"They stole our oil rigs" is all over my Facebook feed, which I know I shouldn't even have anymore.
Related to that, the next politician who goes on legacy media and pronounces "The American people want ..." followed by something I don't want and that I've never heard anyone say they want, should be shot straight to the center of the moon.
My understanding is the Venezuelan government nationalized oil production in 1976 and compensated the affected companies. So there was no "theft." But I'm not a scholar on this, so I don't stand by this statement. Let the chips fall where they may.
Venezuela created PDVSA in the 70s. They did not kick out foreign oil producers. PDVSA was one of the best run state oil companies, who worked with the oil majors and other companies. It needed their expertise. Venezuelan crude is very heavy; it requires a lot of continuous investment and capex. During the Chavez era, there was a rash of forcibly modified oil concessions* and outright expropriations, which Chavez liked to do. You looked at him wrong - your property is expropriated. He also fired all the actually competent oil engineers and executives at PDVSA and brought in cronies, who didn’t know anything about the oil industry. He then used it as a piggy bank to pay for his social programs, campaign funds, and so on, while not reinvesting to maintain production capacity.
*think "I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.”
That's interesting, thanks for the perspective. I never gave Venezuela a thought until Chavez came in. I was aware he was on bad terms with, or even blacklisted by the international finance community. I assumed because he advocated for socialist style policies to help the poor. Can't have that in our western capitalist utopia, don't you know. It's never a simple black and white though, is it? He was probably strong arming the oil co's to pay for his social uplift, while pocketing a good chunk for himself, angering the finance community in the process.
Without knowing more details, my takeaway is still feed the poor = bad in the view of the corporatist class.
There were lawsuits at some point in this century, I think? OK, I just googled it. https://www.opb.org/article/2026/01/04/five-things-to-know-about-oil-in-venezuela/ ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips took Venezuela to international arbitration courts in 2007, and won! CP won about $10 billion and EM won about $1 billion. But Venezuela hasn't paid. I think there are other cases out there, all stemming from Chavez forcibly "renegotiating" contracts.
For those who wonder why people get PhDs in geography, our function, in addition to deciding what colors countries should be on maps, is to insist on defining who the fuck "we" is in any given situation.
The "we" Trump refers to is the royal we, l'etat c'est moi. In plain english, Trump. What "we" get will pass through his cronies & CEOs & come back to him personally via crypto. But by the one-to-one identification of the ruler w/the ruled, the rubes get to experience the aggrandizement of their king. Not dissimilar to the way "we" feel when "we" win the super bowl. "we" didn't win anything except the feeling of not being losers.
If we could convince Trump that invading and annexing Taco Bell is essential for "access" to Mexican food, that might keep him occupied for a good long while.
It's important to parse who "we" is with the oil "barrels" because Trump immediately says that he personally (I think he says "personally") will get to spend the money. I understand he means that part literally. What I don't understand is by what mechanism even in his mind that is supposed to happen. He spends the proceeds...Because the companies will do whatever he tells them to? Because he will charge some kinda illegal fee for the privilege of buying the oil? Because he thinks the US does have a government oil company?
I love this article. This is something I try to do with my children. I try never to say "they" do something and instead try to actually articulate who is the person that is taking whatever action we're discussing. So it's never "they plow the roads", it's "drivers hired by the city plow the roads."
Agreed that it sounds pedantic at times, but I think all of us would be better off if no one allowed themselves to believe that there is some nebulous collective "they" or "we".
This recalls one of the most useful communication concepts I know: the thought-terminating cliché = a word or phrase that's easily remembered, easily repeated, and stands in the place of actual thought.
"They stole our oil rigs" is all over my Facebook feed, which I know I shouldn't even have anymore.
Related to that, the next politician who goes on legacy media and pronounces "The American people want ..." followed by something I don't want and that I've never heard anyone say they want, should be shot straight to the center of the moon.
My understanding is the Venezuelan government nationalized oil production in 1976 and compensated the affected companies. So there was no "theft." But I'm not a scholar on this, so I don't stand by this statement. Let the chips fall where they may.
Venezuela created PDVSA in the 70s. They did not kick out foreign oil producers. PDVSA was one of the best run state oil companies, who worked with the oil majors and other companies. It needed their expertise. Venezuelan crude is very heavy; it requires a lot of continuous investment and capex. During the Chavez era, there was a rash of forcibly modified oil concessions* and outright expropriations, which Chavez liked to do. You looked at him wrong - your property is expropriated. He also fired all the actually competent oil engineers and executives at PDVSA and brought in cronies, who didn’t know anything about the oil industry. He then used it as a piggy bank to pay for his social programs, campaign funds, and so on, while not reinvesting to maintain production capacity.
*think "I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.”
That's interesting, thanks for the perspective. I never gave Venezuela a thought until Chavez came in. I was aware he was on bad terms with, or even blacklisted by the international finance community. I assumed because he advocated for socialist style policies to help the poor. Can't have that in our western capitalist utopia, don't you know. It's never a simple black and white though, is it? He was probably strong arming the oil co's to pay for his social uplift, while pocketing a good chunk for himself, angering the finance community in the process.
Without knowing more details, my takeaway is still feed the poor = bad in the view of the corporatist class.
There were lawsuits at some point in this century, I think? OK, I just googled it. https://www.opb.org/article/2026/01/04/five-things-to-know-about-oil-in-venezuela/ ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips took Venezuela to international arbitration courts in 2007, and won! CP won about $10 billion and EM won about $1 billion. But Venezuela hasn't paid. I think there are other cases out there, all stemming from Chavez forcibly "renegotiating" contracts.
"Diarrhea Promise" LOL. Now that's a punk rock band name!
Hey! Thanks for the shout out! 😉
For those who wonder why people get PhDs in geography, our function, in addition to deciding what colors countries should be on maps, is to insist on defining who the fuck "we" is in any given situation.
The map colors thing is also important.
Ah, the one thing everyone loves, discourse on pronouns.
I mean, we're talking about a country who defines a woman as "anyone who identifies as a woman."
We?
Are "we" not talking about it? Seems we are.
That's what the article is about.
bahahaha
The "we" Trump refers to is the royal we, l'etat c'est moi. In plain english, Trump. What "we" get will pass through his cronies & CEOs & come back to him personally via crypto. But by the one-to-one identification of the ruler w/the ruled, the rubes get to experience the aggrandizement of their king. Not dissimilar to the way "we" feel when "we" win the super bowl. "we" didn't win anything except the feeling of not being losers.
“We have seen the enemy, and he is us.”
Trump doesn't grasp that a distinction even exists between the US, its government, and his person. When he says "we", he means "me personally".
If we could convince Trump that invading and annexing Taco Bell is essential for "access" to Mexican food, that might keep him occupied for a good long while.
I'm concerned that the Taco Bell Corporation may ask for their money back once they read the wording of your paid product placement.
The true pedant points out the difference between "less" and "fewer". Jeff knows.
Words matter
It's important to parse who "we" is with the oil "barrels" because Trump immediately says that he personally (I think he says "personally") will get to spend the money. I understand he means that part literally. What I don't understand is by what mechanism even in his mind that is supposed to happen. He spends the proceeds...Because the companies will do whatever he tells them to? Because he will charge some kinda illegal fee for the privilege of buying the oil? Because he thinks the US does have a government oil company?
this is really funny
I love this article. This is something I try to do with my children. I try never to say "they" do something and instead try to actually articulate who is the person that is taking whatever action we're discussing. So it's never "they plow the roads", it's "drivers hired by the city plow the roads."
Agreed that it sounds pedantic at times, but I think all of us would be better off if no one allowed themselves to believe that there is some nebulous collective "they" or "we".
This recalls one of the most useful communication concepts I know: the thought-terminating cliché = a word or phrase that's easily remembered, easily repeated, and stands in the place of actual thought.