| ▲ | irishcoffee 2 hours ago | |
> We're not likely to get useful oil out of Venezuela, and any we do get isn't gonna be cost-competitive against solar. I was responding to that bit. It isn't accurate. I also said I don't condone it. Ignoring facts isn't helpful for anyone. Edit for ratelimiting: > You think it's likely that the US will manage to create a stable enough government in Venezuela for foreign investment to be successful? What in the history of American regime change efforts gives you this idea? No. I was simply saying the oil is useful in the military-industrial complex, and it does have value. I've said this twice already. I cannot say if this value will be realized, and for the third time, I don't condone it. | ||
| ▲ | ceejayoz an hour ago | parent [-] | |
> I was responding to that bit. It isn't accurate. You think it's likely that the US will manage to create a stable enough government in Venezuela for foreign investment to be successful? What in the history of American regime change efforts gives you this idea? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/05/venezuelan-... > The gamble is a long game, with no guarantee of success. Returning Venezuela’s crude production to 3m barrels of oil a day would require 16 years of work and investment totalling $185bn (£137bn), according to figures from Rystad Energy, a global consultancy. > At least $30-35bn of international capital would need to be committed in the next two to three years to make this scenario plausible, Rystad said. “This could only be financed by international oil companies, which will consider investments in Venezuela only if they have full confidence in the stability of the country’s systems and its investment climate for international oil and gas players,” it added. | ||