4 ms·

US oil giant ExxonMobil says Venezuela is 'uninvestable'

60 points by petethomas 10mo ago

jerlam 10mo ago
https://archive.ph/PBre7 https://archive.ph/PBre7
- nalinidash 10mo ago
  This is showing error in cert.
- aebtebeten 10mo ago
  > When pressed by Trump, Woods said Exxon would send a technical team to Venezuela within weeks to assess conditions. He also said he was “confident” that the changes needed for investment “can be put in place”.
TheAlchemist 10mo ago
Regardless of weather it's true or not, they have a huge interest in saying so. What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. It was discussed 100 times here already, but the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. I personally see the US now, as the same that say China or Russia and have no intention of going there again, unless absolutely necessary. If you told me that some years ago, I would think you're crazy.
- ekianjo 10mo ago
  > the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. People don't live under a rock. The US is an empire and has acted like it for at least 80 years if not more. The fantasy that the US is part of the good guys depends on how much you believe the propaganda.
  - TheAlchemist 10mo ago
    I grew up in Eastern Europe. For 90% of people there at the time, US = paradise. Maybe it was propaganda, I don't know. Later in life I got travel a lot and meet a lot of Americans and for most, their moral and ethics are at the exact opposite of what the US is showing now.
    - viraptor 10mo ago
      It doesn't have to be a paradise in absolute terms to be a significantly better place. EE to the US was definitely an improvement for a very long time. Even if many other places already didn't see the US as good guys.
    - blell 10mo ago
      Most Eastern European people I know have long associated the US with calamities such as the bombing of civilians in Belgrade.
      - keiferski 10mo ago
        In the former Yugoslavia maybe. But in the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries, that isn’t even remotely true. The US was critical in supporting anti-USSR resistance, either directly with money or symbolically (“Tear down this wall”)
      - tliltocatl 10mo ago
        The image of the good guy USA had (at least in eastern Europe) has less to do with how they treated other countries and more with how they treated their own citizens.
        hmm37 10mo ago
        Exactly it has more to do with which end of the stick you're on.
        tliltocatl 10mo ago
- resumenext 10mo ago
  Consider how that will restrain the diplomatic and geopolitical options available to future US presidents, particularly those of the other party and it starts to seem quite strategic if not a major win for isolationism and Trump’s Monroe 2.0 agenda.
- personomas 10mo ago
  [dead]
- rurban 10mo ago
  Of course their interest is to completely destroy all socialistic tendencies there, that's why Trump assured them to run the country from now on. They already invested in robbing their oil twice there, and where thrown out twice. Incredible stories, Chevron even had to change it's name then to get rid of the foul mouth press.
  - general1465 10mo ago
    If Trump won't offer something better than military in Venezuela, then those socialist tendencies in Venezuela are not going to disappear.
- keiferski 10mo ago
  Large states (including the US) have been intervening in nearby countries since the beginning of time. Even for Latin America, this is a "typical" intervention for the US: Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala, on and on, all happened in the 20th century. What's different this time is the total lack of effort (or ability to?) to construct a narrative justifying it.
  - hshdhdhj4444 10mo ago
    20th century means that we’re talking at least 2.5 decades ago. That’s a long time. And for the most part, US foreign policy regarded much of those actions as folly even if they will never say that publicly. You’re absolutely right with your assessment but beyond that this is also a rolling back of the clock to thinking from decades ago.
    - nasmorn 10mo ago
      When the Soviets were literally standing 60km from Vienna with tank brigades a lot of bullshit was easier to swallow. Right now it seems like totally unnecessary destabilization. Don’t even get me started on proposing to seizing NATO territory by force in Greenland.
    - graemep 10mo ago
      Yes, but that was because there was a golden age when the west dominated the world without facing serious rivals. There was less need for interventions and the west was deluded (by wishful thinking) into regarding this as a permanent shift. Even in the last 25 years the US has fought in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, ISIL held territory, Syria, blockaded Yemen and probably more. The world today is going back to a cold war like rivalry between the US and China so we can expect both sides to use much the same tactics.
      - Heapifying 10mo ago
        So Latin America has to expect an Operation Condor 2.0, that implemented state terrorism across all of Latin America?
- newfriend 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - AlexeyBelov 10mo ago
    You're not being honest on purpose and using pathetic rhetorical devices to make your opponents look bad and yourself good. This isn't going to work. Looking at your other comments it's clear this is a pattern of behavior.
    - newfriend 10mo ago
      [flagged]
      - throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
        What if that "anti american sentiment" is just a more sceptical mindset and there is actually alot to critize about trump/usa. Want to play a game? I give you quotes/actions from trump and you have to reason why he still is eligible for office. Gosh, i'd wish this was a game show. The longer you make it, the more price money is to win. 'Grab'em by the facts!' and the top price is your very own 747 plane.
        newfriend 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
        You are making a quantitative argument with "X too many", not a qualitative one like "too severe crime". This reveals a certain thing about you. I guess you would make it far in that game show.
        skeledrew 10mo ago
        If only the natives had "deported" the aliens that came to their lands those few centuries ago, this argument wouldn't be a thing today.
- gizmo686 10mo ago
  > What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. Setting aside what this does to the image of the US, this also just isn't grounded in reality. The US conducted a singular operation with a narrowly defined goal of extracting their president and his wife. They then declared that they were putting the Venuzuellan vice president in charge. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but that looks a lot more like them getting behind a winner instead of dictating it. Sure, the military operation was a tactical success; and will probably make Venuzuella more subservient in the near term. But I see no evidence we have done anything close to annexing them.
  - skeledrew 10mo ago
    The US is literally dictating that certain things must happen as they prefer in Venezuela, or else. Venezuela has no agency as a sovereign nation as long as this is the case, ie. they've been annexed.
    - Freedom2 10mo ago
      Annexation usually refers to the US officially claiming legal and territorial sovereignty over another country. I think the terms client state or satellite state more accurately reflect the situation. Hope that helps!
      - skeledrew 10mo ago
        Not "client" as that sounds as though Venezuela asked the US to help them with something. I guess "satellite" works, and even so I'd still say they were annexed into that status.
        amy_petrik 10mo ago
        No, it's simple. If you get a passport in "annexed" Venezuela, it would be a US passport. It would be a US territory similar to Puerto Rico which is part of the US. Passport is just an example but a good barometer. This implies in the federation of international states, Venezuala is an "independent" party, put recognized. Puerto Rico then by comparison has no such independence, this is all handled by the Federal government. It's also fair to say that this is nothing new. US has a long history of messing about with the affairs of central and south american states. Which - fairly - has lead to the US paying the price by said states collapsing and then having the US absorbing tens of millions of individuals claiming asylum
- nextaccountic 10mo ago
  The US is acting like Russia for sure, but China's modus operandi isn't really like that. China is much more interested in a rules-based world order than either country and will gladly fill the soft power vacuum the US is leaving
- justajew 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - wolvoleo 10mo ago
    "Fighting for their existence" and "mercenaries" lol. The Ukrainian people wanted to align more with the EU. They have a sovereign country which isn't part of Russia. They had no plans to invade Russia and even if they had joined NATO they wouldn't have had because NATO is purely a defense platform and so diverse they can't even agree how to fold their napkins. It is not a credible threat to Russia unless Russia attacks them. In Putin's own speech before the war he described the Ukrainian people as subservient to Russia, a people who have no legitimacy of their own. Just good enough to be a "crumple zone" for mother Russia. Are you really surprised they chose to align with the EU instead? And how is Russia fighting for it's existence in taking over a country that wasn't part of it?
    - justajew 10mo ago
      [flagged]
- skeledrew 10mo ago
  > Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. He did and can though. Venezuela is now a US colony, with its resources available to whomever is ready to invest. Heck, that's exactly what the article is saying.
SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
It's 2026 not 1956. Heavy crude oil is not a worthwhile investment for the future. This whole thing hasn't been thought through, it's based on retro vibes.
- Bender 10mo ago
  Existing US refineries are designed for heavy. Retooling everything for other types of oil is incredibly expensive and will not likely occur.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
    > Existing US refineries are designed for heavy I'm aware of that. Nevertheless, this is not a growth industry, and expecting riches from it in 10 years time or more is thinking mired in past. It's not serious. More serious commentary on that: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-problem-with-donald-trump-oil-obsession-venezuela/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-problem-with-donald-trum... https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/08/climate/china-venezuela-oil-demand-electric-vehicles https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/08/climate/china-venezuela-o... https://electrek.co/2026/01/03/electric-vehicles-will-end-oil-wars-if-we-let-them/ https://electrek.co/2026/01/03/electric-vehicles-will-end-oi...
    - djdkdkfkfk 10mo ago
      >serious commentary >electrek >politico >cnn
      - SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
        I think that you misread. "more serious" than my comment. And much more so than your comment.
    - laughing_man 10mo ago
      That seems like wishful thinking.
pseudohadamard 10mo ago
>“Our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100bn of their money — not the government’s money,” he said. He still hasn't got over that Mexico-will-pay-for-our-wall thing has he?

60 points by petethomas 10mo ago

jerlam 10mo ago

https://archive.ph/PBre7 https://archive.ph/PBre7

nalinidash 10mo ago
This is showing error in cert.
aebtebeten 10mo ago
> When pressed by Trump, Woods said Exxon would send a technical team to Venezuela within weeks to assess conditions. He also said he was “confident” that the changes needed for investment “can be put in place”.

TheAlchemist 10mo ago

Regardless of weather it's true or not, they have a huge interest in saying so. What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. It was discussed 100 times here already, but the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. I personally see the US now, as the same that say China or Russia and have no intention of going there again, unless absolutely necessary. If you told me that some years ago, I would think you're crazy.

ekianjo 10mo ago
> the damage to the myth of US as the 'good guy' that is immense. People don't live under a rock. The US is an empire and has acted like it for at least 80 years if not more. The fantasy that the US is part of the good guys depends on how much you believe the propaganda.
- TheAlchemist 10mo ago
  I grew up in Eastern Europe. For 90% of people there at the time, US = paradise. Maybe it was propaganda, I don't know. Later in life I got travel a lot and meet a lot of Americans and for most, their moral and ethics are at the exact opposite of what the US is showing now.
  - viraptor 10mo ago
    It doesn't have to be a paradise in absolute terms to be a significantly better place. EE to the US was definitely an improvement for a very long time. Even if many other places already didn't see the US as good guys.
  - blell 10mo ago
    Most Eastern European people I know have long associated the US with calamities such as the bombing of civilians in Belgrade.
    - keiferski 10mo ago
      In the former Yugoslavia maybe. But in the former USSR and Warsaw Pact countries, that isn’t even remotely true. The US was critical in supporting anti-USSR resistance, either directly with money or symbolically (“Tear down this wall”)
    - tliltocatl 10mo ago
      The image of the good guy USA had (at least in eastern Europe) has less to do with how they treated other countries and more with how they treated their own citizens.
      - hmm37 10mo ago
        Exactly it has more to do with which end of the stick you're on.
        tliltocatl 10mo ago
resumenext 10mo ago
Consider how that will restrain the diplomatic and geopolitical options available to future US presidents, particularly those of the other party and it starts to seem quite strategic if not a major win for isolationism and Trump’s Monroe 2.0 agenda.
personomas 10mo ago
[dead]
rurban 10mo ago
Of course their interest is to completely destroy all socialistic tendencies there, that's why Trump assured them to run the country from now on. They already invested in robbing their oil twice there, and where thrown out twice. Incredible stories, Chevron even had to change it's name then to get rid of the foul mouth press.
- general1465 10mo ago
  If Trump won't offer something better than military in Venezuela, then those socialist tendencies in Venezuela are not going to disappear.
keiferski 10mo ago
Large states (including the US) have been intervening in nearby countries since the beginning of time. Even for Latin America, this is a "typical" intervention for the US: Cuba, Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala, on and on, all happened in the 20th century. What's different this time is the total lack of effort (or ability to?) to construct a narrative justifying it.
- hshdhdhj4444 10mo ago
  20th century means that we’re talking at least 2.5 decades ago. That’s a long time. And for the most part, US foreign policy regarded much of those actions as folly even if they will never say that publicly. You’re absolutely right with your assessment but beyond that this is also a rolling back of the clock to thinking from decades ago.
  - nasmorn 10mo ago
    When the Soviets were literally standing 60km from Vienna with tank brigades a lot of bullshit was easier to swallow. Right now it seems like totally unnecessary destabilization. Don’t even get me started on proposing to seizing NATO territory by force in Greenland.
  - graemep 10mo ago
    Yes, but that was because there was a golden age when the west dominated the world without facing serious rivals. There was less need for interventions and the west was deluded (by wishful thinking) into regarding this as a permanent shift. Even in the last 25 years the US has fought in Afghanistan, bombed Libya, ISIL held territory, Syria, blockaded Yemen and probably more. The world today is going back to a cold war like rivalry between the US and China so we can expect both sides to use much the same tactics.
    - Heapifying 10mo ago
      So Latin America has to expect an Operation Condor 2.0, that implemented state terrorism across all of Latin America?
newfriend 10mo ago
[flagged]
- AlexeyBelov 10mo ago
  You're not being honest on purpose and using pathetic rhetorical devices to make your opponents look bad and yourself good. This isn't going to work. Looking at your other comments it's clear this is a pattern of behavior.
  - newfriend 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
      What if that "anti american sentiment" is just a more sceptical mindset and there is actually alot to critize about trump/usa. Want to play a game? I give you quotes/actions from trump and you have to reason why he still is eligible for office. Gosh, i'd wish this was a game show. The longer you make it, the more price money is to win. 'Grab'em by the facts!' and the top price is your very own 747 plane.
      - newfriend 10mo ago
        [flagged]
        throwawayqqq11 10mo ago
        You are making a quantitative argument with "X too many", not a qualitative one like "too severe crime". This reveals a certain thing about you. I guess you would make it far in that game show.
        skeledrew 10mo ago
        If only the natives had "deported" the aliens that came to their lands those few centuries ago, this argument wouldn't be a thing today.
gizmo686 10mo ago
> What's really crazy (even by today's US standards) is how Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. Setting aside what this does to the image of the US, this also just isn't grounded in reality. The US conducted a singular operation with a narrowly defined goal of extracting their president and his wife. They then declared that they were putting the Venuzuellan vice president in charge. I don't know what happened behind the scenes, but that looks a lot more like them getting behind a winner instead of dictating it. Sure, the military operation was a tactical success; and will probably make Venuzuella more subservient in the near term. But I see no evidence we have done anything close to annexing them.
- skeledrew 10mo ago
  The US is literally dictating that certain things must happen as they prefer in Venezuela, or else. Venezuela has no agency as a sovereign nation as long as this is the case, ie. they've been annexed.
  - Freedom2 10mo ago
    Annexation usually refers to the US officially claiming legal and territorial sovereignty over another country. I think the terms client state or satellite state more accurately reflect the situation. Hope that helps!
    - skeledrew 10mo ago
      Not "client" as that sounds as though Venezuela asked the US to help them with something. I guess "satellite" works, and even so I'd still say they were annexed into that status.
      - amy_petrik 10mo ago
        No, it's simple. If you get a passport in "annexed" Venezuela, it would be a US passport. It would be a US territory similar to Puerto Rico which is part of the US. Passport is just an example but a good barometer. This implies in the federation of international states, Venezuala is an "independent" party, put recognized. Puerto Rico then by comparison has no such independence, this is all handled by the Federal government. It's also fair to say that this is nothing new. US has a long history of messing about with the affairs of central and south american states. Which - fairly - has lead to the US paying the price by said states collapsing and then having the US absorbing tens of millions of individuals claiming asylum
nextaccountic 10mo ago
The US is acting like Russia for sure, but China's modus operandi isn't really like that. China is much more interested in a rules-based world order than either country and will gladly fill the soft power vacuum the US is leaving
justajew 10mo ago
[flagged]
- wolvoleo 10mo ago
  "Fighting for their existence" and "mercenaries" lol. The Ukrainian people wanted to align more with the EU. They have a sovereign country which isn't part of Russia. They had no plans to invade Russia and even if they had joined NATO they wouldn't have had because NATO is purely a defense platform and so diverse they can't even agree how to fold their napkins. It is not a credible threat to Russia unless Russia attacks them. In Putin's own speech before the war he described the Ukrainian people as subservient to Russia, a people who have no legitimacy of their own. Just good enough to be a "crumple zone" for mother Russia. Are you really surprised they chose to align with the EU instead? And how is Russia fighting for it's existence in taking over a country that wasn't part of it?
  - justajew 10mo ago
    [flagged]
skeledrew 10mo ago
> Trump and his clique speak as if he annexed Venezuela and he can do whatever he wants. He did and can though. Venezuela is now a US colony, with its resources available to whomever is ready to invest. Heck, that's exactly what the article is saying.

SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago

It's 2026 not 1956. Heavy crude oil is not a worthwhile investment for the future. This whole thing hasn't been thought through, it's based on retro vibes.

Bender 10mo ago
Existing US refineries are designed for heavy. Retooling everything for other types of oil is incredibly expensive and will not likely occur.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
  > Existing US refineries are designed for heavy I'm aware of that. Nevertheless, this is not a growth industry, and expecting riches from it in 10 years time or more is thinking mired in past. It's not serious. More serious commentary on that: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-problem-with-donald-trump-oil-obsession-venezuela/ https://www.politico.eu/article/the-problem-with-donald-trum... https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/08/climate/china-venezuela-oil-demand-electric-vehicles https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/08/climate/china-venezuela-o... https://electrek.co/2026/01/03/electric-vehicles-will-end-oil-wars-if-we-let-them/ https://electrek.co/2026/01/03/electric-vehicles-will-end-oi...
  - djdkdkfkfk 10mo ago
    >serious commentary >electrek >politico >cnn
    - SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
      I think that you misread. "more serious" than my comment. And much more so than your comment.
  - laughing_man 10mo ago
    That seems like wishful thinking.

pseudohadamard 10mo ago

>“Our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100bn of their money — not the government’s money,” he said. He still hasn't got over that Mexico-will-pay-for-our-wall thing has he?