8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

It will greatly benefit the people of Venezuela to have functional oil  infrastructure

And you are sure of this ?

At current production rates the stated royalties would be pretty decent (30bn raw value, 8bn royalty pa). At projected production rates though, and in what should be a surprise to absolutely no one, awful; even if you take into account most of Venezuela's oil being rubbish and hard to extract. Plus you'd expect there to be a lot of, hmm, 'catches' in the royalty payments like having to buy helicopters specifically off US companies for 500mn a piece. 16 of them, and you have no royalties left. One might think that is cynical, but given the people involved thinking otherwise is far more likely to be hopelessly naive.

Such is the life of a colonial adjunct and enslaved state. Will be interesting to see if the 'deal'* and occupation outlast Trump or not.

*I'd make a Star Wars reference about praying deals aren't altered further since Delcy Rodriguez has a passing resemblance to Lando Calrissian, but I'd feel a bit mean comparing Darth Vader to Donald Trump.

2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

At current production rates the stated royalties would be pretty decent (30bn raw value, 8bn royalty pa). At projected production rates though, and in what should be a surprise to absolutely no one, awful; even if you take into account most of Venezuela's oil being rubbish and hard to extract. Plus you'd expect there to be a lot of, hmm, 'catches' in the royalty payments like having to buy helicopters specifically off US companies for 500mn a piece. 16 of them, and you have no royalties left. One might think that is cynical, but given the people involved thinking otherwise is far more likely to be hopelessly naive.

Such is the life of a colonial adjunct and enslaved state. Will be interesting to see if the 'deal'* and occupation outlast Trump or not.

*I'd make a Star Wars reference about praying deals aren't altered further since Delcy Rodriguez has a passing resemblance to Lando Calrissian, but I'd feel a bit mean comparing Darth Vader to Donald Trump.

My thought on hearing that is it essentially commits the US to future military actions over protecting their oil supply. Some Venezuelans are none to happy about this relationship, and we've linked ourselves to the current corrupt government. It wouldn't surprise me to see a future US President drop the deal.

Dunno about that. Any successor can just blame Trump for any problems. Some sort of 'committed to our commitments, even if we disagree we must honour them to maintain the integrity of other agreements' sort of spiel.

These things tend to have a great deal of inertia. Would a future President be willing to pay out all the investors? Or would they try and force Venezuela to do so? What happens if Venezuela repudiates the deal (and it can hardly be claimed it hasn't been signed under duress)? Ironically, the only recent President who ignored that sort of inertia is Trump himself, who'd have no problem leaving precipitately if it were Obama or Biden's pet project.

In a similar vein, even if Obama Somehow Returned to the White House it seems unlikely he would be able to change the Iranian situation. Because much as the Iranians might trust ('trust') him personally compared to Trump there's no trust for the US as a whole. You can't unpop a balloon.

(The agreement will commit Venezuela to protecting US interests, so the expectation would be minimal US boots on the ground and, they would hope, minimal bad publicity in the form of US troops shooting civilians/ people disgruntled about their natural resources being 'stolen. That would be done by the fine upstanding chaps in the Venezuelan police/ army. Yes, the same army and police who a few months ago were villains suppressing freedom etc. There is also, per above, the appeal of obligating Venezuela to buy overpriced and irrelevant military gear to do the protecting. All of those factors will make it far from a foregone conclusion that even a new D President would change tack significantly, as opposed to trying to dress up the neocolonialism a bit better)

Well those countries lean heavily toward the unstable side, so they are highly likely to change governments, nationalize industries, fight guerilla wars, &c. Once that happens we either commit forces to stabilize the situation or write it off; probably the former, since we'll be dependent on their oil by that point. Either way it'll be a burden on future Presidents.

13 hours ago, Malcador said:

And you are sure of this ?

Yes, obviously the tax generated must now be used constructively by the new government to rebuild the country and create a better life for Venezuelans

But that would apply to any government in any country. The reality is Venezuela needs investment to rebuild its oil sector. This is no different to any other example of FDI (foreign direct investment ) where a government gives specific concessions to a certain company which in turn only benefits a specific country.

This agreement also only applies to 20% of Venezuela's proven oil reserves. So despite what Trumps ranting about its not all the oil. Also this deal will exist long after Trumps gone and I cant see even a Dem president trying to change it?

The only thing unusual about this is how the Department of War will own 35% of NABEP and effectively have board decisions. So its a case of the US government directly controlling a private sector company unlike other private sector energy companies like Exxon or Chevron

And this is not unusual globally where you see several examples of ME countries, Russia and China having direct influence or control of private sector investment throughout the world. This is common in Africa

But you right that its critical that this new investment is used constructively when the tax revenue is generated to address domestic issues. And this can be done because if its not then only the US will benefit

4 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Dunno about that. Any successor can just blame Trump for any problems. Some sort of 'committed to our commitments, even if we disagree we must honour them to maintain the integrity of other agreements' sort of spiel.

These things tend to have a great deal of inertia. Would a future President be willing to pay out all the investors? Or would they try and force Venezuela to do so? What happens if Venezuela repudiates the deal (and it can hardly be claimed it hasn't been signed under duress)? Ironically, the only recent President who ignored that sort of inertia is Trump himself, who'd have no problem leaving precipitately if it were Obama or Biden's pet project.

In a similar vein, even if Obama Somehow Returned to the White House it seems unlikely he would be able to change the Iranian situation. Because much as the Iranians might trust ('trust') him personally compared to Trump there's no trust for the US as a whole. You can't unpop a balloon.

(The agreement will commit Venezuela to protecting US interests, so the expectation would be minimal US boots on the ground and, they would hope, minimal bad publicity in the form of US troops shooting civilians/ people disgruntled about their natural resources being 'stolen. That would be done by the fine upstanding chaps in the Venezuelan police/ army. Yes, the same army and police who a few months ago were villains suppressing freedom etc. There is also, per above, the appeal of obligating Venezuela to buy overpriced and irrelevant military gear to do the protecting. All of those factors will make it far from a foregone conclusion that even a new D President would change tack significantly, as opposed to trying to dress up the neocolonialism a bit better)

We know all these potential problems but whats your suggestion for how Venezuela can rebuild its oil infrastructure?

The country needs investment and it has a history of using forced nationalization of private sector companies that previously operated for decades in the country?

This deal absolutely benefits the US but its also what Venezuela needs. If you dont support this deal what should be happening?

2 hours ago, rjshae said:

Well those countries lean heavily toward the unstable side, so they are highly likely to change governments, nationalize industries, fight guerilla wars, &c. Once that happens we either commit forces to stabilize the situation or write it off; probably the former, since we'll be dependent on their oil by that point. Either way it'll be a burden on future Presidents.

I think its highly unlikely Venezuela will collapse into civil war. That didnt happen under the utter failures of the Chavez and Maduro governments because the state does have control of its security forces

But its more because most Venezuelans just want a stable country where they have a future. So they are prepared to give this new government a chance and see how this investment unfolds and addresses the dire economic reality?

MAGA sure going hard on Canada lately, lame trolling aside. Lutnick still claiming Canada blew up the talks for political reasons, dubious as the man's a sycophant who I wish was on time on 9/11. Would be hilariously cynical if Carney did do that, but honestly haven't seen anything that sketchy from him - the defections from the Tories have been usual politics.