this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
485 points (99.6% liked)

World News

51868 readers
2238 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump has asked for at least $100bn (£75bn) in oil industry spending for Venezuela, but received a lukewarm response at the White House as one executive warned the South American country was currently "uninvestable".

Bosses of the biggest US oil firms who attended the meeting acknowledged that Venezuela, sitting on vast energy reserves, represented an enticing opportunity.

But they said significant changes would be needed to make the region an attractive investment. No major financial commitments were immediately forthcoming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s largely the same as Canadian and Mexican oil, so the infrastructure is very much in place.

It gives Trump an opening to pressure/annex Canada and Mexico, if Venezuela can make up the difference (which they can’t, yet).

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's true that the infrastructure is already in place but it is important to understand that it is not simple infrastructure, and with a few exceptions, it is already pretty much fully utilized by Canadian and Mexican heavy crude/bitumen so it's not like they can just double their capacity and start processing Venezuela too. You're right about giving an opening to pressure Canada/Mexico though.

But it's questionable if there's really much upside for the US on the financial side. The opportunity to pressure is definitely there, but more pressure isn't going to get blood out of a stone. Venezuelan oil will still have costs associated with it, and Canadian and Mexican oil is already really cheap.

The oil itself may be essentially free the way they're stealing it with military force, but It's not going to be cheap to build up Venezuela's production infrastructure and it's not going to be cheap to transport the oil stateside, and both Mexico and Canada already have all that infrastructure in place too, and already give a huge discount to the US since they have nowhere else to affordably sell or refine their oil as they have effectively no indigenous refining capacity for heavy crude and few other export options. During a few of the oil price plummets around Covid, Canadian oil (Western Canadian Select) was actually selling for negative prices, Canada was paying the US to take it off their hands and refine it for them. With global oil prices already trending relatively low, it's going to be hard for oil from Venezuela to realistically compete with situations like that.

The most believable explanation that I've heard is that this is not really about directly stealing Venezuela's oil reserves as much as it is about denying it to Russia and China, and maybe securing them in case of some future conflict. And that, I think, makes an awful lot of sense geopolitically as distasteful as I personally find the whole affair.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

So: very specialized, expensive equipment in a small number of locations. What could go wrong?