Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
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?”
Debateable, if Trump was impeached they might await the outcome
I suspect he would try to buy it, put Denmark and Europe under a great amount of pressure, and as there are only 56,000 of them, bribe the locals.
I don't see anything wrong with trying to bribe the locals. Say $500k to each Greenlander. If they vote for that, then it is closer to fair play than foul imo.
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?”
Debateable, if Trump was impeached they might await the outcome
I suspect he would try to buy it, put Denmark and Europe under a great amount of pressure, and as there are only 56,000 of them, bribe the locals.
I don't see anything wrong with trying to bribe the locals. Say $500k to each Greenlander. If they vote for that, then it is closer to fair play than foul imo.
I'd be wanting cash up front. Probably in Euros* or Swiss Francs.
Trump will probably offer TrumpCoin....
*Big Euro notes are easier on the back. Suitcases of cash are heavy.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
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.
It's pretty simple - we need to poison pill it like we should have done in Ukraine, and like we do the Falklands. Stick a platoon of squaddies on it along with the Princess Royal.
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?”
Debateable, if Trump was impeached they might await the outcome
I suspect he would try to buy it, put Denmark and Europe under a great amount of pressure, and as there are only 56,000 of them, bribe the locals.
Yes, if he offered them billions and billions even the Danes and Greenlanders might consider it. Though whether US taxpayers would be too happy with say 200 billion of their hard earnt dollars paid in tax being paid to buy a vast arctic wasteland of less than 100,000 people and making the latter all millionaires is another matter
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.
As per the article I linked last week, by a Venezuelan working in Canadian oil, there are hundreds like him.
"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."
Oh Sandpit surely you can see Venezuela is just a move in Trump's game of 12D chess which ulimately leaves the Ukrainian king checkmated by the Russians. A quid pro-quo between Trump and Putin.
Being £0.07p ahead of the bookies over the last two month period - a record triumph for me - puts me in mind of an article we may not have noted. In the Christmas Economist special articles (always a treat) is one, at p17 on the great subject of how bookies try to shut out successful gamblers and how gamblers try to get around it. Link below for those for whom it may work.
For me this is of academic interest only - see above - though since I was young the idea of making a living out of betting has always seemed to me the ideal career.
The best ever Economist Christmas special article was a few years ago when they sent someone to be at a motorway service station for 48 hours and see what it was like. (Answer: it is the still centre of a turning world.)
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.
As per the article I linked last week, by a Venezuelan working in Canadian oil, there are hundreds like him.
Do the deal with Canada !
The big problem is getting anyone to invest in Venezuela - they have repeatedly expropriated stuff.
To the point that it will require a deal such as Shell had in Nigeria in the 90s - Shell and the Nigerian government each put cash (billions) in escrow in Switzerland. To be released to whichever party *didn't* break the contract. As adjudicated by some Swiss lawyers. Think a modern "exchange of hostages".
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
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.
It's pretty simple - we need to poison pill it like we should have done in Ukraine, and like we do the Falklands. Stick a platoon of squaddies on it along with the Princess Royal.
Yep. Put a company each from a dozen or so different European countries - both the EU and non EU, along with Canada - into Nuuk as a 'peace keeping and secruity force'. See if Trump really is willing to go to war with his former allies.
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?
"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."
Oh Sandpit surely you can see Venezuela is just a move in Trump's game of 12D chess which ulimately leaves the Ukrainian king checkmated by the Russians. A quid pro-quo between Trump and Putin.
Really? Then why have Russia, China and Iran all condemned Trump's actions with Russia and China set to vote against it at the UN Security Council this week? Zelensky has not opposed Trump's actions though and even suggested he could do to Putin what he did to Maduro
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
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.
I think we're all aware of Soviet control over Eastern Europe (except Greece) between 1945 and 1990, but it seems that, over the centuries, Russian and/or Soviet troops have been, ah, "involved" in some way in every "western" European country, except for Iceland, Portugal, and the Republic of Ireland. According to my reading:
Finland (Russian Empire 1809-1918) Norway's Finnmark region (occupation 1944-1945, also commercial activity and settlement in Svalbard to this day, though no military involvement) Denmark's Bornholm island (occupation 1945-1946) Sweden's eastern seaboard (occupation 1808-1809, naval and marine attacks in 1719-21) Germany's western states (some degree of occupation 1813-1814, Suvorov's transit 1800, East Germany of course was Soviet satellite 1945-1989) Netherlands (occupation 1799 (Walcheren), 1813 (entire country)) Belgium (occupation 1814) Luxembourg (probable occupation 1814, but not explicitly on maps I've seen!) UK's Jersey/Guernsey (troops temporarily stationed 1799-1800) France's northeastern regions (occupation 1814 (Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!) and 1815-1818, some participation WW1 1915-1917) Switzerland (occupation 1799-1800 - General Suvorov crossed the Alps!) Liechtenstein (Suvorov's transit back home 1800) Austria (Suvorov's transit 1799, occupation of northeast and Vienna 1945-1955) Italy northern and southern regions (occupation 1799, including Vatican, Suvorov up north (eg. Milan, Turin), Admiral Ushakov in the south (eg. Rome, Naples)) Spain (some participation Civil War 1936-1939) Greece various islands, and part of mainland (eg. occupation Ionians 1800-1807, Salonika WW1 1916-1917)
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Unfortunately China and Russia have already made the decision for the rest of us.
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?
Most of the Guyanan oil is offshore and is much higher quality than the Venezuelan stuff which is primarily onshore in the Orinoco Belt. Also Guyana has a well established oil industry with a lot of international investment already in place.
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?”
Debateable, if Trump was impeached they might await the outcome
I suspect he would try to buy it, put Denmark and Europe under a great amount of pressure, and as there are only 56,000 of them, bribe the locals.
I don't see anything wrong with trying to bribe the locals. Say $500k to each Greenlander. If they vote for that, then it is closer to fair play than foul imo.
need to be a lot more than 500K to be under the rule of those feckers
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Unfortunately China and Russia have already made the decision for the rest of us.
Russia backed by Trump yes. China are generally predictable and closer to following rules than the US especially Trump's US. They are a threat but play within a set of rules.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Unfortunately China and Russia have already made the decision for the rest of us.
"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."
Oh Sandpit surely you can see Venezuela is just a move in Trump's game of 12D chess which ulimately leaves the Ukrainian king checkmated by the Russians. A quid pro-quo between Trump and Putin.
Really? Then why have Russia, China and Iran all condemned Trump's actions with Russia and China set to vote against it at the UN Security Council this week? Zelensky has not opposed Trump's actions though and even suggested he could do to Putin what he did to Maduro
Not everything that is said is what they are thinking! Some people, especially politicians and diplomats, actually have filters.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Starmer doesn't care about Venezuela either although he doesn't say so out loud. But he does care very strongly about Ukraine and he wants to do nothing to encourage Trump to switch off intelligence reports to Ukraine, to forbid weapons transfers to that country, and lift sanctions on Russia. The same motivation for EU leaders and this is also why Zelenskyy turns up at Mar a Lago to discuss meaningless US peace plans.
But you're right. There's a massive cost to this softly-softly approach when it comes to the principle.
Starmer is in a very difficult spot but not sure saying i believe in international law on repeat to every question is the optimal response. As it immediately opens up as a lawyer do you think the US broke it and if they did what should be done about. It makes him sound super weak just repeating this phrase of belief in 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."
Oh Sandpit surely you can see Venezuela is just a move in Trump's game of 12D chess which ulimately leaves the Ukrainian king checkmated by the Russians. A quid pro-quo between Trump and Putin.
Really? Then why have Russia, China and Iran all condemned Trump's actions with Russia and China set to vote against it at the UN Security Council this week? Zelensky has not opposed Trump's actions though and even suggested he could do to Putin what he did to Maduro
Not everything that is said is what they are thinking! Some people, especially politicians and diplomats, actually have filters.
Nonetheless if China and Russia both vote against the US action in Venezuela in a UN Security Council vote this week, the UK and France abstain and Ukraine votes in favour of it on the UN General Assembly vote, which is not impossible, the aftermath in terms of Trump's thinking on Ukraine would be interesting
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.
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.
It's pretty simple - we need to poison pill it like we should have done in Ukraine, and like we do the Falklands. Stick a platoon of squaddies on it along with the Princess Royal.
"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."
Oh Sandpit surely you can see Venezuela is just a move in Trump's game of 12D chess which ulimately leaves the Ukrainian king checkmated by the Russians. A quid pro-quo between Trump and Putin.
Really? Then why have Russia, China and Iran all condemned Trump's actions with Russia and China set to vote against it at the UN Security Council this week? Zelensky has not opposed Trump's actions though and even suggested he could do to Putin what he did to Maduro
Not everything that is said is what they are thinking! Some people, especially politicians and diplomats, actually have filters.
Nonetheless if China and Russia both vote against the US action in Venezuela in a UN Security Council vote this week, the UK and France abstain and Ukraine votes in favour of it on the UN General Assembly vote, which is not impossible, the aftermath in terms of Trump's thinking on Ukraine would be interesting
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Yes. I care about this very much. But at the moment there is nothing we can do about it in the short term. I suspect the UK/EU/EuroCanadaNATO approach for now is exactly as we see: temporise, propitiate, wait and see. In the long term, if the USA sticks its course, the UK's choice is stark: Either we are a part of an emerging Superpower Sphere of Influence (otherwise called the EU+Nuclear weapons+ Euroarmy) or we are the subject of one.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Those numbers imply that the "rules based international order" refers to the post-Cold War unipolar moment. If you want to prolong that or go back to it, then the best thing to do would be to double down on the special relationship and get fully behind Donald Trump.
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?
Most of the Guyanan oil is offshore and is much higher quality than the Venezuelan stuff which is primarily onshore in the Orinoco Belt. Also Guyana has a well established oil industry with a lot of international investment already in place.
I thought there was a recent discovery close to the Venezuelan border?
"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."
Oh Sandpit surely you can see Venezuela is just a move in Trump's game of 12D chess which ulimately leaves the Ukrainian king checkmated by the Russians. A quid pro-quo between Trump and Putin.
Really? Then why have Russia, China and Iran all condemned Trump's actions with Russia and China set to vote against it at the UN Security Council this week? Zelensky has not opposed Trump's actions though and even suggested he could do to Putin what he did to Maduro
Not everything that is said is what they are thinking! Some people, especially politicians and diplomats, actually have filters.
Nonetheless if China and Russia both vote against the US action in Venezuela in a UN Security Council vote this week, the UK and France abstain and Ukraine votes in favour of it on the UN General Assembly vote, which is not impossible, the aftermath in terms of Trump's thinking on Ukraine would be interesting
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.
Yes god knows what's going on with that mindset and the yearning for strongman absolute monarchs but it does seem to be a thing.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Those numbers imply that the "rules based international order" refers to the post-Cold War unipolar moment. If you want to prolong that or go back to it, then the best thing to do would be to double down on the special relationship and get fully behind Donald Trump.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Those numbers imply that the "rules based international order" refers to the post-Cold War unipolar moment. If you want to prolong that or go back to it, then the best thing to do would be to double down on the special relationship and get fully behind Donald Trump.
Trump sees Europe as fair game for Russia, certainly Eastern Europe. No idea where you get the idea he would create stability here if only we kiss his arse.
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.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Yes. I care about this very much. But at the moment there is nothing we can do about it in the short term. I suspect the UK/EU/EuroCanadaNATO approach for now is exactly as we see: temporise, propitiate, wait and see. In the long term, if the USA sticks its course, the UK's choice is stark: Either we are a part of an emerging Superpower Sphere of Influence (otherwise called the EU+Nuclear weapons+ Euroarmy) or we are the subject of one.
Where does that leave Canada. Good question.
Canada won't get a choice, unfortunately 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.
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.
Yes god knows what's going on with that mindset and the yearning for strongman absolute monarchs but it does seem to be a thing.
Why would Tommy Lots of Names want a regressive move to the past in some things, combined with a revolutionary attitude to others?
Perhaps because that resembles a certain political movement of the 1920s-1940s?
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.
As every manager who gets sacked seems to get paid off (usually seems to be their remaining salary), I'm up for the job. I can't commit to travelling to training every day, but I'll do my best...
I had a FOAF who applied for the Norwich City job every time it was free with the same letter. It was obviously a joke, and contained lines similar to "My Dad works near the training ground so he can drop me off each day..." I like to think someone found it amusing...
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?”
Debateable, if Trump was impeached they might await the outcome
I suspect he would try to buy it, put Denmark and Europe under a great amount of pressure, and as there are only 56,000 of them, bribe the locals.
I don't see anything wrong with trying to bribe the locals. Say $500k to each Greenlander. If they vote for that, then it is closer to fair play than foul imo.
need to be a lot more than 500K to be under the rule of those feckers
And in gold delivered before any paper is signed, no bouncy Trump cheques.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Those numbers imply that the "rules based international order" refers to the post-Cold War unipolar moment. If you want to prolong that or go back to it, then the best thing to do would be to double down on the special relationship and get fully behind Donald Trump.
"Please! I like America!"
Gary Johnston: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong-il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes - assholes who just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is that sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate.
Spottswoode: Yes, Gary, yes.
Gary Johnston: And it takes a pussy to show 'em that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves, because pussies are only an inch-and-a-half away from assholes. I don't know much in this crazy, crazy world, but I do know that if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we are going to have our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit.
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?
Most of the Guyanan oil is offshore and is much higher quality than the Venezuelan stuff which is primarily onshore in the Orinoco Belt. Also Guyana has a well established oil industry with a lot of international investment already in place.
I thought there was a recent discovery close to the Venezuelan border?
Venezuela claims most of the offshore area of Guyana as well as huge swathes of the country itself. But the main Guyanan oil fields are offshore and it is there that the biggest dispute lies. Venezuela has been sending naval vessels into the Guyanan oil fields telling the operators they are acting illegally.
"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."
Oh Sandpit surely you can see Venezuela is just a move in Trump's game of 12D chess which ulimately leaves the Ukrainian king checkmated by the Russians. A quid pro-quo between Trump and Putin.
Really? Then why have Russia, China and Iran all condemned Trump's actions with Russia and China set to vote against it at the UN Security Council this week? Zelensky has not opposed Trump's actions though and even suggested he could do to Putin what he did to Maduro
Not everything that is said is what they are thinking! Some people, especially politicians and diplomats, actually have filters.
Nonetheless if China and Russia both vote against the US action in Venezuela in a UN Security Council vote this week, the UK and France abstain and Ukraine votes in favour of it on the UN General Assembly vote, which is not impossible, the aftermath in terms of Trump's thinking on Ukraine would be interesting
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Yes. I care about this very much. But at the moment there is nothing we can do about it in the short term. I suspect the UK/EU/EuroCanadaNATO approach for now is exactly as we see: temporise, propitiate, wait and see. In the long term, if the USA sticks its course, the UK's choice is stark: Either we are a part of an emerging Superpower Sphere of Influence (otherwise called the EU+Nuclear weapons+ Euroarmy) or we are the subject of one.
Where does that leave Canada. Good question.
Canada won't get a choice, unfortunately for them.
42% of US voters oppose Canada becoming a part of the US, more than the 36% in favour.
61% of Harris voters in 2024 oppose Canada becoming a part of the US (even though that would have given the Democrats extra EC votes and seats in Congress) and even only 51% of Trump voters want Canada to become part of the USA
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Those numbers imply that the "rules based international order" refers to the post-Cold War unipolar moment. If you want to prolong that or go back to it, then the best thing to do would be to double down on the special relationship and get fully behind Donald Trump.
Trump sees Europe as fair game for Russia, certainly Eastern Europe. No idea where you get the idea he would create stability here if only we kiss his arse.
To put it another way, the "rules based international order" is not an alternative to "might is right" but a subset of it and depends on the US having overwhelming power. The world is a safer place thanks to Trump's actions in Venezuela and it's foolish to say otherwise.
Is Tiny Tom requesting the overthrow of our elected (like 'em, or loathe 'em) government by a hostile foreign power? Er, isn't that treason?
You'll have to argue with the lawyers, who successfully argued (and got judgements) in the 1980s, that advocating* the murder of the UK government is AOK.
Guess who was backing that case.
*as opposed to actually doing it yourself.
Isn't this somewhat different?
Some of Ewok Powell's chums have previously called for the assassination of Starmer, which I am assuming is fine. Asking for foreign boots on British soil is several notches up from that.
As I think was said, under Blair, that Treason has become "un-prosecutable in modern law"
I have long advocated an update on the treason laws, to make them prosecutable. Which seems to (make) some lawyers unhappy, when I've spoken to them. They speak of loyalty to a state being an outdated concept.
That says so much about the legal profession and how it operates in Britain today.
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.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
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.
The party is probably in the mood for someone with a bit more charisma, who is willing to criticise Trump, and can make them feel good again about being Labour.
I don't think Streeting ticks those boxes. My total guess is Angela Rayner with an Ed Miliband kicker as chancellor.
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.
It's pretty simple - we need to poison pill it like we should have done in Ukraine, and like we do the Falklands. Stick a platoon of squaddies on it along with the Princess Royal.
(Not particularly innovative thoughts.)
There are fairly obvious possibilities, but I don't see Europe as a whole, or in parts, being coherent enough to do very much. It's to do with countering Trump and managing whatever comes next - whether small-f fascist USA, isolationist USA which has wrecked its own economy, USA-in-recovery-with-a-hangover, or something else - and creating a longer-term pivot away from dependency.
There seems to be a similar delusion as there was about "Superpower Russia", about aspects of "World Dominating USA".
Looking at the numbers last night, I'd say the USN is fairly comprehensively f*cked in the longer term - aside from the carrier / helicopter carrier slow drumbeat, land assault and *maybe* submarines, which are mainly about global power projection rather than anything closer to home. In the longer term their problems are worse than we have in Europe, in that every aspect of their procurement chain is off the rails from congress to shipyard, and it is all startlingly inefficient.
On timings, the key period for Europe is 5-10 years, which - admittedly ( ) - we know.
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Given Trump would almost certainly be impeached by Congress at the time given over half even of Republicans oppose invading Greenland let alone virtually all Democrats, if Trump was convicted a new President may not be so amendable, especially if they would likely be impeached too if they tried to follow suit
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.
The party is probably in the mood for someone with a bit more charisma, who is willing to criticise Trump, and can make them feel good again about being Labour.
I don't think Streeting ticks those boxes. My total guess is Angela Rayner with an Ed Miliband kicker as chancellor.
Would the required over 80 Labour MPs nominate Rayner to challenge Starmer at the moment when she doesn't poll any better than he does with swing voters, especially once you add on 2015 loser Red Ed? I doubt it.
Burnham maybe but he is not an MP. Starmer won't resign as Labour leader until near the GE if he does and on the basis Streeting is his heir apparent
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.
The party is probably in the mood for someone with a bit more charisma, who is willing to criticise Trump, and can make them feel good again about being Labour.
I don't think Streeting ticks those boxes. My total guess is Angela Rayner with an Ed Miliband kicker as chancellor.
Would the required over 80 Labour MPs nominate Rayner to challenge Starmer at the moment when she doesn't poll any better than he does with swing voters, especially once you add on 2015 loser Red Ed? I doubt it.
Burnham maybe but he is not an MP. Starmer won't resign as Labour leader until near the GE if he does and on the basis Streeting is his heir apparent
Why Streeting when he loses to the Popular Front of Judea at the next GE?
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Given Trump would almost certainly be impeached by Congress at the time given over half even of Republicans oppose invading Greenland let alone virtually all Democrats, if Trump was convicted a new President may not be so amendable, especially if they would likely be impeached too if they tried to follow suit
How often have we heard stuff like this? The Republicans don't give two shits about the principle, and invading Greenland is rapidly becoming the new normal.
Just look at the evidenve presented by Jack Smith - if that isn't enough to depose Trump, nothing 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.”
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.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
If you don’t like my Trump-supporter source, I also have others.
“32 Cubans killed during US attack on Venezuela, Cuban government says “In our opening post, we mentioned that Cuba said that 32 of its citizens had been killed in the US operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Venezuela and bring them to America. We can bring you a bit more information about this now.
“The Cuban government said the 32 people who were killed were members of the Cuban armed forces and intelligence agencies, with two days of national mourning declared.
“A government statement read:
“Our compatriots fulfilled their duty with dignity and heroism and fell, after fierce resistance, in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of bombings on the facilities. “Cuba, a strong ally of Venezuela, has provided some security for Maduro since he came to power. It was not clear how many Cubans were guarding the Venezuelan president when they died and how many may were killed elsewhere.”
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?”
Debateable, if Trump was impeached they might await the outcome
I suspect he would try to buy it, put Denmark and Europe under a great amount of pressure, and as there are only 56,000 of them, bribe the locals.
I don't see anything wrong with trying to bribe the locals. Say $500k to each Greenlander. If they vote for that, then it is closer to fair play than foul imo.
need to be a lot more than 500K to be under the rule of those feckers
That would just about cover the extra medical bills.
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Given Trump would almost certainly be impeached by Congress at the time given over half even of Republicans oppose invading Greenland let alone virtually all Democrats, if Trump was convicted a new President may not be so amendable, especially if they would likely be impeached too if they tried to follow suit
A lot of IFs in there, whereas just following orders that the AG tells you are legal... much lower risk. And if Trump is kicked out and a sane POTUS installed are you likely to be prosecuted for being ordered in to Greenland? 'Follow orders' has to be the easy option.
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Given Trump would almost certainly be impeached by Congress at the time given over half even of Republicans oppose invading Greenland let alone virtually all Democrats, if Trump was convicted a new President may not be so amendable, especially if they would likely be impeached too if they tried to follow suit
Not by this Congress, and the hard part would be the supermajority needed for conviction in the Senate. Then AIUI all they can do is remove from power, and they would need take on Vance and several others too. The prospect of a "President as Speaker of Congress" would be interesting.
I can see the process of impeachment being a drag, also with Congress trying to reclaim their "power of the purse" which Trump has pickpocketed. But that is currently the more likely outcome of the midterms, or MAYBE if a few republicans start opposing Trump or do early resignations as MTG has done effective today.
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.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
I wasn’t reading Phil Starbuck, never heard of him. It was the govt of Cuba who announced it and it has been picked up by OSINT who I do read.
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Given Trump would almost certainly be impeached by Congress at the time given over half even of Republicans oppose invading Greenland let alone virtually all Democrats, if Trump was convicted a new President may not be so amendable, especially if they would likely be impeached too if they tried to follow suit
Not by this Congress, and the hard part would be the supermajority needed for conviction in the Senate. Then AIUI all they can do is remove from power, and they would need take on Vance and several others too. The prospect of a "President as Speaker of Congress" would be interesting.
I can see the process of impeachment being a drag, also with Congress trying to reclaim their "power of the purse" which Trump has pickpocketed. But that is currently the more likely outcome of the midterms, or MAYBE if a few republicans start opposing Trump or do early resignations as MTG has done effective today.
It only needs a simple majority of the House of Reps to vote for impeachment and it is underway, so even this Congress could vote to impeach with just a handful of Republicans defecting, a Democrat controlled Congress after the midterms would definitely vote to impeach Trump again.
Given 57% of Republican voters oppose taking Greenland by military force, a Senate 2/3 majority to convict would be very possible in such circumstances as well
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Given Trump would almost certainly be impeached by Congress at the time given over half even of Republicans oppose invading Greenland let alone virtually all Democrats, if Trump was convicted a new President may not be so amendable, especially if they would likely be impeached too if they tried to follow suit
How often have we heard stuff like this? The Republicans don't give two shits about the principle, and invading Greenland is rapidly becoming the new normal.
Just look at the evidenve presented by Jack Smith - if that isn't enough to depose Trump, nothing is.
Nearly 60% even of Republican voters oppose invading Greenland
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.
The party is probably in the mood for someone with a bit more charisma, who is willing to criticise Trump, and can make them feel good again about being Labour.
I don't think Streeting ticks those boxes. My total guess is Angela Rayner with an Ed Miliband kicker as chancellor.
Would the required over 80 Labour MPs nominate Rayner to challenge Starmer at the moment when she doesn't poll any better than he does with swing voters, especially once you add on 2015 loser Red Ed? I doubt it.
Burnham maybe but he is not an MP. Starmer won't resign as Labour leader until near the GE if he does and on the basis Streeting is his heir apparent
Why Streeting when he loses to the Popular Front of Judea at the next GE?
Actually he likely holds his seat now with Your Party and the Greens dividing the far left anti Israel vote and he would get some Tory and LD tactical votes against a Corbynite as well
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.
The past is one thing we can use.
Other things we can use include:
Logic Intuition Speculation Predictions Etc
Plenty of things we can use when thinking about the future, not just the past. The future is informed by the past, but not a mirror of it. Some of those are related to each other.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
Indeed, even the criminal law is no more than theoretical unless you have the police in the first place to arrest criminals and enforce it
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
Only if the government demonstrates a willingness to use it - and no government has even after a chemical weapons attack on a British city. It's a waste of money otherwise. We won't even put a deterrent onto Greenland in defence of a close ally.
The chest-thumping over 3% or 5% or whatever arbitrary percentage is just virtue-signalling. I'd rather we just give it directly to Ukraine.
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.
The party is probably in the mood for someone with a bit more charisma, who is willing to criticise Trump, and can make them feel good again about being Labour.
I don't think Streeting ticks those boxes. My total guess is Angela Rayner with an Ed Miliband kicker as chancellor.
Would the required over 80 Labour MPs nominate Rayner to challenge Starmer at the moment when she doesn't poll any better than he does with swing voters, especially once you add on 2015 loser Red Ed? I doubt it.
Burnham maybe but he is not an MP. Starmer won't resign as Labour leader until near the GE if he does and on the basis Streeting is his heir apparent
Why Streeting when he loses to the Popular Front of Judea at the next GE?
Actually he likely holds his seat now with Your Party and the Greens dividing the far left anti Israel vote and he would get some Tory and LD tactical votes against a Corbynite as well
With the Fruit & Nuts decision to not have a candidate slate, but back selected “independents”, they won’t even have name recognition.
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Given Trump would almost certainly be impeached by Congress at the time given over half even of Republicans oppose invading Greenland let alone virtually all Democrats, if Trump was convicted a new President may not be so amendable, especially if they would likely be impeached too if they tried to follow suit
A lot of IFs in there, whereas just following orders that the AG tells you are legal... much lower risk. And if Trump is kicked out and a sane POTUS installed are you likely to be prosecuted for being ordered in to Greenland? 'Follow orders' has to be the easy option.
For ordinary soldiers, I think just carrying out orders to engage in a normal war of occupation/annexation would be fine, legally, as long as they refrained from torture, shooting prisoners, looting etc.
"Waging aggressive war" is the indictment that Trump might face later but it's pretty much aimed at those in charge.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
Only if the government demonstrates a willingness to use it - and no government has even after a chemical weapons attack on a British city. It's a waste of money otherwise. We won't even put a deterrent onto Greenland in defence of a close ally.
The chest-thumping over 3% or 5% or whatever arbitrary percentage is just virtue-signalling. I'd rather we just give it directly to Ukraine.
Spending money on ammunition production and sending that ammunition to Ukraine both funds our defence and aids Ukraine. Two birds, one stone, and not remotely a waste of money.
"Waging aggressive war" is the indictment that Trump might face later but it's pretty much aimed at those in charge.
Cynical thought for the day
Is one reason that the Mad King is so happy to talk about how often his doctors are testing his mental decline (other than he doesn't know what is happening) is that it gives him a potential get out of jail free card?
"The President is not mentally fit to stand trial"...
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?”
100%. Being involved would be a massive career boost and you have to consider what would be involved in refusing the order. End of career and possible legal jeopardy with the UCMJ where the defense will be provided by a JAG who will have their own career management considerations.
Given Trump would almost certainly be impeached by Congress at the time given over half even of Republicans oppose invading Greenland let alone virtually all Democrats, if Trump was convicted a new President may not be so amendable, especially if they would likely be impeached too if they tried to follow suit
A lot of IFs in there, whereas just following orders that the AG tells you are legal... much lower risk. And if Trump is kicked out and a sane POTUS installed are you likely to be prosecuted for being ordered in to Greenland? 'Follow orders' has to be the easy option.
For ordinary soldiers, I think just carrying out orders to engage in a normal war of occupation/annexation would be fine, legally, as long as they refrained from torture, shooting prisoners, looting etc.
"Waging aggressive war" is the indictment that Trump might face later but it's pretty much aimed at those in charge.
Every army of occupation shoots prisoners, loots and tortures. Those are the activities of a 'normal occupation'.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
Only if the government demonstrates a willingness to use it - and no government has even after a chemical weapons attack on a British city. It's a waste of money otherwise. We won't even put a deterrent onto Greenland in defence of a close ally.
The chest-thumping over 3% or 5% or whatever arbitrary percentage is just virtue-signalling. I'd rather we just give it directly to Ukraine.
Spending money on ammunition production and sending that ammunition to Ukraine both funds our defence and aids Ukraine. Two birds, one stone, and not remotely a waste of money.
Yep, produce ammunition for existing systems, and if there’s capacity spare licence Ukranian designs of drones, missiles, and anything else for which they need external production lines.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
Only if the government demonstrates a willingness to use it - and no government has even after a chemical weapons attack on a British city. It's a waste of money otherwise. We won't even put a deterrent onto Greenland in defence of a close ally.
The chest-thumping over 3% or 5% or whatever arbitrary percentage is just virtue-signalling. I'd rather we just give it directly to Ukraine.
Spending money on ammunition production and sending that ammunition to Ukraine both funds our defence and aids Ukraine. Two birds, one stone, and not remotely a waste of money.
How many divisions do you think we should be able to field, and for how long? How big should our stockpile and production be? Where, when and why would we end up in such a battle? What about troops and artillery pieces? Do you really think 3% is enough is enough cash to prepare us for such a scenario?
Honestly it's a bit pathetic. The idea that 3% rather than 2.5% solves our security issues is just facile, juvenile policy making. There is only one thing that comes to mind that we need to fix urgently - and that's to spend billions on a facility to replace Kings Bay. That might well push us over 3% for a decade or so - but the point is obtain the capability, not some percentage.
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
Man U - deeper tradition and history.
As an aside, can someone tell me why Chelsea are looking to appoint a manager who has not won anything?
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
The idea that Trump and his law of the jungle is somehow good for America is mad. The UK benefited from the post War World order, as did Europe generally, in large part because it was good for America too. America had an interest in mostly maintaining the rules because it benefited from them.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
It is increasingly looking like the post-war generation are the aberration in expectations and realities. 2026 feels like a more modern version of 1906, than anything like the post-war order....
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.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
I wasn’t reading Phil Starbuck, never heard of him. It was the govt of Cuba who announced it and it has been picked up by OSINT who I do read.
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?
Most of the Guyanan oil is offshore and is much higher quality than the Venezuelan stuff which is primarily onshore in the Orinoco Belt. Also Guyana has a well established oil industry with a lot of international investment already in place.
I thought there was a recent discovery close to the Venezuelan border?
Venezuela claims most of the offshore area of Guyana as well as huge swathes of the country itself. But the main Guyanan oil fields are offshore and it is there that the biggest dispute lies. Venezuela has been sending naval vessels into the Guyanan oil fields telling the operators they are acting illegally.
Having a new government in Caracas that takes a more... measured... approach to the dispute could well get the offshore Guyana fields getting up to full production more quickly. They're currently at 600k boe/day, and could well be north of 1m by the end of next year. And - unlike Venezuela's oil - this is good quality, low suphur, stuff.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
What a f*cking stupid post that is.
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
It is increasingly looking like the post-war generation are the aberration in expectations and realities. 2026 feels like a more modern version of 1906, than anything like the post-war order....
Yes maybe, but it seems feeble to let that golden period disappear without trying to keep the gains made by those who fought for peace in WW2.
Listening to the EU commission press conference they simply cannot criticise Trump providing evasive and rambling responses, even over Greenland
Kemi, Cleverley and Honest Bob's unoquivocal condemnation (despite not being in Government yet) has been impressive by contrast.
"A lot of noise from people who couldn’t find Venezuela on a map" seems to me to be a robust and effective response from Kemi on where Venezuela stands in respect to invasions from other countries
I'm probably missing the point but Venezuela is one of the easier countries to find on a map.
Trump found Venezuela on a map, or at least his minions did.
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
Why should we care:
Rules based international order = Global prosperity Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Rules based international order = utopian idealism
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
It's not an either/or situation. We need both a rules based international order and high defence spending. The big mistake that was made after 1989 was the idea of a 'peace dividend' from the end of the Cold War. It was obvious then that, even without Russia turning its back on the West, the world was going to become a far more dangerous place because the balance of power was gone and the need for each side to keep their satellites in check was gone with it.
Without a rules based international order we are all screwed. The new reality is we need high defence spending (a lot more than 3% of GDP) and we also need clever defence spending. Ukraine has shown that might on paper does not translate into success on the battlefield. We ned to learn the lessons of the new styles of warfare. But we also need to try and maintain the western ideal of a rules system based on national sovereignty to underpin the whole thing.
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.
The only practical scenario in which a US military takeover of Greenland is subsequently followed by their withdrawal is one where the opposition in the US is strong enough to either replace the current US administration, or to force the current administration to withdraw.
It helps the internal US opposition if leaders of democratic countries are clear about the difference between right and wrong. Shame about Starmer then. Dead Ringers had him dead right. He cannot see anything without wanting to equivocate.
I imagine even the Blairites he so wishes he could emulate are tearing their hair out right now. Equivocation is not triangulation.
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?
Most of the Guyanan oil is offshore and is much higher quality than the Venezuelan stuff which is primarily onshore in the Orinoco Belt. Also Guyana has a well established oil industry with a lot of international investment already in place.
I thought there was a recent discovery close to the Venezuelan border?
Venezuela claims most of the offshore area of Guyana as well as huge swathes of the country itself. But the main Guyanan oil fields are offshore and it is there that the biggest dispute lies. Venezuela has been sending naval vessels into the Guyanan oil fields telling the operators they are acting illegally.
Having a new government in Caracas that takes a more... measured... approach to the dispute could well get the offshore Guyana fields getting up to full production more quickly. They're currently at 600k boe/day, and could well be north of 1m by the end of next year. And - unlike Venezuela's oil - this is good quality, low suphur, stuff.
I turned down a job last year as an Ops Geologist in Surinam (rubbish pay and poor security arrangments). That whole crescent of offshore North East South America has a huge amount of potential for very large production increases.
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
Man U - deeper tradition and history.
As an aside, can someone tell me why Chelsea are looking to appoint a manager who has not won anything?
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.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
I wasn’t reading Phil Starbuck, never heard of him. It was the govt of Cuba who announced it and it has been picked up by OSINT who I do read.
The idea that Trump and his law of the jungle is somehow good for America is mad. The UK benefited from the post War World order, as did Europe generally, in large part because it was good for America too. America had an interest in mostly maintaining the rules because it benefited from them.
I think a lot of what drives the behaviour of the current US administration, a reversion to US exceptionalism and isolationism, is the slowly dawning realisation that no matter what they do China will surpass them in almost all ways this century, and soon in many areas. So the US is acting up, one last go at exerting their fading power before it becomes ineffective. They actually need more alliances, and multilateralism, to attempt to rein in China, and to a lesser extent Russia and India, but the US is trashing the prospects of that. The rest of the world, particularly the democratic bits, had better learn the lessons and act fast.
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.
Turns out he was right. The USA must have had help at a very senior level in Venezuela to depose Maduro.
Do you read where Sandpit gets his information? Take a look at 'Robby Starbuck's site' where he denounces companies for being 'woke' (Which includes Walmart Toyota Harley Davidson Coors Jack Daniels Boeing etc etc) He's just a Trumpian right wing headbanger who tells nutters what they want to hear!
I wasn’t reading Phil Starbuck, never heard of him. It was the govt of Cuba who announced it and it has been picked up by OSINT who I do read.
Starmer is in a very difficult spot but not sure saying i believe in international law on repeat to every question is the optimal response. As it immediately opens up as a lawyer do you think the US broke it and if they did what should be done about. It makes him sound super weak just repeating this phrase of belief in it.
Starmer has at least finally found something of a spine as far as Greenland is concerned.
Starmer is in a very difficult spot but not sure saying i believe in international law on repeat to every question is the optimal response. As it immediately opens up as a lawyer do you think the US broke it and if they did what should be done about. It makes him sound super weak just repeating this phrase of belief in it.
Yes. All law only exists insofar as people choose to follow it voluntarily, or it is enforced on those who transgress it.
The nuclear test ban treaty was an example of international law that was followed by the signatories voluntarily, but attempts to enforce it on non-signatories have been somewhat lacking.
On the other hand, the first Gulf War can be said to be an example of enforcing the international law against wars of aggression. Albeit an unusual one.
Comments
Funny that, lawyers advocating lots of jobs (well paid) for.... lawyers.
Trump will probably offer TrumpCoin....
*Big Euro notes are easier on the back. Suitcases of cash are heavy.
Do the deal with Canada !
For me this is of academic interest only - see above - though since I was young the idea of making a living out of betting has always seemed to me the ideal career.
The best ever Economist Christmas special article was a few years ago when they sent someone to be at a motorway service station for 48 hours and see what it was like. (Answer: it is the still centre of a turning world.)
https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2025/12/18/the-battle-to-stop-clever-people-betting
To the point that it will require a deal such as Shell had in Nigeria in the 90s - Shell and the Nigerian government each put cash (billions) in escrow in Switzerland. To be released to whichever party *didn't* break the contract. As adjudicated by some Swiss lawyers. Think a modern "exchange of hostages".
And where would Venezuela find the billions?
A lot of people criticised that comment by Badenoch as characteristically aggressive towards people who have nailed their colours to their mast. I actually think Badenoch is saying the quiet part out loud. Why should we care about Venezuela? The thing about quiet parts that Badenoch doesn't get, you're not meant to say them out loud.
https://x.com/dailyirannews/status/2008120364837306464
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/15-years-in-the-making-falkland-islands-sea-lion-ready-to-move-forward-to-first-oil/
Rules based international order = Global prosperity
Rules based international order = Defence spending 2% and 3% we can use however we please
Might is right = Increase in tensions, suspicions, rival blocks and war
Might is right = We spend that 3% on defence instead of NHS, education, tax cuts or whatever
Finland (Russian Empire 1809-1918)
Norway's Finnmark region (occupation 1944-1945, also commercial activity and settlement in Svalbard to this day, though no military involvement)
Denmark's Bornholm island (occupation 1945-1946)
Sweden's eastern seaboard (occupation 1808-1809, naval and marine attacks in 1719-21)
Germany's western states (some degree of occupation 1813-1814, Suvorov's transit 1800, East Germany of course was Soviet satellite 1945-1989)
Netherlands (occupation 1799 (Walcheren), 1813 (entire country))
Belgium (occupation 1814)
Luxembourg (probable occupation 1814, but not explicitly on maps I've seen!)
UK's Jersey/Guernsey (troops temporarily stationed 1799-1800)
France's northeastern regions (occupation 1814 (Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!) and 1815-1818, some participation WW1 1915-1917)
Switzerland (occupation 1799-1800 - General Suvorov crossed the Alps!)
Liechtenstein (Suvorov's transit back home 1800)
Austria (Suvorov's transit 1799, occupation of northeast and Vienna 1945-1955)
Italy northern and southern regions (occupation 1799, including Vatican, Suvorov up north (eg. Milan, Turin), Admiral Ushakov in the south (eg. Rome, Naples))
Spain (some participation Civil War 1936-1939)
Greece various islands, and part of mainland (eg. occupation Ionians 1800-1807, Salonika WW1 1916-1917)
China are generally predictable and closer to following rules than the US especially Trump's US. They are a threat but play within a set of rules.
But you're right. There's a massive cost to this softly-softly approach when it comes to the principle.
Is that exit as Labour Leader or PM?
Where does that leave Canada. Good question.
Perhaps because that resembles a certain political movement of the 1920s-1940s?
I had a FOAF who applied for the Norwich City job every time it was free with the same letter. It was obviously a joke, and contained lines similar to "My Dad works near the training ground so he can drop me off each day..." I like to think someone found it amusing...
Gary Johnston: We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong-il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes - assholes who just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is that sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate.
Spottswoode: Yes, Gary, yes.
Gary Johnston: And it takes a pussy to show 'em that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves, because pussies are only an inch-and-a-half away from assholes. I don't know much in this crazy, crazy world, but I do know that if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we are going to have our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit.
61% of Harris voters in 2024 oppose Canada becoming a part of the US (even though that would have given the Democrats extra EC votes and seats in Congress) and even only 51% of Trump voters want Canada to become part of the USA
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/51505-most-canadians-many-americans-oppose-canada-joining-us
I don't think Streeting ticks those boxes.
My total guess is Angela Rayner with an Ed Miliband kicker as chancellor.
There are fairly obvious possibilities, but I don't see Europe as a whole, or in parts, being coherent enough to do very much. It's to do with countering Trump and managing whatever comes next - whether small-f fascist USA, isolationist USA which has wrecked its own economy, USA-in-recovery-with-a-hangover, or something else - and creating a longer-term pivot away from dependency.
There seems to be a similar delusion as there was about "Superpower Russia", about aspects of "World Dominating USA".
Looking at the numbers last night, I'd say the USN is fairly comprehensively f*cked in the longer term - aside from the carrier / helicopter carrier slow drumbeat, land assault and *maybe* submarines, which are mainly about global power projection rather than anything closer to home. In the longer term their problems are worse than we have in Europe, in that every aspect of their procurement chain is off the rails from congress to shipyard, and it is all startlingly inefficient.
On timings, the key period for Europe is 5-10 years, which - admittedly (
Burnham maybe but he is not an MP. Starmer won't resign as Labour leader until near the GE if he does and on the basis Streeting is his heir apparent
Just look at the evidenve presented by Jack Smith - if that isn't enough to depose Trump, nothing is.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/05/venezuela-live-updates-trump-us-interim-president-collaborate?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-695b357e8f087b8b68f613cd#block-695b357e8f087b8b68f613cd
“32 Cubans killed during US attack on Venezuela, Cuban government says
“In our opening post, we mentioned that Cuba said that 32 of its citizens had been killed in the US operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Venezuela and bring them to America. We can bring you a bit more information about this now.
“The Cuban government said the 32 people who were killed were members of the Cuban armed forces and intelligence agencies, with two days of national mourning declared.
“A government statement read:
“Our compatriots fulfilled their duty with dignity and heroism and fell, after fierce resistance, in direct combat against the attackers or as a result of bombings on the facilities.
“Cuba, a strong ally of Venezuela, has provided some security for Maduro since he came to power. It was not clear how many Cubans were guarding the Venezuelan president when they died and how many may were killed elsewhere.”
I can see the process of impeachment being a drag, also with Congress trying to reclaim their "power of the purse" which Trump has pickpocketed. But that is currently the more likely outcome of the midterms, or MAYBE if a few republicans start opposing Trump or do early resignations as MTG has done effective today.
Given 57% of Republican voters oppose taking Greenland by military force, a Senate 2/3 majority to convict would be very possible in such circumstances as well
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/52879-few-americans-want-to-take-over-greenland-most-oppose-covert-operations-military-action-poll
Other things we can use include:
Logic
Intuition
Speculation
Predictions
Etc
Plenty of things we can use when thinking about the future, not just the past. The future is informed by the past, but not a mirror of it. Some of those are related to each other.
Is the clock ticking for Iran’s Mullahs
https://x.com/naftalibennett/status/2008064778846212281?s=61
Might is right = realpolitik
We should be spending 3% on defence, not wishing for lawyers, unicorns and fairies to protect us.
The chest-thumping over 3% or 5% or whatever arbitrary percentage is just virtue-signalling. I'd rather we just give it directly to Ukraine.
The Greens will eat their lunch
"Waging aggressive war" is the indictment that Trump might face later but it's pretty much aimed at those in charge.
Is one reason that the Mad King is so happy to talk about how often his doctors are testing his mental decline (other than he doesn't know what is happening) is that it gives him a potential get out of jail free card?
"The President is not mentally fit to stand trial"...
Honestly it's a bit pathetic. The idea that 3% rather than 2.5% solves our security issues is just facile, juvenile policy making. There is only one thing that comes to mind that we need to fix urgently - and that's to spend billions on a facility to replace Kings Bay. That might well push us over 3% for a decade or so - but the point is obtain the capability, not some percentage.
As an aside, can someone tell me why Chelsea are looking to appoint a manager who has not won anything?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cp87nmpk8eko
The rules based international order has served us pretty well all our lives... Until it started to be ignored by Putin, Netanyahu, and now Trump in the past few years.
Without a rules based international order we are all screwed. The new reality is we need high defence spending (a lot more than 3% of GDP) and we also need clever defence spending. Ukraine has shown that might on paper does not translate into success on the battlefield. We ned to learn the lessons of the new styles of warfare. But we also need to try and maintain the western ideal of a rules system based on national sovereignty to underpin the whole thing.
It helps the internal US opposition if leaders of democratic countries are clear about the difference between right and wrong. Shame about Starmer then. Dead Ringers had him dead right. He cannot see anything without wanting to equivocate.
I imagine even the Blairites he so wishes he could emulate are tearing their hair out right now. Equivocation is not triangulation.
Ref 277
Lab 107
Con 99
LD 68
SNP 44
Grn 17
PC 6
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_main.html
Janeane Garofolo: As actors, it is our responsibility to read the newspapers, and then say what we read on television like it's our own opinion.
It does demonstrate that throwing one's hat in with Zack, like Jezza before him, gets us a good old Tory majority.
Starmer backs Danish PM after she demands US stop threats to take over Greenland
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/05/keir-starmer-backs-danish-pm-donald-trump-threats-us-greenland-denmark
The nuclear test ban treaty was an example of international law that was followed by the signatories voluntarily, but attempts to enforce it on non-signatories have been somewhat lacking.
On the other hand, the first Gulf War can be said to be an example of enforcing the international law against wars of aggression. Albeit an unusual one.