History suggests it will be difficult to oust Starmer before the next election –politicalbetting.com

System · January 5

History suggests it will be difficult to oust Starmer before the next election – politicalbetting.com

The nexus point for British politics in 2026 is whether Sir Keir Starmer KC will remain Prime Minister and there’s an expectation he will be ousted shortly after the local and devolved elections in May.

Read the full story here

Scott_xP · January 5

Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state

Nigelb · January 5

Peter_the_Punter said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Venezuela is about oil, true, and of course Trump apparently believes all oil is fungible, but it is also about drugs. Although Venezuela is not a producer, about a third of Colombian cocaine flows to America through Venezuela.

So taking Trump's various utterings at face value, the three motivations are oil, drugs, and the idea that American corporations were robbed when oil was nationalised (not strictly true, they were paid but...). The last is similar to the arguments deployed against Cuba since time immemorial.
Do we know what it is about? It may be all these things, and others you do not mention, such as distraction from knotty domestic issues such as inflation, the legality of tariffs, or that Epstein bloke. Or it may be that nobody has any clear idea which of these matters, collectively or individually, may have triggered the action. Nobody includes DT himself who was never the most rational of actors and may well be well on his way to GaGa already.

Never attribute to malice what can equally well be explained by incompetence.

I think we have to take them at their word - which is entirely clear, and repeatedly so, that it is about oil.
It's certainly not about democracy, given the Chavist regime is left in power so long as they "do what we say". It's effectively another colonial adventure for profit.

It will quite likely end up an unprofitable mess for all concerned, but that doesn't alter what the intention is.

Nigelb · January 5

One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?

RochdalePioneers · January 5

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?

The flag-shaggers will be told to demand that all the swarthy looking people be deported. Which is Refuk policy already - deport a million isn't it?

DecrepiterJohnL · January 5

Everyone likes a bar chart.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/03/radical-reform-plan-farage-prime-minister/ (£££)

boulay · January 5

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state

I hear from “sources” that Andy Burnham is going to be kidnapped by a foreign state ahead of Starmer.

TheScreamingEagles · January 5

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Everyone likes a bar chart.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/03/radical-reform-plan-farage-prime-minister/ (£££)

The Telegraph are so slow, no wonder they employ so many low IQ columnists.

PB covered this story nearly a month ago.

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/12/13/we-need-to-talk-about-the-size-of-nigel-farages-membership/

Stuartinromford · January 5

JCorbz was protected by the undying love of the membership, which probably won't save Starmer. That, and the challenge coming from Owen Smith.
Who?
Exactly.

The second bit is key, I reckon. Starmer got the leadership in 2020 because the alternatives were worse. (With the benefit of hindsight, does anyone think that Mandy would have done better?) Same reason he got the Premiership in 2024. The question is when that stops being the case.

For all our sakes, including the PM's, the sooner the better.

Foxy · January 5

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?

Not much. The Reformites object to those that are here already, not on net flows.

Stuartinromford · January 5

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?

Possibly won't. It might stop being a story, but the fossil imprint of the years when the government lost control will remain.

(See the boats. Massive story on bad days, not news on the increasing number of good days.)

IanB2 · January 5

I did well laying a departure in 2025 a year back; despite the government's travails it seemed inconceivable that one of Labour's few election-winners would be forced out so soon after a massive election victory. This year it isn't so certain - making the odds even more favourable, of course - but despite the iceberg of May I still feel it's unlikely he'll be gone. That the Tories will also do badly in the locals will mix the story, and I suspect Reform will underperform national polls in the locals. The headline story will be the incoming Labour disasters in Scotland and Wales, which will be 'meh' to most English voters.

There's the additional factor that all of the potential replacements are flawed; indeed the most obviously able isn't even in the Commons. MPs might - just - be up for a coronation of an obvious successor, but a divisive leadership battle filling the autumn media they need like a hole in the head.

DecrepiterJohnL · January 5

Starmer will retire early before the end of this parliament, so some time before July 2029. That is my belief but it is of no great help in assigning value to bets for this calendar year as in the thread header. My fear is that all the gossip about ousting Starmer, for which there is no obvious mechanism, as noted by TSE and numerous others, will make him determined to hang on longer in order to make it clear he is going of his own choosing.

Jeremy Hunt has recently described Foreign Secretary as the best job in government – first class travel, banquets, rubbing shoulders with the rich, famous and powerful. It is notable that Starmer, like Blair before him, essentially acts as his own Foreign Secretary, jetting from ~~junket~~ summit to summit.

Foxy · January 5

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state

That is what the famously patriotic christian Stephen Yaxley Lennon has been calling for: the abduction of our Prime Minister by a foreign state. Musk hasn't taken the post down on twitter.

https://bsky.app/profile/scotnational.bsky.social/post/3mbmhzexmns2c

DecrepiterJohnL · January 5

TheScreamingEagles said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Everyone likes a bar chart.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/01/03/radical-reform-plan-farage-prime-minister/ (£££)
The Telegraph are so slow, no wonder they employ so many low IQ columnists.

PB covered this story nearly a month ago.

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2025/12/13/we-need-to-talk-about-the-size-of-nigel-farages-membership/

Indeed, and even the Telegraph story is not today's, but you must admit it is a pretty bar chart (unless you are Ed Davey faced with declining membership and the wrong sodding colour).

Scott_xP · January 5

@SophyRidgeSky

If Donald Trump moves on Greenland will you condemn it?

“We’re not going to give a running commentary”

“You can't say Donald Trump shouldn't invade Greenland?”

“Diplomacy is delicate, which means we're not here to give a running commentary in the news”

https://x.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/2008087965789204608?s=20

Sandpit · January 5

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?

The problem is going to be what people actually mean when they say ‘’immigration” to a pollster.

Do they mean we need fewer Filipinas as NHS nurses? Unlikely, that one.

Do they mean asylum seekers and boat crossers, rather than regular immigration? Possibly, especially Reform-minded voters.

Do they mean the cost of housing is totally unaffordable, and immigration is a useful proxy for insufficient housebuilding? If it’s this one, the government is screwed unless they can build literally millions of houses in the next three years.

Scott_xP · January 5

America is being run by a toddler

https://bsky.app/profile/robertscotthorton.bsky.social/post/3mbnjxuynnc2m

rcs1000 · January 5

FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.

Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.

Foxy · January 5

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Starmer will retire early before the end of this parliament, so some time before July 2029. That is my belief but it is of no great help in assigning value to bets for this calendar year as in the thread header. My fear is that all the gossip about ousting Starmer, for which there is no obvious mechanism, as noted by TSE and numerous others, will make him determined to hang on longer in order to make it clear he is going of his own choosing.

Jeremy Hunt has recently described Foreign Secretary as the best job in government – first class travel, banquets, rubbing shoulders with the rich, famous and powerful. It is notable that Starmer, like Blair before him, essentially acts as his own Foreign Secretary, jetting from ~~junket~~ summit to summit.

Starmer seems to be quite oblivious as to why he is so unpopular, hence the constant changes in his personal staff. He seems to be as narcisstic as Trump in his first term, bending the truth to fit his ego and surrounded by sycophants.

He is going to get slaughtered in May at the locals, Welsh and Scottish elections, but he won't fall on his sword. There will be some mealy mouthed re-launch and promise to "listen to the voters".

I think he will still be in post at year end.

eek · January 5

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.

I'm sure I remember a news article from last year that said Trump had spoken to all the US Oil companies about Venezuela and all of them had said they had zero interest in returning there because the figures wouldn't add up...

Foxy · January 5

eek said:

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.
I'm sure I remember a news article from last year that said Trump had spoken to all the US Oil companies about Venezuela and all of them had said they had zero interest in returning there because the figures wouldn't add up...

Yes, but he has probably simply forgotten the conversation.

eek · January 5

Stuartinromford said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
Possibly won't. It might stop being a story, but the fossil imprint of the years when the government lost control will remain.

(See the boats. Massive story on bad days, not news on the increasing number of good days.)

+1 while immigration is a topic of interest any current Government will do badly - it needs to disappear as an issue completely before it becomes a non story. and for it to disappear as a story the boats need to stop even though they are just a small part of actual immigration numbers.

Theuniondivvie · January 5

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state

Fresh from applauding Trump on his war on cocaine, patriotic Tommeh wants him to do exactly that.

https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/2007473017748627840?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Scott_xP · January 5

@patrickwintour

“The oil companies are ready to go”. The ballot boxes can wait. Not about drugs. Not about democracy. Not about human rights. Trump’s key demand is “total access” to the oil fields for US oil companies.

Despite the likely challenges, US oil stocks are responding. “Chevron Corp., the only major US oil producer currently operating in Venezuela under a special license, led oil stock gains with an increase of up to 11% in overnight trading, adding approximately $35 billion to its market capitalization. Other major energy firms saw similar boosts”.

https://x.com/patrickwintour/status/2008052524113174539?s=20

Nigelb · January 5

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.

I saw an estimate that it would require around a trillion dollars, and a decade at least, for Venezuela to replace the Canadian supply of oil to the US.

Of course they aren't going to even attempt that, but it gives an idea of the scale of investment required.

Taz · January 5

A brand new account on Polymarket just made a large bet China will invade Taiwan this year !

https://x.com/quiverquant/status/2008029132484206664?s=61

Dopermean · January 5

Foxy said:

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state
That is what the famously patriotic christian Stephen Yaxley Lennon has been calling for: the abduction of our Prime Minister by a foreign state. Musk hasn't taken the post down on twitter.

https://bsky.app/profile/scotnational.bsky.social/post/3mbmhzexmns2c

Does that reach the threshold for a treason charge?
Not bothered about the treason but having the obnoxious shite locked up seems a "good thing" and might help people recover the money he owes them.

Taz · January 5

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Starmer will retire early before the end of this parliament, so some time before July 2029. That is my belief but it is of no great help in assigning value to bets for this calendar year as in the thread header. My fear is that all the gossip about ousting Starmer, for which there is no obvious mechanism, as noted by TSE and numerous others, will make him determined to hang on longer in order to make it clear he is going of his own choosing.

Jeremy Hunt has recently described Foreign Secretary as the best job in government – first class travel, banquets, rubbing shoulders with the rich, famous and powerful. It is notable that Starmer, like Blair before him, essentially acts as his own Foreign Secretary, jetting from ~~junket~~ summit to summit.
Starmer seems to be quite oblivious as to why he is so unpopular, hence the constant changes in his personal staff. He seems to be as narcisstic as Trump in his first term, bending the truth to fit his ego and surrounded by sycophants.

He is going to get slaughtered in May at the locals, Welsh and Scottish elections, but he won't fall on his sword. There will be some mealy mouthed re-launch and promise to "listen to the voters".

I think he will still be in post at year end.

‘Lessons will be learned’

Scott_xP · January 5

Taz said:
A brand new account on Polymarket just made a large bet China will invade Taiwan this year !

https://x.com/quiverquant/status/2008029132484206664?s=61

Suggestion on TwiX that China spent $60bn in Venezuela that the Mad King just torched, so they might be in the mood for some payback

Sandpit · January 5

Well even if you’re not a fan of Trump or his actions in Venezuela, know that the weekend’s news has gone down like a cup of cold sick in Moscow.

https://x.com/tendar/status/2008088911721959581

Putin had sent Maduro a load of air defences on credit, and they all either failed to work or were taken out by the Americans. Russia’s focus on more pressing issues closer to home is leading to their aligned countries around the world all experiencing instability - Syria, Venezuela, Iran…

rcs1000 · January 5

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.

I've just looked through my notes, and realised there is a major other cost that I'm missing. So... say you've extracted your heavy oil from the bitumen. The problem is that it doesn't flow: you need to mix it with dilutent to get it to a liquid enough consistency to go in ships an pipelines. Typically, you need about a half a barrel of dilutent for every barrel of heavy oil.

This is overwhelmingly natural gas liquids - it's basically incredibly light oil (known as "natural gasoline") that is produced alongside gas production. (It's oil and gas liquids where the hydrocarbon chains are extrenely short.)

Canada, thanks to its natural gas production has loads of these. The Southern United States - around the shale gas basins - has this too. But it's not cheap (WTI prices at a minimum), and getting it to Venezuela to be used as dilutent is not going to be cheap at all.

There are some interesting gas projects in Peru; and it may be there are NGLs there that could be piped to the Venezuela oil sands. But -irrespective- it is another significant issue that needs to be dealt with be the Orinoco can Flow. (Sail away, sail away, sail away...)

rcs1000 · January 5

Nigelb said:

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.
I saw an estimate that it would require around a trillion dollars, and a decade at least, for Venezuela to replace the Canadian supply of oil to the US.

Of course they aren't going to even attempt that, but it gives an idea of the scale of investment required.

It would also require companies with extensive experience of heavy oil production: Suncor, Canadian National Resources and Cenovus. All these comoanies are Canadian.

There are some second tier names, like Imperial Eneergy (part owened by Exxon Mobile) and Shell. But if they want to get oil flowing (and quickly) it's not going to be Chevron, ConocoPhilips and ExxonMobil doing the production.

Theuniondivvie · January 5

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
Not much. The Reformites object to those that are here already, not on net flows.

And once they’ve finished with repatriating legal immigrants they’ll move onto the children of immigrants,
and legislating for white quotas in advertising. There will always be things about which to whip up populist anger.

bondegezou · January 5

Scott_xP said:
America is being run by a toddler

https://bsky.app/profile/robertscotthorton.bsky.social/post/3mbnjxuynnc2m

I’m not certain how much Trump is even running things. It’s Rubio who seems to be running the Venezuelan operation, with Trump barely cognisant of what happens, just happy to be seen as the Big Man.

FeersumEnjineeya · January 5

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.
I've just looked through my notes, and realised there is a major other cost that I'm missing. So... say you've extracted your heavy oil from the bitumen. The problem is that it doesn't flow: you need to mix it with dilutent to get it to a liquid enough consistency to go in ships an pipelines. Typically, you need about a half a barrel of dilutent for every barrel of heavy oil.

This is overwhelmingly natural gas liquids - it's basically incredibly light oil (known as "natural gasoline") that is produced alongside gas production. (It's oil and gas liquids where the hydrocarbon chains are extrenely short.)

Canada, thanks to its natural gas production has loads of these. The Southern United States - around the shale gas basins - has this too. But it's not cheap (WTI prices at a minimum), and getting it to Venezuela to be used as dilutent is not going to be cheap at all.

There are some interesting gas projects in Peru; and it may be there are NGLs there that could be piped to the Venezuela oil sands. But -irrespective- it is another significant issue that needs to be dealt with be the Orinoco can Flow. (Sail away, sail away, sail away...)

So not this year and probably not enya?

bondegezou · January 5

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.
I've just looked through my notes, and realised there is a major other cost that I'm missing. So... say you've extracted your heavy oil from the bitumen. The problem is that it doesn't flow: you need to mix it with dilutent to get it to a liquid enough consistency to go in ships an pipelines. Typically, you need about a half a barrel of dilutent for every barrel of heavy oil.

This is overwhelmingly natural gas liquids - it's basically incredibly light oil (known as "natural gasoline") that is produced alongside gas production. (It's oil and gas liquids where the hydrocarbon chains are extrenely short.)

Canada, thanks to its natural gas production has loads of these. The Southern United States - around the shale gas basins - has this too. But it's not cheap (WTI prices at a minimum), and getting it to Venezuela to be used as dilutent is not going to be cheap at all.

There are some interesting gas projects in Peru; and it may be there are NGLs there that could be piped to the Venezuela oil sands. But -irrespective- it is another significant issue that needs to be dealt with be the Orinoco can Flow. (Sail away, sail away, sail away...)

OK, but Venezuela was the eighth biggest exporter of oil in 2008, and they were still exporting more than Bahrain or Qatar last year, I believe. It’s not as big an industry as their reserves would suggest, but that’s still substantial. Surely it can’t be that much work to increase those numbers somewhat?

Casino_Royale · January 5

So where are the best odds to lay this then?

Foss · January 5

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
Not much. The Reformites object to those that are here already, not on net flows.
And once they’ve finished with repatriating legal immigrants they’ll move onto the children of immigrants,
and legislating for white quotas in advertising. There will always be things about which to whip up populist anger.

There won’t need to be quotas - the combined collapse of printed newspapers and OTA TV means an end to mass advertising and the total dominance of micro-targeting where people get what the system thinks will sell the product best. If white sells best to white and black sells best to black then both will get what gains the best return.

Sandpit · January 5

Twitter rumours that Minnesota Governor and former VP candidate Tim Walz is to announce his standing down from the Gubbernatorial race later today.

He’s been under fire after an independent journalist exposed widespread fraud of State and Federal programmes among the Somali community in Minneapolis.

Edit: NY Post also running the story.
https://x.com/nypost/status/2008085341626892394

Mexicanpete · January 5

bondegezou said:

Scott_xP said:
America is being run by a toddler

https://bsky.app/profile/robertscotthorton.bsky.social/post/3mbnjxuynnc2m
I’m not certain how much Trump is even running things. It’s Rubio who seems to be running the Venezuelan operation, with Trump barely cognisant of what happens, just happy to be seen as the Big Man.

Rubio has axes to grind with Cuba, Venezuela was a successful dry run.

Everyone needs to be concerned by what Stephen Miller says and does. Stephen Miller is evil personified. Stephen Miller is pulling Trump's strings.

Theuniondivvie · January 5

Foss said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
Not much. The Reformites object to those that are here already, not on net flows.
And once they’ve finished with repatriating legal immigrants they’ll move onto the children of immigrants,
and legislating for white quotas in advertising. There will always be things about which to whip up populist anger.
There won’t need to be quotas - the combined collapse of printed newspapers and OTA TV means an end to mass advertising and the total dominance of micro-targeting where people get what the system thinks will sell the product best. If white sells best to white and black sells best to black then both will get what gains the best return.

Thank goodness Ms Pochin will no longer be driven mad, though one might ask how would one tell.

algarkirk · January 5

bondegezou said:

Scott_xP said:
America is being run by a toddler

https://bsky.app/profile/robertscotthorton.bsky.social/post/3mbnjxuynnc2m
I’m not certain how much Trump is even running things. It’s Rubio who seems to be running the Venezuelan operation, with Trump barely cognisant of what happens, just happy to be seen as the Big Man.

The 'toddler' theory of Trump may be right, but even if it is, it massively oversimplifies things. But that theory does not apply to the current (wicked, oligarchic, corrupt and dangerous) USA regime as a whole. There is a general theory and a rapid implementation, as well as a remarkable public transparency, which is unmissable. There is a colossal collective intelligence at work, and within 12 months it has changed the rules of engagement for the entire planet.

A year ago if you had asked a UK (Labour) government minister whether we would condemn the invasion of Greenland or Canada by a foreign power it is not difficult to guess the outlines of the answer.

Today the answer WRT Greenland - just yesterday and recounted earlier on PB - is, when translated: "No. Because it may happen and we may have to live with it with no choice about de facto supporting it."

This is USA government by bad people, not government by toddler.

TheScreamingEagles · January 5

Casino_Royale said:
So where are the best odds to lay this then?

Betfair.

TheScreamingEagles · January 5

I hope you all appreciate the history lesson/analogy.

numbertwelve · January 5

Happy New Year all,

On paper I agree that it will be difficult to remove Starmer. What is unknown at this stage is that if a coup is attempted and things get very messy, how strongly he would fight it, or whether he would quit for the sake of party unity rather than pushing it to a vote.

But I suspect there won’t be a co-ordinated challenge. We might get a resignation or two to try and force people’s hands, but like the latter days of Brown’s premiership I think any challenger will sit it out for fear of being the hand that wields the dagger. It will however destabilise the government further.

I do still firmly believe Starmer will not lead Labour into the next GE. So all this is really a question of timing. My best guess is he “retires” in 2027 or 2028.

RochdalePioneers · January 5

17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts

TheScreamingEagles · January 5

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts

Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.

Malmesbury · January 5

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.
I've just looked through my notes, and realised there is a major other cost that I'm missing. So... say you've extracted your heavy oil from the bitumen. The problem is that it doesn't flow: you need to mix it with dilutent to get it to a liquid enough consistency to go in ships an pipelines. Typically, you need about a half a barrel of dilutent for every barrel of heavy oil.

This is overwhelmingly natural gas liquids - it's basically incredibly light oil (known as "natural gasoline") that is produced alongside gas production. (It's oil and gas liquids where the hydrocarbon chains are extrenely short.)

Canada, thanks to its natural gas production has loads of these. The Southern United States - around the shale gas basins - has this too. But it's not cheap (WTI prices at a minimum), and getting it to Venezuela to be used as dilutent is not going to be cheap at all.

There are some interesting gas projects in Peru; and it may be there are NGLs there that could be piped to the Venezuela oil sands. But -irrespective- it is another significant issue that needs to be dealt with be the Orinoco can Flow. (Sail away, sail away, sail away...)
OK, but Venezuela was the eighth biggest exporter of oil in 2008, and they were still exporting more than Bahrain or Qatar last year, I believe. It’s not as big an industry as their reserves would suggest, but that’s still substantial. Surely it can’t be that much work to increase those numbers somewhat?

They are pumping the easy stuff.

They stopped investing in the harder (literally!) stuff to extract (the bulk of their oil reserves). It literally doesn't flow well.

That was Chavez's policy from the start. He fired the staff at the state oil company because they insisted on investing in the extraction of the hard-to-get-stuff. Money invested in oil extraction wasn't available for stealing or using to fund programs for his supporters.

Chavez spent the seed corn.

Trying to get the harder to extract stuff out will cost vast amounts of a money. It will take years. Then you have expensive oil. Which you need to ship to specialist refineries. Which need to be built/converted.

Mexicanpete · January 5

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state
Fresh from applauding Trump on his war on cocaine, patriotic Tommeh wants him to do exactly that.

https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/2007473017748627840?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q

Is Tiny Tom requesting the overthrow of our elected (like 'em, or loathe 'em) government by a hostile foreign power? Er, isn't that treason?

malcolmg · January 5

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?

depends on whether the illegal boats are stopped

Pulpstar · January 5

Taz said:
A brand new account on Polymarket just made a large bet China will invade Taiwan this year !

https://x.com/quiverquant/status/2008029132484206664?s=61

Is it "Ji Pinxing"

stodge · January 5

Morning all

I see that unerringly inaccurate guide to political fortunes - Party membership numbers - is getting an airing this morning.

As we've seen in the past, becoming a "member" or a "supporter" or an "associate" or whatever the term used, varies enormously from party to party and from time to time.

How much do you have to pay to become a full member of Reform? I've no clue - the LDs used to be £25 when I was involved and I well remember the campaign to get us to 100,000 members in the 1980s with all sorts of inducements to local parties to sign people up.

A fall of 20% or so since then doesn't surprise me - how much has Conservative membership fallen since the heady days of Thatcher when I had boasts of 500,000 members. Labour membership numbers were always complicated by the Unions and whether if you signed up to the political levy that made you a member of Labour.

The other side of this is how many of these Reform members will go out and do anything for the party other than vote at the GE? When I was active, I had at least half the membership in the Ward doing "something" - delivering, helping with surveys, telling etc. I suppose now they can get people to post on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, BlueSky or whatever.

Malmesbury · January 5

Mexicanpete said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state
Fresh from applauding Trump on his war on cocaine, patriotic Tommeh wants him to do exactly that.

https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/2007473017748627840?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Is Tiny Tom requesting the overthrow of our elected (like 'em, or loathe 'em) government by a hostile foreign power? Er, isn't that treason?

You'll have to argue with the lawyers, who successfully argued (and got judgements) in the 1980s, that advocating* the murder of the UK government is AOK.

Guess who was backing that case.

*as opposed to actually doing it yourself.

Malmesbury · January 5

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
depends on whether the illegal boats are stopped

Which could be done. In a migrant friendly way, as well.

Eabhal · January 5

Mexicanpete said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state
Fresh from applauding Trump on his war on cocaine, patriotic Tommeh wants him to do exactly that.

https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/2007473017748627840?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Is Tiny Tom requesting the overthrow of our elected (like 'em, or loathe 'em) government by a hostile foreign power? Er, isn't that treason?

Treason felony, according to wiki.

Foss · January 5

Theuniondivvie said:

Foss said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
Not much. The Reformites object to those that are here already, not on net flows.
And once they’ve finished with repatriating legal immigrants they’ll move onto the children of immigrants,
and legislating for white quotas in advertising. There will always be things about which to whip up populist anger.
There won’t need to be quotas - the combined collapse of printed newspapers and OTA TV means an end to mass advertising and the total dominance of micro-targeting where people get what the system thinks will sell the product best. If white sells best to white and black sells best to black then both will get what gains the best return.
Thank goodness Ms Pochin will no longer be driven mad, though one might ask how would one tell.

They’ll not need to know that white sells best to white, black to black - they’ll know that pool A responds better to white imagery and pool B responds better to black imagery. But it’s effectively the same thing.
Go back and read all of the demographic micro targeting stuff the second Obama campaign did and the rudimentary automation they were doing over a decade ago.

Mexicanpete · January 5

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state
Fresh from applauding Trump on his war on cocaine, patriotic Tommeh wants him to do exactly that.

https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/2007473017748627840?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Is Tiny Tom requesting the overthrow of our elected (like 'em, or loathe 'em) government by a hostile foreign power? Er, isn't that treason?
You'll have to argue with the lawyers, who successfully argued (and got judgements) in the 1980s, that advocating* the murder of the UK government is AOK.

Guess who was backing that case.

*as opposed to actually doing it yourself.

Isn't this somewhat different?

Some of Ewok Powell's chums have previously called for the assassination of Starmer, which I am assuming is fine. Asking for foreign boots on British soil is several notches up from that.

Carnyx · January 5

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.

Wrong country ... John Ogilvie et al got hanged. It was the Protestant Reformers that got the stake.

Obvs they do things differently in England just to be different.

PS: and how on earth do you get that in the first place??

edmundintokyo · January 5

bondegezou said:

Scott_xP said:
America is being run by a toddler

https://bsky.app/profile/robertscotthorton.bsky.social/post/3mbnjxuynnc2m
I’m not certain how much Trump is even running things. It’s Rubio who seems to be running the Venezuelan operation, with Trump barely cognisant of what happens, just happy to be seen as the Big Man.

Might be a buy for GOP Nom / Next president just on the basis that he seems to be far and away the effective operator in the administration. He's got a full 2 years to figure out a way to get rid of Vance.

bondegezou · January 5

Malmesbury said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.
I've just looked through my notes, and realised there is a major other cost that I'm missing. So... say you've extracted your heavy oil from the bitumen. The problem is that it doesn't flow: you need to mix it with dilutent to get it to a liquid enough consistency to go in ships an pipelines. Typically, you need about a half a barrel of dilutent for every barrel of heavy oil.

This is overwhelmingly natural gas liquids - it's basically incredibly light oil (known as "natural gasoline") that is produced alongside gas production. (It's oil and gas liquids where the hydrocarbon chains are extrenely short.)

Canada, thanks to its natural gas production has loads of these. The Southern United States - around the shale gas basins - has this too. But it's not cheap (WTI prices at a minimum), and getting it to Venezuela to be used as dilutent is not going to be cheap at all.

There are some interesting gas projects in Peru; and it may be there are NGLs there that could be piped to the Venezuela oil sands. But -irrespective- it is another significant issue that needs to be dealt with be the Orinoco can Flow. (Sail away, sail away, sail away...)
OK, but Venezuela was the eighth biggest exporter of oil in 2008, and they were still exporting more than Bahrain or Qatar last year, I believe. It’s not as big an industry as their reserves would suggest, but that’s still substantial. Surely it can’t be that much work to increase those numbers somewhat?
They are pumping the easy stuff.

They stopped investing in the harder (literally!) stuff to extract (the bulk of their oil reserves). It literally doesn't flow well.

That was Chavez's policy from the start. He fired the staff at the state oil company because they insisted on investing in the extraction of the hard-to-get-stuff. Money invested in oil extraction wasn't available for stealing or using to fund programs for his supporters.

Chavez spent the seed corn.

Trying to get the harder to extract stuff out will cost vast amounts of a money. It will take years. Then you have expensive oil. Which you need to ship to specialist refineries. Which need to be built/converted.

But there is some cheap oil available now? That’s oil money that Trump wants. He doesn’t really do the long-term planning.

malcolmg · January 5

Malmesbury said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
depends on whether the illegal boats are stopped
Which could be done. In a migrant friendly way, as well.

They have had the issue for ages now and seem to have no clue how to solve it, I don't hold out much hope that they will do anything constructive.

Northern_Al · January 5

My considered view is that Starmer is safe for at least another year, regardless of the outcome of the May elections. Yes, he's unpopular, but he's only been PM for 18 months, not even a third of a government term of office, and, in their wisdom, Labour MPs and members would consider it unreasonable to get rid so early in his mission to 'clear up the mess he inherited'; and they've got a point.

I reckon 2026 will see some improvements in the economy, living standards and the NHS; whether this will be enough to see Starmer safe in 2027 is unclear, but I think 2027 will be when the decision is made - go, or stay until the next GE.

RochdalePioneers · January 5

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.

genuine lol

Shire Facebook news page has been working 24/7 for days. This morning all Aberdeenshire schools are closed, we have supermarkets reported as half empty, our village shops are out of bread, milk and fresh anything. And aside from a handful of major roads which have government money to plough the rest as "passable with extreme care" to "can someone try and dig me out".

Farmers have been doing heroic amounts of ploughing but can't keep the roads open by themselves. And we've just had our pavement ploughed and gritted by the council (they have a fleet of mini ploughs!) but they can only do a few.

Sat at my desk in the office. Was in here yesterday and had cleared the snow from the back door. This morning? Had to clear it again. Endless winter shit and there's no sign of it stopping...

More Catholics for the stake needed!

Malmesbury · January 5

Mexicanpete said:

Malmesbury said:

Mexicanpete said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Scott_xP said:
Maybe he will be kidnapped by a foreign state
Fresh from applauding Trump on his war on cocaine, patriotic Tommeh wants him to do exactly that.

https://x.com/trobinsonnewera/status/2007473017748627840?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Is Tiny Tom requesting the overthrow of our elected (like 'em, or loathe 'em) government by a hostile foreign power? Er, isn't that treason?
You'll have to argue with the lawyers, who successfully argued (and got judgements) in the 1980s, that advocating* the murder of the UK government is AOK.

Guess who was backing that case.

*as opposed to actually doing it yourself.
Isn't this somewhat different?

Some of Ewok Powell's chums have previously called for the assassination of Starmer, which I am assuming is fine. Asking for foreign boots on British soil is several notches up from that.

As I think was said, under Blair, that Treason has become "un-prosecutable in modern law"

I have long advocated an update on the treason laws, to make them prosecutable. Which seems to some lawyers unhappy, when I've spoken to them. They speak of loyalty to a state being an outdated concept. What they really mean is that for sections of the community, being forced to be loyal to the state would be an imposition. And you wouldn't wan to hurt their feelings, would you?

Looks like Tommy Lots of Names is one of those.

bondegezou · January 5

Foss said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foss said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
Not much. The Reformites object to those that are here already, not on net flows.
And once they’ve finished with repatriating legal immigrants they’ll move onto the children of immigrants,
and legislating for white quotas in advertising. There will always be things about which to whip up populist anger.
There won’t need to be quotas - the combined collapse of printed newspapers and OTA TV means an end to mass advertising and the total dominance of micro-targeting where people get what the system thinks will sell the product best. If white sells best to white and black sells best to black then both will get what gains the best return.
Thank goodness Ms Pochin will no longer be driven mad, though one might ask how would one tell.
They’ll not need to know that white sells best to white, black to black - they’ll know that pool A responds better to white imagery and pool B responds better to black imagery. But it’s effectively the same thing.
Go back and read all of the demographic micro targeting stuff the second Obama campaign did and the rudimentary automation they were doing over a decade ago.

There’s a lot of hype about targeted advertising, but the reality often falls short. We all have experiences of not remotely relevant ads being targeted at us. The tech companies want you to think targeted advertising is brilliant because then you’ll give them your money.

Mexicanpete · January 5

edmundintokyo said:

bondegezou said:

Scott_xP said:
America is being run by a toddler

https://bsky.app/profile/robertscotthorton.bsky.social/post/3mbnjxuynnc2m
I’m not certain how much Trump is even running things. It’s Rubio who seems to be running the Venezuelan operation, with Trump barely cognisant of what happens, just happy to be seen as the Big Man.
Might be a buy for GOP Nom / Next president just on the basis that he seems to be far and away the effective operator in the administration. He's got a full 2 years to figure out a way to get rid of Vance.

Has he got two years? The POTUS could kark it at any minute.

Malmesbury · January 5

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.
Wrong country ... John Ogilvie et al got hanged. It was the Protestant Reformers that got the stake.

Obvs they do things differently in England just to be different.

PS: and how on earth do you get that in the first place??

Great Harry burnt some of each, depending on the day of the week.

TheScreamingEagles · January 5

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.
Wrong country ... John Ogilvie et al got hanged. It was the Protestant Reformers that got the stake.

Obvs they do things differently in England just to be different.

PS: and how on earth do you get that in the first place??

It’s a line from the episode ‘Beer’ from Blackadder II.

DecrepiterJohnL · January 5

stodge said:
Morning all

I see that unerringly inaccurate guide to political fortunes - Party membership numbers - is getting an airing this morning.

As we've seen in the past, becoming a "member" or a "supporter" or an "associate" or whatever the term used, varies enormously from party to party and from time to time.

How much do you have to pay to become a full member of Reform? I've no clue - the LDs used to be £25 when I was involved and I well remember the campaign to get us to 100,000 members in the 1980s with all sorts of inducements to local parties to sign people up.

A fall of 20% or so since then doesn't surprise me - how much has Conservative membership fallen since the heady days of Thatcher when I had boasts of 500,000 members. Labour membership numbers were always complicated by the Unions and whether if you signed up to the political levy that made you a member of Labour.

The other side of this is how many of these Reform members will go out and do anything for the party other than vote at the GE? When I was active, I had at least half the membership in the Ward doing "something" - delivering, helping with surveys, telling etc. I suppose now they can get people to post on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, BlueSky or whatever.

Is it? I posted the bar chart because it looks pretty. Has there been any discussion? So far as membership fees go, any cash is welcome but we live in an age where a handful of large donors matter more.

Malmesbury · January 5

bondegezou said:

Scott_xP said:
America is being run by a toddler

https://bsky.app/profile/robertscotthorton.bsky.social/post/3mbnjxuynnc2m
I’m not certain how much Trump is even running things. It’s Rubio who seems to be running the Venezuelan operation, with Trump barely cognisant of what happens, just happy to be seen as the Big Man.

Working Towards The Leader, eh?

HYUFD · January 5

Starmer has a good chance of surviving this year. The local elections will be bad for Labour but even if Labour beat the Conservatives on NEV as they did last year that should shore up his position even if Reform win overall. In Scotland polls show a small swing from SNP to Labour since 2021 as 2021 SNP voters go Reform or Green and if Labour gain a few SNP seats at the Hamilton by election that could also boost Sir Keir.

Remember too it needs 80 Labour MPs to back a challenger to Starmer and his biggest rival Burnham is not even an MP and thus ineligible

HYUFD · January 5

edmundintokyo said:

bondegezou said:

Scott_xP said:
America is being run by a toddler

https://bsky.app/profile/robertscotthorton.bsky.social/post/3mbnjxuynnc2m
I’m not certain how much Trump is even running things. It’s Rubio who seems to be running the Venezuelan operation, with Trump barely cognisant of what happens, just happy to be seen as the Big Man.
Might be a buy for GOP Nom / Next president just on the basis that he seems to be far and away the effective operator in the administration. He's got a full 2 years to figure out a way to get rid of Vance.

Rubio might replace Haley as the moderate candidate but hard to see him beating Vance or Eric or Donald Trump Jr for the nomination

Malmesbury · January 5

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:
Morning all

I see that unerringly inaccurate guide to political fortunes - Party membership numbers - is getting an airing this morning.

As we've seen in the past, becoming a "member" or a "supporter" or an "associate" or whatever the term used, varies enormously from party to party and from time to time.

How much do you have to pay to become a full member of Reform? I've no clue - the LDs used to be £25 when I was involved and I well remember the campaign to get us to 100,000 members in the 1980s with all sorts of inducements to local parties to sign people up.

A fall of 20% or so since then doesn't surprise me - how much has Conservative membership fallen since the heady days of Thatcher when I had boasts of 500,000 members. Labour membership numbers were always complicated by the Unions and whether if you signed up to the political levy that made you a member of Labour.

The other side of this is how many of these Reform members will go out and do anything for the party other than vote at the GE? When I was active, I had at least half the membership in the Ward doing "something" - delivering, helping with surveys, telling etc. I suppose now they can get people to post on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, BlueSky or whatever.
Is it? I posted the bar chart because it looks pretty. Has there been any discussion? So far as membership fees go, any cash is welcome but we live in an age where a handful of large donors matter more.

Reform, according to their website, are charging £25 for membership (£10 under the age of 25)

Nigelb · January 5

Sandpit said:
Twitter rumours that Minnesota Governor and former VP candidate Tim Walz is to announce his standing down from the Gubbernatorial race later today.

He’s been under fire after an independent journalist exposed widespread fraud of State and Federal programmes among the Somali community in Minneapolis.

Edit: NY Post also running the story.
https://x.com/nypost/status/2008085341626892394

Er, no.

HYUFD · January 5

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.

Protestants if one was Mary Tudor

Malmesbury · January 5

TheScreamingEagles said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.
Wrong country ... John Ogilvie et al got hanged. It was the Protestant Reformers that got the stake.

Obvs they do things differently in England just to be different.

PS: and how on earth do you get that in the first place??
It’s a line from the episode ‘Beer’ from Blackadder II.

Starmer: Look, there’s no need to panic. Someone in the crew will know how to steer this thing.

HYUFD · January 5

stodge said:
Morning all

I see that unerringly inaccurate guide to political fortunes - Party membership numbers - is getting an airing this morning.

As we've seen in the past, becoming a "member" or a "supporter" or an "associate" or whatever the term used, varies enormously from party to party and from time to time.

How much do you have to pay to become a full member of Reform? I've no clue - the LDs used to be £25 when I was involved and I well remember the campaign to get us to 100,000 members in the 1980s with all sorts of inducements to local parties to sign people up.

A fall of 20% or so since then doesn't surprise me - how much has Conservative membership fallen since the heady days of Thatcher when I had boasts of 500,000 members. Labour membership numbers were always complicated by the Unions and whether if you signed up to the political levy that made you a member of Labour.

The other side of this is how many of these Reform members will go out and do anything for the party other than vote at the GE? When I was active, I had at least half the membership in the Ward doing "something" - delivering, helping with surveys, telling etc. I suppose now they can get people to post on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, BlueSky or whatever.

Very few, they will turn up to a big rally with Nigel and post rants on X and Facebook but going out delivering leaflets in January like say LD members? Not a chance for most of them

RochdalePioneers · January 5

I will try and post on here slightly more regularly than I did at the back end of last year.

A Christmas break has definitely improved my mental health, and I've had the chance to deconstruct where last year went wrong and what needs to be done this year to not just function but actually succeed.

I've got probably too many business interests spinning, but need to spin some more to try and push the exciting new thing into orbit so that I can park some of the others. Realistically I'm working 6 days a week, but I have segmented up a typical week and it will work - especially if I enforce actual down time. I've pulled back from some social media stuff which was quite frankly doing more harm than good.

Regretfully, the thing I don't have time for this year is politics. Talking about it? Yes. Doing it? No...

Malmesbury · January 5

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.
Protestants if one was Mary Tudor

Nonsense. It's always {Heretics} that you burn.

The reason we use {Heretics} in all the documents, is so that you don't have to change the docs, as Government policy changes.

This administrative change saved millions of groats. Better Process.

IanB2 · January 5

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts

It's certainly cold out there this morning, even here, waiting for the sun to do its best. If only there were some way of making the climate warmer.....

Carnyx · January 5

Malmesbury said:

Carnyx said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.
Wrong country ... John Ogilvie et al got hanged. It was the Protestant Reformers that got the stake.

Obvs they do things differently in England just to be different.

PS: and how on earth do you get that in the first place??
Great Harry burnt some of each, depending on the day of the week.

But that was in England. RP is in ...

OldKingCole · January 5

Good morning one and all. Definite covering of snow this morning.

I've never, so far as I'm aware, actually met, personally, a member of Reform. I've been to a 'hustings' where the Reform candidate spoke. I know someone who occasionally posts sympathetic stuff on Facebook, but as he and I generally discuss sport when we meet I don't know whether he's paid his money.

And, on a more general point, what is the position of members of Con(derivative) Clubs? Are they members of the Party or not.

malcolmg · January 5

RochdalePioneers said:
I will try and post on here slightly more regularly than I did at the back end of last year.

A Christmas break has definitely improved my mental health, and I've had the chance to deconstruct where last year went wrong and what needs to be done this year to not just function but actually succeed.

I've got probably too many business interests spinning, but need to spin some more to try and push the exciting new thing into orbit so that I can park some of the others. Realistically I'm working 6 days a week, but I have segmented up a typical week and it will work - especially if I enforce actual down time. I've pulled back from some social media stuff which was quite frankly doing more harm than good.

Regretfully, the thing I don't have time for this year is politics. Talking about it? Yes. Doing it? No...

Get yourself a cushy number and get into Holyrood, great money and chuckles every day at the idiots the place is full of. Don't forget your inspector gadget bugging kit.

HYUFD · January 5

Foxy said:

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?
Not much. The Reformites object to those that are here already, not on net flows.

The 14% who voted Reform even in 2024 yes but some of the 2024 Labour and Conservative voters who have switched to Reform, not so much

Big_G_NorthWales · January 5

RochdalePioneers said:
I will try and post on here slightly more regularly than I did at the back end of last year.

A Christmas break has definitely improved my mental health, and I've had the chance to deconstruct where last year went wrong and what needs to be done this year to not just function but actually succeed.

I've got probably too many business interests spinning, but need to spin some more to try and push the exciting new thing into orbit so that I can park some of the others. Realistically I'm working 6 days a week, but I have segmented up a typical week and it will work - especially if I enforce actual down time. I've pulled back from some social media stuff which was quite frankly doing more harm than good.

Regretfully, the thing I don't have time for this year is politics. Talking about it? Yes. Doing it? No...

Good morning

Happy new year

It looks like lots of snow for you and our family further down the coast

Re politics have you decided not to stand in Holyrood 26 ?

malcolmg · January 5

IanB2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
It's certainly cold out there this morning, even here, waiting for the sun to do its best. If only there were some way of making the climate warmer.....

blue sky and sunshine here, now up to -1.5

stodge · January 5

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.
genuine lol

Shire Facebook news page has been working 24/7 for days. This morning all Aberdeenshire schools are closed, we have supermarkets reported as half empty, our village shops are out of bread, milk and fresh anything. And aside from a handful of major roads which have government money to plough the rest as "passable with extreme care" to "can someone try and dig me out".

Farmers have been doing heroic amounts of ploughing but can't keep the roads open by themselves. And we've just had our pavement ploughed and gritted by the council (they have a fleet of mini ploughs!) but they can only do a few.

Sat at my desk in the office. Was in here yesterday and had cleared the snow from the back door. This morning? Had to clear it again. Endless winter shit and there's no sign of it stopping...

More Catholics for the stake needed!

Don't worry - IF we get an inch of snow in London, COBRA will be convened, a state of emergency declared and the Army will turn up to clear the snow from your back door.

Nil desperandum.

Carnyx · January 5

OldKingCole said:
Good morning one and all. Definite covering of snow this morning.

I've never, so far as I'm aware, actually met, personally, a member of Reform. I've been to a 'hustings' where the Reform candidate spoke. I know someone who occasionally posts sympathetic stuff on Facebook, but as he and I generally discuss sport when we meet I don't know whether he's paid his money.

And, on a more general point, what is the position of members of Con(derivative) Clubs? Are they members of the Party or not.

One might also wonder about Miners' Clubs of which there are still quite a few in the Midland Valley of Scotland. No idea if the Con Cs are also in the same sort of retrospective perspective, mind.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/23457090.death-life-miners-clubs-twilight-scottish-institution/

Carnyx · January 5

malcolmg said:

IanB2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
It's certainly cold out there this morning, even here, waiting for the sun to do its best. If only there were some way of making the climate warmer.....
blue sky and sunshine here, now up to -1.5

Same here in Lothian, only a thin splatter of hail yesterday (but sometimes we get the RP treatment and worse here, so it all evens out).

stodge · January 5

Malmesbury said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:
Morning all

I see that unerringly inaccurate guide to political fortunes - Party membership numbers - is getting an airing this morning.

As we've seen in the past, becoming a "member" or a "supporter" or an "associate" or whatever the term used, varies enormously from party to party and from time to time.

How much do you have to pay to become a full member of Reform? I've no clue - the LDs used to be £25 when I was involved and I well remember the campaign to get us to 100,000 members in the 1980s with all sorts of inducements to local parties to sign people up.

A fall of 20% or so since then doesn't surprise me - how much has Conservative membership fallen since the heady days of Thatcher when I had boasts of 500,000 members. Labour membership numbers were always complicated by the Unions and whether if you signed up to the political levy that made you a member of Labour.

The other side of this is how many of these Reform members will go out and do anything for the party other than vote at the GE? When I was active, I had at least half the membership in the Ward doing "something" - delivering, helping with surveys, telling etc. I suppose now they can get people to post on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, BlueSky or whatever.
Is it? I posted the bar chart because it looks pretty. Has there been any discussion? So far as membership fees go, any cash is welcome but we live in an age where a handful of large donors matter more.
Reform, according to their website, are charging £25 for membership (£10 under the age of 25)

That's pretty much par for the course I believe. Political parties (even those with a few big donors) cost a lot to run and getting people to commit to paying what is in effect 50p a week isn't onerous.

The key is to get them to stay, to paraphrase a wise man, "once you have their standing orders, their hearts and minds will follow"

Carnyx · January 5

stodge said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.
genuine lol

Shire Facebook news page has been working 24/7 for days. This morning all Aberdeenshire schools are closed, we have supermarkets reported as half empty, our village shops are out of bread, milk and fresh anything. And aside from a handful of major roads which have government money to plough the rest as "passable with extreme care" to "can someone try and dig me out".

Farmers have been doing heroic amounts of ploughing but can't keep the roads open by themselves. And we've just had our pavement ploughed and gritted by the council (they have a fleet of mini ploughs!) but they can only do a few.

Sat at my desk in the office. Was in here yesterday and had cleared the snow from the back door. This morning? Had to clear it again. Endless winter shit and there's no sign of it stopping...

More Catholics for the stake needed!
Don't worry - IF we get an inch of snow in London, COBRA will be convened, a state of emergency declared and the Army will turn up to clear the snow from your back door.

Nil desperandum.

A flake of snow on the roof of Broadcasting House and you'd think the BBC was the Daily Express ...

williamglenn · January 5

https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2008013432982049176

President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”

Morris_Dancer · January 5

Carnyx said:

stodge said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

RochdalePioneers said:
17cm of snow and its still falling in squally bursts
Just remember the cold weather is just God’s way of telling us to burn more Catholics at the stake.
genuine lol

Shire Facebook news page has been working 24/7 for days. This morning all Aberdeenshire schools are closed, we have supermarkets reported as half empty, our village shops are out of bread, milk and fresh anything. And aside from a handful of major roads which have government money to plough the rest as "passable with extreme care" to "can someone try and dig me out".

Farmers have been doing heroic amounts of ploughing but can't keep the roads open by themselves. And we've just had our pavement ploughed and gritted by the council (they have a fleet of mini ploughs!) but they can only do a few.

Sat at my desk in the office. Was in here yesterday and had cleared the snow from the back door. This morning? Had to clear it again. Endless winter shit and there's no sign of it stopping...

More Catholics for the stake needed!
Don't worry - IF we get an inch of snow in London, COBRA will be convened, a state of emergency declared and the Army will turn up to clear the snow from your back door.

Nil desperandum.
A flake of snow on the roof of Broadcasting House and you'd think the BBC was the Daily Express ...

Got a rather picturesque dusting of snow here. But I do worry it'll thaw a tiny bit during the day then re-freeze into ice everywhere for tomorrow...

BartholomewRoberts · January 5

History does suggest it will be difficult, however difficult != impossible.

There is a danger to being over-reliant on history.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

TheScreamingEagles · January 5

Amorim sacked.

Big_G_NorthWales · January 5

TheScreamingEagles said:
Amorim sacked.

Inevitable

rcs1000 · January 5

bondegezou said:

Malmesbury said:

bondegezou said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:
FPT:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigelb said:
One for @rcs1000 and @Richard_Tyndall to comment on.

https://x.com/RazorOil/status/2007805825025519828
As a heavy oil expert, with 18 patents in heavy oil production technology development and optimizations, and prior experience as a senior technical SME at a supermajor U.S. oil company that Venezuela still owes money to….I wanted to correct some of the misguided takes circulating on X.

While Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, those figures do not translate directly into immediate production flow rates or rapid incremental increases, which demand substantial time and investment.
With the next budget season not arriving until Q3, U.S. producers are currently committed to ongoing projects and contractual obligations. Venezuela's oil faces uniquely difficult geology, low ultimate recovery rates, and severe infrastructure deficits. From my work alongside Venezuelans who actually operated projects there, many cited rampant corruption and logistical nightmares as reasons they left the country. At current oil prices, the massive capital required for meaningful production growth simply isn't justified—one leading expert and good friend, estimates it would take at least 3 years to double output, adding about 1 million bbl/d… so not by next week….Unlike Canada, Venezuela has zero SAGD projects ZERO !!; any greenfield heavy oil development there would require at least $30,000 per flowing barrel, meaning roughly $1 billion!! for every 30,000 bbl/d increment achievable in perhaps three years. They mainly produce cold production, which is cheaper I’ll admit!! But with slower flow rates and rely on diluents and polymers which are enhanced recoveries ( EOR) that require capital and supply of these chemicals and infrastructure… more money. Finally, people seem to overlook the U.S. Midwest (PADD 2), which already processes around 4 million bbl/d of crude, predominantly from Canada ( see pic specifically on 🇨🇦) Venezuela lacks the logistical or practical means to displace that supply..
That is all abaolsutely true. Moreover, as I have previously mentioned, many of the experts in heavy oil production in Venezuela were driven out two decades ago by Chavez and have no got new lives other (usually much more stable) places in the world. I doubt many of them will be in any hurry to go back. Heavy oil production is uniquely expensive and technically very difficult. There will be no quick fix or ramp up.
Indeed.

In a best possible world, where Venezuela immediately became a peacful, well governmed place, then there would need to be a *lot* of steps that would have to happen before a single bottle of oil was extracted from the Venezuealan tar sands. I mean: before anything, you would need to create a series of parcels, allow inspections and analysis by big oil companies, and have an auction.

There is bugger all infrastructure on the ground for heavy oil exctraction. Steam assissted gravity drainage (SAGD), requires a supply of natural gas that is used to warm the bitumen to allow it flow. Western Canada, fortunately, has lots of natural gas, that it chooses to use in oil sands production rather than for export. Venezuela, as far as I know, does not have excess natural gas available.

Realistically, and in a best of all possible worlds, you might be able to get a pilot project running in three years, and initial full scale ones in five.

Here's the other big thing: Canadian oil sands projects require oil prices of -say- $60 to be economically viable. Venezuela is not going to be as cheap, because it doens't have the infrastucture in place. It doesn't have Fort McMurray, with its ready supply of heavy oil workers available and on hand. It doesn't have a massive pipeline in place to take heacy oil to referineries that can process it in the Midwest or on the Gulf Coast.

Heck it doesn't have repair shops for the trucks that are going to be moved from the bitumen fields to processing plants.

Doing things in Venezuela is going to be much more expensive than in Canada, at least at first, because there is so much infrastructure to build, from housing for the tens of thousands of workers, to power and gas, and equipment.

If new Canadian projects require $60 oil prices to be economic, then I'd be staggered if Venezuela was less than $80.

Now, once you build the infrastucture, understand the geology better, etc, then that number will fall. Extensions to existing Canadian Oil Sands projects are typically viable at oil prices of $30-35. And there will be a similar benefit in the long-run from Venezuela.

But initially, costs will be absolutely sky high, and the willingness of major oil companies to invest tens and tens of billions of dollars that are economically marginal (or worse) is not necessarily going to be high.
I've just looked through my notes, and realised there is a major other cost that I'm missing. So... say you've extracted your heavy oil from the bitumen. The problem is that it doesn't flow: you need to mix it with dilutent to get it to a liquid enough consistency to go in ships an pipelines. Typically, you need about a half a barrel of dilutent for every barrel of heavy oil.

This is overwhelmingly natural gas liquids - it's basically incredibly light oil (known as "natural gasoline") that is produced alongside gas production. (It's oil and gas liquids where the hydrocarbon chains are extrenely short.)

Canada, thanks to its natural gas production has loads of these. The Southern United States - around the shale gas basins - has this too. But it's not cheap (WTI prices at a minimum), and getting it to Venezuela to be used as dilutent is not going to be cheap at all.

There are some interesting gas projects in Peru; and it may be there are NGLs there that could be piped to the Venezuela oil sands. But -irrespective- it is another significant issue that needs to be dealt with be the Orinoco can Flow. (Sail away, sail away, sail away...)
OK, but Venezuela was the eighth biggest exporter of oil in 2008, and they were still exporting more than Bahrain or Qatar last year, I believe. It’s not as big an industry as their reserves would suggest, but that’s still substantial. Surely it can’t be that much work to increase those numbers somewhat?
They are pumping the easy stuff.

They stopped investing in the harder (literally!) stuff to extract (the bulk of their oil reserves). It literally doesn't flow well.

That was Chavez's policy from the start. He fired the staff at the state oil company because they insisted on investing in the extraction of the hard-to-get-stuff. Money invested in oil extraction wasn't available for stealing or using to fund programs for his supporters.

Chavez spent the seed corn.

Trying to get the harder to extract stuff out will cost vast amounts of a money. It will take years. Then you have expensive oil. Which you need to ship to specialist refineries. Which need to be built/converted.
But there is some cheap oil available now? That’s oil money that Trump wants. He doesn’t really do the long-term planning.

The first thing you need to remember is that the Maduron and Chavez regimes pumped as much oil as they could. And -worse- they skipped on maintenance and long-term plans, in order to maximize near term oil flow. The ability to suddenly add 200k barrels of oil production isn't really there.

Now, on a three year view (i.e. before any of the heavy oil / SAGD projects come on stream), you can get Schlumberger and Haliburton in, and get them working on Enhanced Oil Recovery projects: artificial lift, redrilling of wells, hydraulic fracturing of existing fields to increase production, possibly things like CO2 injection. There could all make a difference.

But you have to also remember that a lot of this work will be fighting natural decline curves. And you also have to remember that a lot of the pipes, etc. will be unsafe and need replacing.

I would estimate Venezuelan oil production will fall from -say- 0.95m barrels of oil a day last year, to 0.85-0.90 this year, before showing modest improvements in 2027 and 2028. But modest improvements means getting to 1.2m boe/day. Which isn't going to make much of a difference to the world oil market.

The real opportunity is the longer-term one: can you get the guys with the super heavy oil experience to invest in new facilties. And the answer is probably yes, but it won't happen any time soon.

OldKingCole · January 5

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2008013432982049176

President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”

I thought Cuba exported rum and had a decent tourist trade.

another_richard · January 5

Nigelb said:
One metric I noticed last night was that immigration is still up alongside the economy as "the most important issue" in voter polling, with the two things well ahead of anything else.

Immigration looks quite likely to be massively lower by the end of this parliament.
How will that affect voting intentions ?

Current net immigration might be lower but the number of immigrants in the country will be higher.

Voices in the supermarket are the everyday experience.

another_richard · January 5

OldKingCole said:

williamglenn said:
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2008013432982049176

President Donald J. Trump: “Cuba now has no income. They got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil, they’re not getting any of that now. Cuba is literally ready to fall, and you have a lot of great Cuban-Americans who are going to be very happy about this.”
I thought Cuba exported rum and had a decent tourist trade.

It’s a crisis that would have sent a shiver down Ernest Hemingway’s drinking arm. Cuba’s communist government is struggling to process enough sugar to make the rum for his beloved mojitos and daiquiris.

As summer rains bring the Caribbean island’s 2025 harvest to an end, a recent analysis by Reuters suggests that Cuba’s state-run monopoly, Azcuba, is likely to produce just 165,000 metric tonnes of sugar this year. That compares with harvests of 8m in the late 1980s.

Michael Bustamante, chair of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, described the situation as “dismal”. “You have to go back to the 19th century to find numbers this low,” he said.

Cuba is in the grip of an all-encompassing economic crisis, and for the past few years has been importing sugar to feed its people, but rum producers do not have the luxury of importing. “The regulations provide that all the liquids have to come from within the country,” an industry executive said, speaking anonymously.

It is particularly worrying because the island’s rum industry has been a rare bright spot in its economy. Big international luxury brands are involved, competing in world markets with distinctive Cuban spirits.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/30/over-a-barrel-lack-sugar-cuba-rum-industry-crisis-harvest

History suggests it will be difficult to oust Starmer before the next election –politicalbetting.com

Comments