If there is something else we can rely on other than the past and what we can draw from it, right up to the previous millisecond, I would love to know what it is.
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 ...
I would have thought the Daily Express would like snow. It’s white ….
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.
Absent some sort of political stability, no one is going to invest the many billions that would require. The payback would be over decades not years, so who is going to risk that under the current set of circumstances ?
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.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
"The US military action in Venezuela breaches international law and the UK should make clear it is "unacceptable", the chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has said.
Dame Emily Thornberry is the most senior Labour MP so far to criticise Donald Trump's strikes on the country over the weekend, which saw President Nicolas Maduro and his wife captured."
In many respects Starmer is lucky with his rivals.
The most likely figures within the Cabinet - Streeting and Mahmood - are anathema to the soft-left membership.
The most likely figure on the backbenches is Rayner - recently forced to resign as deputy Leader due to scandal.
The darling of the soft-left - Burnham - isn't even an MP, and so those MPs sharpening their knives have to wait until their standard bearer is back in Parliament.
Who does that leave? Ed Miliband - proven election loser - and the commentariat's latest curiosity - Al Carns.
It's a case of resistable force meets movable object. Nothing is likely to happen, until it has to.
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
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.
Things get merged which are critically distinct. People arriving annually this year get merged with those already here - including for decades - who some don't want. Since Brexit this is almost all linked with skin colour, though other factors abound.
The problem is this. Controlling who comes in right now is now universally regarded as OK. That's border control. Returning those here unlawfully is OK too. But all this disguises the deeper agenda - about which Vance and friends are explicit - which is objection to groups already lawfully settled here.
And in this elision lies the difference between Labour's borders policy and a Fascist state.
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.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
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.
That sounds intriguing. I couldn't put a face to Owen Smith but I know the name well having an inbox of begging emails from him. Talking of unrecognisable....a new bid for the leadership or an audition for Morticia Addams?
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
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.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
It was previously reported that the US thought the Cubans would execute Maduro if he tried to flee, so the Americans probably did him a big favour by getting him out alive.
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
Does this mean that the Guyanan oil isn't as accessible as one or two excitable commentators would have us believe?
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
There's then the problem of what to do with the stuff if you ever did get such production in significant volumes. You'd need new export and import facilities, and quite a lot of money spent on whatever refineries agree to take it.
None of that is impossible, but it requires a decade of stability to make it in the least bit financially attractive to anyone, I think ?
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
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.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
It was previously reported that the US thought the Cubans would execute Maduro if he tried to flee, so the Americans probably did him a big favour by getting him out alive.
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.
Things get merged which are critically distinct. People arriving annually this year get merged with those already here - including for decades - who some don't want. Since Brexit this is almost all linked with skin colour, though other factors abound.
The problem is this. Controlling who comes in right now is now universally regarded as OK. That's border control. Returning those here unlawfully is OK too. But all this disguises the deeper agenda - about which Vance and friends are explicit - which is objection to groups already lawfully settled here.
And in this elision lies the difference between Labour's borders policy and a Fascist state.
Lawfully settled encompasses both those with nationality and long term immigrants without nationality.
A country is quite entitled to change the status of the second group.
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.”
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
There's then the problem of what to do with the stuff if you ever did get such production in significant volumes. You'd need new export and import facilities, and quite a lot of money spent on whatever refineries agree to take it.
None of that is impossible, but it requires a decade of stability to make it in the least bit financially attractive to anyone, I think ?
Didn't I read somewhere that it was similar to at least some Canadian crudes and importing it by some US companies would enable them to reduce their reliance on their Northern neighbour?
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.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
It was previously reported that the US thought the Cubans would execute Maduro if he tried to flee, so the Americans probably did him a big favour by getting him out alive.
U.S. intelligence believes that Cuba would be willing to execute Nicolás Maduro if the Venezuelan dictator attempted to escape the country. The order, transmitted from Havana, would fall to the Cuban guards who protect the leader in Caracas, according to a report by Axios in a scoop that shakes hemispheric politics. Officials in Washington consider this scenario one of the main obstacles to accelerating the fall of the Chavista regime.
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.
Things get merged which are critically distinct. People arriving annually this year get merged with those already here - including for decades - who some don't want. Since Brexit this is almost all linked with skin colour, though other factors abound.
The problem is this. Controlling who comes in right now is now universally regarded as OK. That's border control. Returning those here unlawfully is OK too. But all this disguises the deeper agenda - about which Vance and friends are explicit - which is objection to groups already lawfully settled here.
And in this elision lies the difference between Labour's borders policy and a Fascist state.
There may be people who don't want to share their country with some of us. But do I really want to share my country with them? I increasingly see other people's ignorance and hatred as a pressing threat to my family's prosperity and safety. You don't need to be an expert on 20th century history to have a sense of where this is all heading.
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
Does this mean that the Guyanan oil isn't as accessible as one or two excitable commentators would have us believe?
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
There's then the problem of what to do with the stuff if you ever did get such production in significant volumes. You'd need new export and import facilities, and quite a lot of money spent on whatever refineries agree to take it.
None of that is impossible, but it requires a decade of stability to make it in the least bit financially attractive to anyone, I think ?
Didn't I read somewhere that it was similar to at least some Canadian crudes and importing it by some US companies would enable them to reduce their reliance on their Northern neighbour?
That was the suggestion that Richard and Robert comprehensively rubbished.
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
There's then the problem of what to do with the stuff if you ever did get such production in significant volumes. You'd need new export and import facilities, and quite a lot of money spent on whatever refineries agree to take it.
None of that is impossible, but it requires a decade of stability to make it in the least bit financially attractive to anyone, I think ?
Didn't I read somewhere that it was similar to at least some Canadian crudes and importing it by some US companies would enable them to reduce their reliance on their Northern neighbour?
That was the suggestion that Richard and Robert comprehensively rubbished.
@Nigelb; thanks; can't have been on the site at the time. Lunchtime or something. Thanks again.
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
I don't see any reason why Starmer would stand down in the short term, unless personal factors apply.
He knows that his policies would take time to have an impact because of the starting position he was bequeathed, and the upside would not emerge until later.
So there's no earthly reason, having taken the pain for the first period, for him to step down before say July 2027.
On the OP, I might take a lay on an exit in 2026. The odds on BFX are still very much where they were in the autumn iirc.
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
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...
It’s chilly in North Durham, bout 1 degree, but that’s it. The heavy snow forecast for this morning has not materialised and I got out for a short run this morning
Already done a tip run and some household jobs.
I do like it when people go back to work. It’s so much quieter.
'Both China and Iran - who are allies of Venezuela - call for the release of Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.
China's foreign ministry says the US's actions are "a clear violation of international law and basic norms governing international relations" and that it is monitoring the security situation in Venezuela closely.
It also calls on Washington to "cease efforts to subvert the Venezuelan government and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation". The ministry made similar calls at the weekend.
Iran, a close ally of Venezuela, says the pair were abducted.
"It's nothing to be proud of; it's an illegal act," foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei says, according to AFP.
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
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.”
Cuba was apparently providing personal security to Maduro, because he didn’t trust Venezuelans to do it.
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
'Ten people have been found guilty of cyber-bullying Brigitte Macron, the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, by a Paris court.
The defendants were accused of spreading false claims about her gender and sexuality, as well as making "malicious remarks" about the 24-year age gap between the couple.
Maybe. But who, of any calibre, is going to really want the job? Lack of control (apparently). Pressure and a bit of a dogs breakfast of a squad from the lack of long term thinking, linked to all the managerial changes.
I mean, I'll step up from Saturday morning kids' football coaching of the price is right and I can work from home But if you're top-drawer then there are probably more appealing gigs right now.
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
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.
A company I worked for was taken over by a company with Venzuelan oil production.
I'd put $80 on the optimisitic side - for producing oil from boot polish. Political risk ratings will be huge, at least while Trump/Vance are in the White House..
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
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
I don't see any reason why Starmer would stand down in the short term, unless personal factors apply.
He knows that his policies would take time to have an impact because of the starting position he was bequeathed, and the upside would not emerge until later.
So there's no earthly reason, having taken the pain for the first period, for him to step down before say July 2027.
On the OP, I might take a lay on an exit in 2026. The odds on BFX are still very much where they were in the autumn iirc.
Indeed, May's polls are for elections last held in 2021, when the Tories and SNP won convincingly and 2022 when Labour only led the Tories by 5% in NEV. So apart from Wales, where Labour won in 2021, the net losses for Labour shouldn't be too bad and in Scotland Labour could even gain a few SNP seats.
Next year though will be much worse for Labour as in 2023 when those council seats were last up Labour got 35% NEV and led the Tories by nearly 10% in the NEV. So next year is likely to see bigger Labour losses to Reform and the Greens and even to the Tories than this year is
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
And hold flashy and glamorous New Year's Eve parties with the next generation of Corleones
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.”
Chinese Foreign Ministry: “The US move is in clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
“China calls on the US to…stop toppling the government of Venezuela and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”
I think history may be a poor guide here. I continue to think Starmer will carry on.
But I could believe he might fall on his own sword if he thought he couldn't beat Farage.
Equally I dont think he is as recalcitrant as Corbyn. If Labour party move against him, he wouldn't cling to power.
And all the kowtowing to Trump must really stick in his craw. Not sure i would have the stomach for it
Indeed, Starmer also had a successful career before politics, he was appointed QC as a top barrister and headed the DPP. Being a politician isn't his be all and end all like it is for Corbyn, he was only elected an MP at 52 while Corbyn has been an MP since he was 34 and was a councillor since he was 24. Starmer by contrast, having had the PM role for a few years and winning a general election on his CV, could go before the next general election if a Labour MP polled significantly better v Farage than him
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
Trump, and one of his supporters, are reported as making more threats about Greenland. Would we go to Denmark's defence if something did happen?
Of course not. Do you honestly believe a supplicant like Starmer (or Farage or "Clever"ly) is going to get in a shooting war with the USA and take mass casualties over Greenland? Not going to happen.
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
Maybe. But who, of any calibre, is going to really want the job? Lack of control (apparently). Pressure and a bit of a dogs breakfast of a squad from the lack of long term thinking, linked to all the managerial changes.
I mean, I'll step up from Saturday morning kids' football coaching of the price is right and I can work from home But if you're top-drawer then there are probably more appealing gigs right now.
Manchester United remain the second largest club in the world and despite their problems will still be an attractive position for many managers
They are 6th in the league, and once the 8 first team players out either injured or at AFCON become available again then with the right manager Europe is a real prospect for them
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
'Ten people have been found guilty of cyber-bullying Brigitte Macron, the wife of French President Emmanuel Macron, by a Paris court.
The defendants were accused of spreading false claims about her gender and sexuality, as well as making "malicious remarks" about the 24-year age gap between the couple.
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
Chinese Foreign Ministry: “The US move is in clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
“China calls on the US to…stop toppling the government of Venezuela and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”
What toppling ?
It’s virtually the same team.
‘ Despite all the talk of regime change so far there’s been none in Caracas.
Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president and one of Maduro’s acolytes, is now the acting president.
She’s a hard-line socialist well known for her close ties to Cuban intelligence.
Her brother remains in charge of the National Assembly. Torturer in chief, Diosdado Cabello, the interior minister, is also still in post.
Trump says he/the US will run the country. But so far he has nobody in Venezuela to do that. How that changes — if it does — will be the story going forward.
Chinese Foreign Ministry: “The US move is in clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
“China calls on the US to…stop toppling the government of Venezuela and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”
What toppling ?
It’s virtually the same team.
‘ Despite all the talk of regime change so far there’s been none in Caracas.
Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president and one of Maduro’s acolytes, is now the acting president.
She’s a hard-line socialist well known for her close ties to Cuban intelligence.
Her brother remains in charge of the National Assembly. Torturer in chief, Diosdado Cabello, the interior minister, is also still in post.
Trump says he/the US will run the country. But so far he has nobody in Venezuela to do that. How that changes — if it does — will be the story going forward.
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
I think history may be a poor guide here. I continue to think Starmer will carry on.
But I could believe he might fall on his own sword if he thought he couldn't beat Farage.
Equally I dont think he is as recalcitrant as Corbyn. If Labour party move against him, he wouldn't cling to power.
And all the kowtowing to Trump must really stick in his craw. Not sure i would have the stomach for it
He will have to go IMO if there's no turnaround in his personal ratings but I don't see it happening until the party coalesces around a replacement. My main bets driven by this pov are Streeting Next PM @ 8 and Starmer exit in 27 or 28 @ 6 and 8 respectively.
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
There's then the problem of what to do with the stuff if you ever did get such production in significant volumes. You'd need new export and import facilities, and quite a lot of money spent on whatever refineries agree to take it.
None of that is impossible, but it requires a decade of stability to make it in the least bit financially attractive to anyone, I think ?
As I understand it, China was purchasing the majority of Venezuelan oil. So to invite in US companies to boost production would be tantamount to supporting China by ensuring continuity of supply. As usual, all the stuff that is being generated makes no sense. It's a lot of big boys with big boys' toys producing (a very expensive) media distraction for the current administration.
PS: Top award to Good Morning Britain who had Michael Gove on this morning. His face was a picture when they asked him about Traitors - the programme - but they well all sniggering when the question went in,
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
And hold flashy and glamorous New Year's Eve parties with the next generation of Corleones
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
A new manager now knows they have the chance of Champions League football next season, whereas earlier on it looked like they faced a relegation battle. So perhaps they have a better chance of appointing a decent replacement - though it's the owners who need to go.
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.
A company I worked for was taken over by a company with Venzuelan oil production.
I'd put $80 on the optimisitic side - for producing oil from boot polish. Political risk ratings will be huge, at least while Trump/Vance are in the White House..
US oil stocks up 8-10% premarket.
Investors piling in despite any new Venzuelan oil being years and $billions of infrastructure down the road?
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
Chinese Foreign Ministry: “The US move is in clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
“China calls on the US to…stop toppling the government of Venezuela and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”
What toppling ?
It’s virtually the same team.
‘ Despite all the talk of regime change so far there’s been none in Caracas.
Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president and one of Maduro’s acolytes, is now the acting president.
She’s a hard-line socialist well known for her close ties to Cuban intelligence.
Her brother remains in charge of the National Assembly. Torturer in chief, Diosdado Cabello, the interior minister, is also still in post.
Trump says he/the US will run the country. But so far he has nobody in Venezuela to do that. How that changes — if it does — will be the story going forward.
Chinese Foreign Ministry: “The US move is in clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
“China calls on the US to…stop toppling the government of Venezuela and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”
What toppling ?
It’s virtually the same team.
‘ Despite all the talk of regime change so far there’s been none in Caracas.
Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president and one of Maduro’s acolytes, is now the acting president.
She’s a hard-line socialist well known for her close ties to Cuban intelligence.
Her brother remains in charge of the National Assembly. Torturer in chief, Diosdado Cabello, the interior minister, is also still in post.
Trump says he/the US will run the country. But so far he has nobody in Venezuela to do that. How that changes — if it does — will be the story going forward.
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.
Things get merged which are critically distinct. People arriving annually this year get merged with those already here - including for decades - who some don't want. Since Brexit this is almost all linked with skin colour, though other factors abound.
The problem is this. Controlling who comes in right now is now universally regarded as OK. That's border control. Returning those here unlawfully is OK too. But all this disguises the deeper agenda - about which Vance and friends are explicit - which is objection to groups already lawfully settled here.
And in this elision lies the difference between Labour's borders policy and a Fascist state.
There may be people who don't want to share their country with some of us. But do I really want to share my country with them? I increasingly see other people's ignorance and hatred as a pressing threat to my family's prosperity and safety. You don't need to be an expert on 20th century history to have a sense of where this is all heading.
Yes. That's where fascism comes from. One job of good government in a liberal democracy is to see its possible arrival and have social policies that maximise the possibility of preventing it.
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
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.
The big problem as Nigel? referenced in the article last night is that the best way to extract Venezuelan oil is a 'hot' system which needs 2 additional wells alongside each production well and the use of steam to 'melt' the oil and get it to flow. This is very expensive and also technically complicated which is why the Venezuelans have relied on 'cold' production for the last couple of decades. I would be surprised to see any significant upturn in Venezuelan production before the next US election.
There's then the problem of what to do with the stuff if you ever did get such production in significant volumes. You'd need new export and import facilities, and quite a lot of money spent on whatever refineries agree to take it.
None of that is impossible, but it requires a decade of stability to make it in the least bit financially attractive to anyone, I think ?
As I understand it, China was purchasing the majority of Venezuelan oil. So to invite in US companies to boost production would be tantamount to supporting China by ensuring continuity of supply. As usual, all the stuff that is being generated makes no sense. It's a lot of big boys with big boys' toys producing (a very expensive) media distraction for the current administration.
PS: Top award to Good Morning Britain who had Michael Gove on this morning. His face was a picture when they asked him about Traitors - the programme - but they well all sniggering when the question went in,
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
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.
A company I worked for was taken over by a company with Venzuelan oil production.
I'd put $80 on the optimisitic side - for producing oil from boot polish. Political risk ratings will be huge, at least while Trump/Vance are in the White House..
US oil stocks up 8-10% premarket.
Investors piling in despite any new Venzuelan oil being years and $billions of infrastructure down the road?
Perhaps less Venezuela specific than reaction to the notion that Trmp will dance to Big Oil's tune.
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
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.
A company I worked for was taken over by a company with Venzuelan oil production.
I'd put $80 on the optimisitic side - for producing oil from boot polish. Political risk ratings will be huge, at least while Trump/Vance are in the White House..
US oil stocks up 8-10% premarket.
Investors piling in despite any new Venzuelan oil being years and $billions of infrastructure down the road?
Perhaps less Venezuela specific than reaction to the notion that Trmp will dance to Big Oil's tune.
Or idiots who haven’t done basic research on Venezuela.
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
A new manager now knows they have the chance of Champions League football next season, whereas earlier on it looked like they faced a relegation battle. So perhaps they have a better chance of appointing a decent replacement - though it's the owners who need to go.
Fletcher is the betting fav but I've had a few quid on Glasner.
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
A new manager now knows they have the chance of Champions League football next season, whereas earlier on it looked like they faced a relegation battle. So perhaps they have a better chance of appointing a decent replacement - though it's the owners who need to go.
Fletcher is the betting fav but I've had a few quid on Glasner.
Kieran McKenna would make sense. So it won't be him.
A new manager now knows they have the chance of Champions League football next season, whereas earlier on it looked like they faced a relegation battle. So perhaps they have a better chance of appointing a decent replacement - though it's the owners who need to go.
Fletcher is the betting fav but I've had a few quid on Glasner.
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.
A company I worked for was taken over by a company with Venzuelan oil production.
I'd put $80 on the optimisitic side - for producing oil from boot polish. Political risk ratings will be huge, at least while Trump/Vance are in the White House..
US oil stocks up 8-10% premarket.
Investors piling in despite any new Venzuelan oil being years and $billions of infrastructure down the road?
Perhaps less Venezuela specific than reaction to the notion that Trmp will dance to Big Oil's tune.
Or idiots who haven’t done basic research on Venezuela.
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
Stalin killed 20 million, Tsar Nicholas II was better than Stalin or Putin or Lenin or Kruschev or Breshnev. Gorbachev and Yeltsin were OK but otherwise since the Russian Revolution many leaders have been worse.
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
Trump, and one of his supporters, are reported as making more threats about Greenland. Would we go to Denmark's defence if something did happen?
The USA taking Greenland is one of those events for which, like an unexpected Brexit or the USA becoming an adversary to the UK, or switching off the internet, there can be no plan.
It is obvious that Europe and Canada absolutely must and at the same time obviously can't defend Greenland. That can't be the basis of a plan. Today's situation where Starmer obviously must and obviously can't oppose USA action in Venezuela is one of many trial runs we shall have. Today's one is easy because to the public this is Bad People (with a respect worthy armed forces) v Bad People a long way away.
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.
A company I worked for was taken over by a company with Venzuelan oil production.
I'd put $80 on the optimisitic side - for producing oil from boot polish. Political risk ratings will be huge, at least while Trump/Vance are in the White House..
US oil stocks up 8-10% premarket.
Investors piling in despite any new Venzuelan oil being years and $billions of infrastructure down the road?
Perhaps less Venezuela specific than reaction to the notion that Trmp will dance to Big Oil's tune.
Or idiots who haven’t done basic research on Venezuela.
idiots on the stock market? Surely not.
You can't buck the markets, as Rachel Reeves probably said, so if the markets say one thing, who is geology to argue?
A new manager now knows they have the chance of Champions League football next season, whereas earlier on it looked like they faced a relegation battle. So perhaps they have a better chance of appointing a decent replacement - though it's the owners who need to go.
Fletcher is the betting fav but I've had a few quid on Glasner.
Question
Which is the better job ?
Manchester United or Chelsea Manager
Chelsea, they give you a 5 year contract and only expect you to do a year of it.
"The US military action in Venezuela breaches international law and the UK should make clear it is "unacceptable", the chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee has said.
Dame Emily Thornberry is the most senior Labour MP so far to criticise Donald Trump's strikes on the country over the weekend, which saw President Nicolas Maduro and his wife captured."
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 very poor country, with big budget and balance of payment deficits, and that's with the Venezuelan subsidy. Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
The dodgy people who backed Batista, or, mare likely, their children, will be back to rebuild the home for crookery etc that was there before Castro.
Back to the 50s. It just needs Marlon Brando to take a girl there as a bet and sing her a song.
Cuba in the 50s was more free than Cuba today.
Vassal of the US, repressive dictatorship, rampant corruption. I'm sure the people there have higher aspirations than a return to that. Let's hope they get a say in it.
The Tsarist regieme in Russia was far less corrupt, murderous etc than the Bolsheviks or Putin.
Although not really a role model for 2026.
Paddling about in Tommy Robinson's sewagey twitter, I noticed he seems to be a big fan of the return of a Pahlavi Shah in Iran. I think a return to Shahs/Kaisers/Caesars/Tsars, actual and defacto, looms large in these gimps' imaginations.
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.
I think he's oblivious to it because it isn't obvious. His policies aren't as demonic or as unpopular as Thatcher's and no one believes him to be as unscrupulous or crooked as Boris. He's not got Blair's flair or Cameron's charm but neither did Truss Brown May or Major. It's a bit of a mystery.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
Really ?
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished. https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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?”
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.
A company I worked for was taken over by a company with Venzuelan oil production.
I'd put $80 on the optimisitic side - for producing oil from boot polish. Political risk ratings will be huge, at least while Trump/Vance are in the White House..
US oil stocks up 8-10% premarket.
Investors piling in despite any new Venzuelan oil being years and $billions of infrastructure down the road?
Perhaps less Venezuela specific than reaction to the notion that Trmp will dance to Big Oil's tune.
Or idiots who haven’t done basic research on Venezuela.
idiots on the stock market? Surely not.
You can't buck the markets, as Rachel Reeves probably said, so if the markets say one thing, who is geology to argue?
You can't buck the markets in the medium to long term. On a day to day basis, there are plenty of uniformed marks to be taken for their money. It's fundamental part of the market.
Comments
The payback would be over decades not years, so who is going to risk that under the current set of circumstances ?
Final score: Cuban soldiers 0, American soldiers 32.
https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/2008061863565852729
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/2008087404725379326
This year, you will start to feel our promise of change.
£150 off the average energy bill from April.
Your public services will be improved.
Your community will see more funding - restoring local pride.
We are getting Britain back on track.
Dame Emily Thornberry is the most senior Labour MP so far to criticise Donald Trump's strikes on the country over the weekend, which saw President Nicolas Maduro and his wife captured."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyr3q3xlqzo
The most likely figures within the Cabinet - Streeting and Mahmood - are anathema to the soft-left membership.
The most likely figure on the backbenches is Rayner - recently forced to resign as deputy Leader due to scandal.
The darling of the soft-left - Burnham - isn't even an MP, and so those MPs sharpening their knives have to wait until their standard bearer is back in Parliament.
Who does that leave? Ed Miliband - proven election loser - and the commentariat's latest curiosity - Al Carns.
It's a case of resistable force meets movable object. Nothing is likely to happen, until it has to.
The problem is this. Controlling who comes in right now is now universally regarded as OK. That's border control.
Returning those here unlawfully is OK too.
But all this disguises the deeper agenda - about which Vance and friends are explicit - which is objection to groups already lawfully settled here.
And in this elision lies the difference between Labour's borders policy and a Fascist state.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/priti-patel-reacts-us-strikes-122720436.html
Absent that, it will look very sick indeed.
I'm not sure the MAGA crowd have gamed what might happen the day after Cuba falls. They don't seem very keen on taking responsibility for the stuff they break.
You'd need new export and import facilities, and quite a lot of money spent on whatever refineries agree to take it.
None of that is impossible, but it requires a decade of stability to make it in the least bit financially attractive to anyone, I think ?
A country is quite entitled to change the status of the second group.
https://www.axios.com/2025/11/24/trump-maduro-talks-meeting-venezuela-boat-strikes
A non-paywalled summary:
https://derechadiario.com.ar/us/argentina/the-united-states-believes-that-cuba-could-assassinate-nicolas-maduro-as-he-tries-to-escape-venezuela
U.S. intelligence believes that Cuba would be willing to execute Nicolás Maduro if the Venezuelan dictator attempted to escape the country. The order, transmitted from Havana, would fall to the Cuban guards who protect the leader in Caracas, according to a report by Axios in a scoop that shakes hemispheric politics. Officials in Washington consider this scenario one of the main obstacles to accelerating the fall of the Chavista regime.
The Guyana discoveries are offshore, light, high quality crude. Exxon will make a lot of money from them (and pays Guyana a 2% royalty).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Guyana
There's still a political risk, but not so much while the US is "running" Venezuela.
I think the British like a strong leader who doesn't blow in the wind and that is something he isn't. BUT with a bit of tutoring it's something he could become and he has time. It's too early to write him off
PS See also re Guyana.
He knows that his policies would take time to have an impact because of the starting position he was bequeathed, and the upside would not emerge until later.
So there's no earthly reason, having taken the pain for the first period, for him to step down before say July 2027.
On the OP, I might take a lay on an exit in 2026. The odds on BFX are still very much where they were in the autumn iirc.
Compare:
No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished.
https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/2008097089432015353
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
Already done a tip run and some household jobs.
I do like it when people go back to work. It’s so much quieter.
China's foreign ministry says the US's actions are "a clear violation of international law and basic norms governing international relations" and that it is monitoring the security situation in Venezuela closely.
It also calls on Washington to "cease efforts to subvert the Venezuelan government and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation". The ministry made similar calls at the weekend.
Iran, a close ally of Venezuela, says the pair were abducted.
"It's nothing to be proud of; it's an illegal act," foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqaei says, according to AFP.
"As the Venezuelan people have emphasised, their president must be released."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwy1x9vwn3dt
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
The defendants were accused of spreading false claims about her gender and sexuality, as well as making "malicious remarks" about the 24-year age gap between the couple.
The defendants were handed suspended prison sentences of up to eight months. The full ruling is yet to be published.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78v6z7597yo
I mean, I'll step up from Saturday morning kids' football coaching of the price is right and I can work from home
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52879-few-americans-want-to-take-over-greenland-most-oppose-covert-operations-military-action-poll
I'd put $80 on the optimisitic side - for producing oil from boot polish. Political risk ratings will be huge, at least while Trump/Vance are in the White House..
Next year though will be much worse for Labour as in 2023 when those council seats were last up Labour got 35% NEV and led the Tories by nearly 10% in the NEV. So next year is likely to see bigger Labour losses to Reform and the Greens and even to the Tories than this year is
But I could believe he might fall on his own sword if he thought he couldn't beat Farage.
Equally I dont think he is as recalcitrant as Corbyn. If Labour party move against him, he wouldn't cling to power.
And all the kowtowing to Trump must really stick in his craw. Not sure i would have the stomach for it
Chinese Foreign Ministry: “The US move is in clear violation of international law, basic norms in international relations, and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
“China calls on the US to…stop toppling the government of Venezuela and resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”
They are 6th in the league, and once the 8 first team players out either injured or at AFCON become available again then with the right manager Europe is a real prospect for them
* Just in case they also start looking at social media before allowing us into the country.
It’s virtually the same team.
‘ Despite all the talk of regime change so far there’s been none in Caracas.
Delcy Rodríguez, the former vice president and one of Maduro’s acolytes, is now the acting president.
She’s a hard-line socialist well known for her close ties to Cuban intelligence.
Her brother remains in charge of the National Assembly. Torturer in chief, Diosdado Cabello, the interior minister, is also still in post.
Trump says he/the US will run the country. But so far he has nobody in Venezuela to do that. How that changes — if it does — will be the story going forward.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.’
https://x.com/afneil/status/2008069880105337030?s=61
PS: Top award to Good Morning Britain who had Michael Gove on this morning. His face was a picture when they asked him about Traitors - the programme - but they well all sniggering when the question went in,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)
Investors piling in despite any new Venzuelan oil being years and $billions of infrastructure down the road?
https://www.imdb.com/news/ni65431100/
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Xxhy13cUOg8
The Telegraph
@Telegraph
Justice Secretary says religion has guided him to put victims at centre of his decision-making amid Crown Court backlogs
https://x.com/Telegraph/status/2007879754431525329?s=20
Which is the better job ?
Manchester United or Chelsea Manager
They could do worse than restoring a Romanov as constitutional monarch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchess_Maria_Vladimirovna_of_Russia
Only question is "is justice actually being served by removing juries"
It is obvious that Europe and Canada absolutely must and at the same time obviously can't defend Greenland. That can't be the basis of a plan. Today's situation where Starmer obviously must and obviously can't oppose USA action in Venezuela is one of many trial runs we shall have. Today's one is easy because to the public this is Bad People (with a respect worthy armed forces) v Bad People a long way away.
Indeed name any PM or President in the West who has
Davey doesnt count