this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2026
476 points (99.8% liked)

World News

54755 readers
2737 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 186 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Sure, invest $100bn into an unstable country chasing a dying technology at the behest of a corrupt regime. Even for oil companies, Venezuela is too hot to touch.

[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 82 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Not to mention there's a solid chance the next president will basically dedicate their career to undoing Trump's BS, so there's no guarantee you'll get more than a few years of revenue.

[–] drdalek@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 2 months ago (5 children)

If we have another election at all

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Judging from the anger over ICE and anti-american administration if Trump tries to stop the election there will be riots and strikes.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I lost count of the many "if x happens we'll act" excuses…

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 12 points 2 months ago

Yeah America is a laughing stock around my local pub table.

[–] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I have yet to see any evidence that Trump doing anything would cause riots and strikes. The American people are too pacified to defend themselves.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 12 points 2 months ago

Unfortunately that doesnt change what @drdalek@lemmy.dbzer0.com is concerned about, specifically when we take the executive order that marks nonexistent organizations and basic political beliefs as "terrorist organizations".

Which can be applied to both groups. So it comes down to the response to that - and we know how ICE is being used and how they are trying to use the NG.

My fear is that this is going to get extremely bloody. Elections won't matter at that point, even if they were held.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Even if Trump hangs around as a dictator there's still no point investing in Venezuela. It's not as if there is even a global oil shortage so why would you want to build more infrastructure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

the next president will basically dedicate their career to undoing Trump’s BS

And don't forget half the time Trump undoes his own purported industrial policy.

With the tariffs he was so inconsistent and capricious, that nobody could rely on having an edge over foreign competition long term and so nobody would dare to invest in manufacturing in the USA. If he felt like it he just cut them off from their essential foreign inputs too. Not to mention how he threatened pulling back the CHIPS Act subsidies from Intel, or how he raided Hyundai.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] innermachine@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

While I'm not saying our oil dependency is good, calling it a dying technology is a bit silly. Even electric cars have lots of oil in them, nevermind the phone this is being typed from or my carpets or any other number of daily items. I do wonder if some of the unrest around the world these days is partially out of a fear that theres only so much oil...

[–] GardenGeek@europe.pub 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

While this is true most oil is used as fuel not as material isn't it? Given that the world opts out of oil as fuel there would still be a massive oversupply for the remaining use. Prices would probably come down a lot making exploration of new fields unprofitable in the near future or am I missing something?

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Yes, only 10-15% of oil is used for non-fuel purposes. That is a dramatic reduction in demand.

Also, much of our technology has been built around oil due to byproduct availability. We could, in theory, create all the products we use without oil. It would definitely take time, research, and retooling though.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 71 points 2 months ago (6 children)

So basically, it looks like he committed an international crime for oil and then won't even get the oil. No one should be surprised, I guess. Incompetence is the only constant.

[–] SoloCritical@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This actually sounds more like they want American troops to turn Venezuela into not-Venezuela.. THEN they would feel safe investing.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Trump puts troops in Venezuela.

Oil execs: ya know, it's mighty difficult to ensure security using only boats, it'd be better if we were in control all the way from the US via land.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

The oil execs are saying it's "uninvestable" precisely because they know how incompetent Trump is.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 6 points 2 months ago

I'm starting to see how he managed to bankrupt the casino. It's because he won't stop committing pointless crimes that don't in fact benefit him in any way.

[–] bradinutah@thelemmy.club 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Who knew oil could be so complicated?!" - Orange Pirate

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] WanderingThoughts@europe.pub 5 points 2 months ago

I figured it would take a few months before the incompetence would be plain as day and ruin everything, not just one week.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 63 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What a fucking doofus Trump is. He couldn't consider the cost of his actions - and the likely fallout of the same - if his life depended on it.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 36 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A competent State Department would have insisted on this kind of discussion before sending in SEAL Team Six

[–] r8KNzcU8TzCroexsE2xbWC@lemmy.ca 43 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A competent state department wouldn’t send in SEAL Team Six into a sovereign country they are not at war with.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Counterpoint: All of 20th and 21st American history outside of WWI and WWII. The US never declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan.

[–] r8KNzcU8TzCroexsE2xbWC@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think that speaks to my point about competence

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ScrambledEggs@lazysoci.al 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 43 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He's so bad at business that he doesn't realise that companies won't want to oversaturate the market and lower their margins. This is a concept of 12-year-old should be able to understand.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 38 points 2 months ago

Trump: anyone want to buy some stereos? They fell of a truck.

Oil companies: ehh….

[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago (1 children)

When you account for inflation, oil prices today are in line with oil prices in the early 2000s. The price is too low, and the risk is too high for massive infrastructure spending that would extract more oil from Venezuela to be worth it.

Possibly, green energy technologies are now on a trajectory to overtake fossil fuels altogether - and they are already a factor in driving the price of fossil fuels (and therefore the profitability of many wells and mines) down substantially. If that happens, the long term value of Venezuela's oil reserves, without suitable infrastructure already built for extraction, could be close to zero.

In line with small government ideals, the best thing to do is let companies decide whether and how much to invest, but that won't be a headline worth showing off. So Trump is trying to make $100B happen, and believes that that (alone) will restore the Venezuelan economy to the way it was.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Atom@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Why would they? It's a win-win. They either get significant tax payer money invested on their behalf, or the oil stays off market keeping their prices high.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Prices aren't even that high, crude oil's price has been on a steady downward March since the high in 2022

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This is exactly it, it's a shakedown and Trump and the party of fiscal responsibility will see to it that yet more corporations get hundreds of billions in government largess. But boy, they sure extracted that 1 bil from PBS, so I guess they're on point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So when he was on air force one and said that he'd spoken to the oil companies before the invasion. That was obviously a lie.

Is brain really is mush isn't it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

Who knew the guy who bankrupted a casino despite his daddy giving him millions to run it was bad at business?

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, this is why every article that mentions Venezuelas huge oil reserves needs to also mention it is the costliest/ lowest margin oil too. Not all oil reserves are the same, the Saudis being able to pull a barrel out for $15 and sell it for $80 is a way different position then Venezuela pulling a barrel out for $60 and selling it for $70.

It is probably just part of the media manufacturing consent for regime change: "look how resource rich Venezuela is and how poor the people are, it must be because the evil Maduro regime" completely ignoring sanctions. Yeah mismanagement is part of the reason Venezuela is doing poorly but even if they were run perfectly with no corruption they still wouldn't be living like the Saudis.

[–] TheJesusaurus@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 months ago

Yep. Canada's tar sands are similar. Low grade tar that can be sold for cheap or upgraded for profit. Either way though even without counting labour standards and wages it costs twice as much to pull it out of the ground and we'll sell it for half as much

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 17 points 2 months ago

It would be very funny and well deserved if they invested on his pressure and in a few years Venezuela just nationalises everything again.

[–] Tehbaz@lemmy.wtf 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The US taxpayers were never going to benefit from this blatant theft of Venezuelan oil at all. The profits were to be deposited directly into Trump & his families accounts after using taxpayer funds to secure the country. That's also the reason why he wants Greenland so he can enrich himself with stolen minerals, with the US military serving as his personal army.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 10 points 2 months ago

They know that Trump is just going to keep the money, and have the US government pay for it all.

Also, it's one thing to support him, it's not even so bad to give him some money now and then, but he is demanding an enormous commitment, and they know that about the only thing you can trust a MAGA government to do is royally fuck it up.

They also see the writing on the wall, MAGA's days are numbered, they will be undone by their own virtuosic incompetence. Short term investment for quick gains is one thing, but long term investment in MAGA is a very bad idea.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Trump uses 'Art of the deal'.

It's not very effective.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bookmeat@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 2 months ago

The gist wasn't that he didn't want to invest. It was that he can't invest until Trump "fixes" problems with the country. Like its leadership and laws, etc.

[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This podcast episode explains very well Exxon's logic: https://pca.st/episode/d7084179-677a-4c82-ac90-c53cf28110c4

I never thought I would be on an oil company's side in a discussion in my life.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] evol@lemmy.today 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

bro did not text the signal group chat about his Venezuela plans before doing it damn

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

He actually did, he just didn’t wait to hear back that it was a terrible idea.

[–] random_character_a@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Companies have usually avoided morally dubious actions in worlds spotlight, because it deters investors.

Not sure if anyone wants to touch Trumps fresh smelly turd... at least directly and visibly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I really think this all comes down to a belief that Trump and many Americans hold, that oil is irreplaceable. They have convinced themselves, or have been convinced by others, that civilizations can't exist without oil, and fossil fuels more broadly. Because of this belief, they're betting hard on oil and gas. They want to take control of as much of the world's remaining oil reserves as possible, both to secure oil for ourselves but also to restrict access to adversaries, like China.

But this belief is wrong. Civilizations can exist without fossil fuels, or at least with very minimal fossil fuel use, especially for energy. Fossil fuels are very inefficient and nonrenewable, in addition to being highly polluting. Renewables, like solar and wind, are much more efficient, especially for electricity generation. To generate electricity with fossil fuels, you have to extract the material from the ground, refine it, transport it, then burn it to boil water to generate steam to turn a turbine to generate the electricity. There are a lot of steps there, and a lot of the energy is lost in the process. With solar and wind, electricity is generated at the source. It's true that solar panels and wind turbines are not very efficient at turning the wind and sunlight into electricity, but once the electricity is generated, all you have to do is transmit it to where it is either stored or used. Some energy is lost in transmission, but that's true of electricity generated from fossil fuels, too. Renewables are simply more efficient. And, as the name implies, they are renewable. The sun will continue to shine and the wind will continue to blow for a very long time.

So as the world wakes up this realization, the world will continue to transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewables. That will reduce the demand for fossil fuels. The oil companies know this, that's why they're not in any great hurry to go and spend billions of dollars to significantly increase oil production. If they dramatically increase oil production, but the overall demand for oil doesn't also increase significantly, the price for their product will fall. They don't want to sell their product for less money, because that will reduce their profits. Lowering the price of oil sounds great to consumers of the product, who want lower gas and diesel prices, but the companies selling it don't want that. Companies want to sell their product for the highest price possible, so they can maximize their profit.

The US is betting on a fossil fuel future, but we're going to lose that bet. We've convinced ourselves, or have been convinced, that oil especially is irreplaceable and that renewables/electrification are a scam. We're wrong. An electrified world powered primarily by renewables is the future. The longer we continue down this misguided path, the further behind the rest of the world we will fall.

[–] ScrambledEggs@lazysoci.al 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yep the oil in Venezuela is not high grade so it's not profitable in the short term even if long term control is important for oil based business.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›