinery eventually shuttered as the capital investments required to keep it operating were too high. This is exemplar of what will be found for production infrastructure in Venezuela itself. Anyone who is counting on an immediate increase in the supply of crude is going to be disappointed. It will take a decades and hundreds of billions of dollars to get the country's production modernized and repaired.
DeleteMy personal suspicion is that the energy production side of this "war" is more about cutting off some portion China's supply of oil, than it is increasing our supply. An article in the Guardian (IIRC) this morning says most of this supply China is turning into asphalt for roads because it's too heavy to make gasoline with.
While I'm good with us creating angst in China, methinks thou mayest not know how we dealt with "sovereignty" among the American Indians.
ReplyDeleteVery simply, if you agreed with us, then you were indeed the chief. If you didn't we found someone who did, then called them the chief.
Likewise we can do that in Venezuela. "Why, sure it's your oil. But if you don't want to give us some incredible break, you might find yourself deposed and someone else in charge. Hey, J.D., isn't Rubio like a quarter Venezuelan?"
Rubio, like a lot of wealthy ex-pat Venezuelans, is far more comfortable with a familiar right wing dictatorship than they are with democracy.
DeleteVenezuela oil exports collapsed after they nationalised the Exxon/Chevron etc. assets in the country, due to lack of investment. Trump may want those American companies to go back in and retake their former properties (and the history of US oil companies dealing with South America are sketchy enough to make you wonder just how much right they had to them in the first place), but I was watching an interview on the BBC with an American oil industry watcher and he was dubious that anyone is about to jump into spending billions revitalising those oil fields without cast iron confidence that there is going to be on-going stability. And abducting a leader, however illegitimate, while leaving the rest of the crooked government in place is not going to give anyone that confidence.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the US is going to run Venezuela is a nonsense, and about as dead on arrival as the idea that America is going to get their hands on a bunch of "free" oil when it'll be a money sink for decades.
It's all just another distraction from Epstein.
responding to Kyle: At some point a hobby collecting things changes to a driven "I have to get them all!" thing; that is what happens with rich folks and more money?
ReplyDelete