(01-06-2026 12:55 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Keep in mind not all crude oil is the same.

From AI confirming my earlier understanding…

“Not all crude oil is the same, and Venezuela's oil is a prime example: it's heavy, dense, and sulfur-rich (sour), unlike lighter U.S. shale oil, making it difficult and expensive to process, requiring specialized refineries, but valuable for products like diesel and asphalt, with Gulf Coast refineries uniquely built for it. While Venezuela holds vast reserves, its heavy crude needs special handling, blending, or upgraders, and production has suffered from underinvestment, corruption, and sanctions, making it harder to extract and refine compared to lighter crudes. “

Key Differences in Venezuelan Crude:
Heavy & Viscous: It's thick like molasses, contrasting with lighter crudes that flow easily, as noted in this Yahoo Finance article.

High Sulfur (Sour): Contains high sulfur and metals, requiring more complex refining to meet environmental standards, says a Grist article.

Specialized Refining: Few refineries can process it efficiently; U.S. Gulf Coast facilities were designed for this type of heavy crude.

Why It Matters:
Production Challenges: Heavy crude requires more energy, diluents, and advanced tech to extract and transport.
Refinery Compatibility: Some U.S. refineries prefer it, while others struggle, making it a complex market, explains a Grist article.

Market Dynamics: Its unique properties make it less universally desirable than light sweet crude, affecting its price and demand, according to this Yahoo Finance article.

In essence, Venezuela's massive reserves are not "plug-and-play" oil; they are a specific, challenging type that requires tailored infrastructure and processes,

Heres an interesting fun fact. The US is not actually energy independent despite being an oil exporter. Why? Because most of US production is light sweet crude---and we actually NEED to mix that light sweet with some heavy crude in order to utilize much of our refinery base in order to produce the fuels used in inside the US. In other words---we cant produce all the fuels we need without using those gulf coast refineries that require heavier crude---and that requires the use of some imported heavier crude oil to mix with the lighter domestic crude.

(01-06-2026 12:55 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Keep in mind not all crude oil is the same.

From AI confirming my earlier understanding…

“Not all crude oil is the same, and Venezuela's oil is a prime example: it's heavy, dense, and sulfur-rich (sour), unlike lighter U.S. shale oil, making it difficult and expensive to process, requiring specialized refineries, but valuable for products like diesel and asphalt, with Gulf Coast refineries uniquely built for it. While Venezuela holds vast reserves, its heavy crude needs special handling, blending, or upgraders, and production has suffered from underinvestment, corruption, and sanctions, making it harder to extract and refine compared to lighter crudes. “

Key Differences in Venezuelan Crude:
Heavy & Viscous: It's thick like molasses, contrasting with lighter crudes that flow easily, as noted in this Yahoo Finance article.

High Sulfur (Sour): Contains high sulfur and metals, requiring more complex refining to meet environmental standards, says a Grist article.

Specialized Refining: Few refineries can process it efficiently; U.S. Gulf Coast facilities were designed for this type of heavy crude.

Why It Matters:
Production Challenges: Heavy crude requires more energy, diluents, and advanced tech to extract and transport.
Refinery Compatibility: Some U.S. refineries prefer it, while others struggle, making it a complex market, explains a Grist article.

Market Dynamics: Its unique properties make it less universally desirable than light sweet crude, affecting its price and demand, according to this Yahoo Finance article.

In essence, Venezuela's massive reserves are not "plug-and-play" oil; they are a specific, challenging type that requires tailored infrastructure and processes,

Good find. I heard a verbal presentation of this info last night, but I didn't take notes, lol. It matches pretty much with what you found here.

My main takeaway is that some Gulf Coast refineries are set up to process exactly this type of oil.

When Fetterman makes more logical sense than Commie fat Tom

Bwhahahaha, I mean damn.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(01-06-2026 01:03 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In this case, we would be investing in a resource that we know works and will be needed. Getting this oil back on line quickly might take an infusion in cash, but we know it will help keep energy prices more reasonable and it would increase the ability of the US to stay energy independent. It also aids in driving down the price of oil---which is helpful for those concerned with Russia's ability to fund expansionist activities.

Your argument is the same as the people who want to go green... get onto renewable energy that is self sustaining thus no need to count on adversaries for fossil fuels to take care of our energy needs while saving the environment. Both sides are completely inconsistent on the stuff.

Instead let's just say "orange man bad" or "prog filth" and do away with the BS excuses.

Its not the same. Largely, green technology requires subsidy because it cannot economically compete with fossil fuels. Oil technology is a proven economic resource which is literally the basis of modern society---and thats not changing anytime soon. Any money invested by the US government is about getting oil production on line FASTER---its not a gamble where we "hope" it will result in new tech that will suddenly make oil economically competitive (Oil is ALREADY the gold standard for economical energy production). That said, Im fine with making it a loan or having taxpayers share in the profits so the taxpayers not only get paid off, but the project provides a stream of future revenue that can be redirected to paying off the national debt once the principal of the investment is recouped.

(01-06-2026 01:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not the same. Largely, green technology requires subsidy because it cannot economically compete with fossil fuels. Oil technology is a proven economic resource which is literally the basis of modern society---and thats not changing anytime soon. Any money from government is about getting it on line faster---its not a gamble where we "hope" it will result in something useful. Frankly, Im fine with making it a loan or having taxpayers share in the profits so the taxpayers not only get paid off, but the project provides revenue that can be redirected to paying off the national debt once the principal of the investment is recouped.

If we got paid back by the oil companies for the subsidies we provide to oil companies to explore for new wells I'd be fine with it. On the flip side they know their payoff is going to be much greater than that of the renewable energy companies as it is, so I'm not sure it makes sense for the taxpayer to participate in their exploration or development of new technology. Hell, at this point I think we have a pretty good idea where all the oil is anyway.

If there is a market for Venezuelan oil, which I suspect there is, let companies bid on the work with the Venezuelan gov't and start investing. Of course there is still that little problem with their unelected VP taking over control and not knowing exactly who owns her...

(01-06-2026 01:22 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 01:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Its not the same. Largely, green technology requires subsidy because it cannot economically compete with fossil fuels. Oil technology is a proven economic resource which is literally the basis of modern society---and thats not changing anytime soon. Any money from government is about getting it on line faster---its not a gamble where we "hope" it will result in something useful. Frankly, Im fine with making it a loan or having taxpayers share in the profits so the taxpayers not only get paid off, but the project provides revenue that can be redirected to paying off the national debt once the principal of the investment is recouped.

If we got paid back by the oil companies for the subsidies we provide to oil companies to explore for new wells I'd be fine with it. On the flip side they know their payoff is going to be much greater than that of the renewable energy companies as it is, so I'm not sure it makes sense for the taxpayer to participate in their exploration or development of new technology. Hell, at this point I think we have a pretty good idea where all the oil is anyway.

If there is a market for Venezuelan oil, which I suspect there is, let companies bid on the work with the Venezuelan gov't and start investing. Of course there is still that little problem with their unelected VP taking over control and not knowing exactly who owns her...

I don't get why this is bugging you so much. There is nobody in place to take over the country right now. She was the #2 person, so that makes more sense than anything else. For now.

Did you see the 4 things Trump asked of her that I posted somewhere above? She's going to do that, or risk a fate like Maduro's, or worse, per Trump.

Also, did you forget that about 1/3 of our naval power is still sitting right off VZ's coast, and we still have an embargo on their oil?

And she will have to step down as soon as they conduct a legit election. She was never elected. She and Maduro stole the last election, but for some reason, our gov doesn't think Machado is up to the task of stepping in, probably tied to a lack of authority over the military, which Rodriguez apparently has for now.

Rodriguez for now is deemed the lesser of two evils.

(01-06-2026 01:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't get why this is bugging you so much. There is nobody in place to take over the country right now. She was the #2 person, so that makes more sense than anything else. For now.

Did you see the 4 things Trump asked of her that I posted somewhere above? She's going to do that, or risk a fate like Maduro's, or worse, per Trump.

Also, did you forget that about 1/3 of our naval power is still sitting right off VZ's coast, and we still have an embargo on their oil?

And she will have to step down as soon as they conduct a legit election. She was never elected. She and Maduro stole the last election, but for some reason, our gov doesn't think Machado is up to the task of stepping in, probably tied to a lack of authority over the military, which Rodriguez apparently has for now.

1. Fox News says that. Trump said he had not actually talked to her as of last night, although I'm sure that there has been communication between his administration and her.

2. If I'm an oil company that has been burned once by what happened during the Obama years, I'm thinking twice about investing any of my own money into Venezuelan oil fields when I don't know long term who is going to be in power there and if they'll try to take the fields back over once someone else is in office.

3. You mentioned the embargo, if they elect another socialist in the next election (or 2 elections from now) will the embargo remain? Will it be lifted then reestablished when someone friendly to China is elected?

Lots and lots of questions... little to no answers from the Trump administration. That is my issue. I'd have expected a lot of solid answers at the press conference Saturday but we got very little as to how things will go forward there.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DTLAylIDXjS/


I found this to quite humorous.

Funny how NO ONE WANTS A SISSY BOY

Zohran Mamdani Flexed Over ‘Briefing’ on Maduro-Then Admits He Doesn’t Actually Have Federal Security Clearance

Quote:I said it before: Mayor Zohran Mamdani does not have federal security clearance. When asked directly by a reporter, he initially danced around the question—then ultimately answered “NO,” confirming he does not have clearance.
That means he was not briefed on Nicolás Maduro or any classified national-security matters. Security clearances exist for a reason, and New Yorkers deserve transparency about who is and is not authorized to receive sensitive intelligence.

(01-06-2026 12:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 10:44 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(01-05-2026 12:06 PM)mlb Wrote:  Late to the game here, but I have no issues with removing that despicable man. I do, however, worry that we've just created a power vacuum in that country that will allow another tyrant to take over. The VP is illegimate but now in power, but who has their claws into her?

So in your wise thinking you would still have Maduro as prexy as long as the status quo remained? It seems to me that your idea is to just let the Venezuelans suffer more so that there aren't any more Maduros.

As for the present president Delcy she will remain UNTIL her replacement is elected or sworn in because there was already an election and Maduro lost thus making his next in line null and void. ALL the people who were in their positions should be fired in the coming months, not immediately, just let them think they're secure in their jobs and when an alternative is positioned then that person can fire him because at that point the new guy/gal will hold the reins of the people under him/her, but not until then. The military for instance will hold allegiance to the new leader and not before he/she is installed. It's a delicate procedure and has to be thought of well.

There are countries all over the world where their citizens suffer. Are you now advocating for the US to play global policeman for them all?

Or just the ones close to us...who may have some oil or other resources we can pilfer along the way?

To the extent that US foreign policy results in real costs to the US taxpayer, are you suggesting that the US leadership has no fiduciary responsibility to its citizens to prioritize foreign aid to the peoples of other nations where it might benefit US citizens the most?

Nope.

(01-06-2026 01:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 01:45 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I don't get why this is bugging you so much. There is nobody in place to take over the country right now. She was the #2 person, so that makes more sense than anything else. For now.

Did you see the 4 things Trump asked of her that I posted somewhere above? She's going to do that, or risk a fate like Maduro's, or worse, per Trump.

Also, did you forget that about 1/3 of our naval power is still sitting right off VZ's coast, and we still have an embargo on their oil?

And she will have to step down as soon as they conduct a legit election. She was never elected. She and Maduro stole the last election, but for some reason, our gov doesn't think Machado is up to the task of stepping in, probably tied to a lack of authority over the military, which Rodriguez apparently has for now.

1. Fox News says that. Trump said he had not actually talked to her as of last night, although I'm sure that there has been communication between his administration and her.

2. If I'm an oil company that has been burned once by what happened during the Obama years, I'm thinking twice about investing any of my own money into Venezuelan oil fields when I don't know long term who is going to be in power there and if they'll try to take the fields back over once someone else is in office.

3. You mentioned the embargo, if they elect another socialist in the next election (or 2 elections from now) will the embargo remain? Will it be lifted then reestablished when someone friendly to China is elected?

Lots and lots of questions... little to no answers from the Trump administration. That is my issue. I'd have expected a lot of solid answers at the press conference Saturday but we got very little as to how things will go forward there.

I never said Trump talked to her. Would you feel better if I said communicated demands? Those are still in play, and you know she has to be aware of them. She has been talking to others in his admin.

Elect another socialist? Maduro wasn't elected. He lost. The other dude reportedly had 90% of the vote, and Machado before that had about 70%.

As for US oil companies, Chevron is still there. Never left.

And Trump is reportedly meeting with other oil execs this week to discuss VZ going forward.

(01-06-2026 01:00 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 12:44 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 12:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Because US citizens will reap a benefit of lower energy prices. Its odd how liberals are whining about the "potential" use of taxpayer money to speed up getting oil production back on line-----ye they had NO issue with billions of taxpayer dollars going for questionable "green" energy producers (many of these enterprises went bust) as well as completely subsidizing the entire EV industry to the tune of 7K per unit sold. Heck---virtually the entire EV industry is collapsing in the US without subsidies and draconian government mandates requiring their adoption.

The inconsistent whining swings both ways...

In this case, we would be investing in a resource that we know works and will be needed. Getting this oil back on line quickly might take an infusion in cash, but we know it will help keep energy prices more reasonable and it would increase the ability of the US to stay energy independent. It also aids in driving down the price of oil---which is helpful for those concerned with Russia's ability to fund expansionist activities. Its not a bad investment for the US---certainly better than paying 15 billion for a California bullet train that is so far behind schedule and over budget that it likely will never exist.

Nothing quick or in doubt. It would be extremely expensive and time consuming.

And O&G production resources are not infinite. US companies spent billions to get into Canada for basically the same type of oil. So they would have to come up with billions...only to undercut what they're already doing in Canada...to flood the market with more oil that will only cut the value of it.

That just makes no sense as an investment. Cheaper oil is good for you and me, not the oil company and their investors...which if you have a 401k, is a lot of one in the same.

Or are you advocating for the US government to nationalize an oil industry. If so, I've got Socialism on Line 1 for you.

Hey Tom, Chevron never left VZ.

(01-06-2026 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 12:55 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Keep in mind not all crude oil is the same.

From AI confirming my earlier understanding…

“Not all crude oil is the same, and Venezuela's oil is a prime example: it's heavy, dense, and sulfur-rich (sour), unlike lighter U.S. shale oil, making it difficult and expensive to process, requiring specialized refineries, but valuable for products like diesel and asphalt, with Gulf Coast refineries uniquely built for it. While Venezuela holds vast reserves, its heavy crude needs special handling, blending, or upgraders, and production has suffered from underinvestment, corruption, and sanctions, making it harder to extract and refine compared to lighter crudes. “

Key Differences in Venezuelan Crude:
Heavy & Viscous: It's thick like molasses, contrasting with lighter crudes that flow easily, as noted in this Yahoo Finance article.

High Sulfur (Sour): Contains high sulfur and metals, requiring more complex refining to meet environmental standards, says a Grist article.

Specialized Refining: Few refineries can process it efficiently; U.S. Gulf Coast facilities were designed for this type of heavy crude.

Why It Matters:
Production Challenges: Heavy crude requires more energy, diluents, and advanced tech to extract and transport.
Refinery Compatibility: Some U.S. refineries prefer it, while others struggle, making it a complex market, explains a Grist article.

Market Dynamics: Its unique properties make it less universally desirable than light sweet crude, affecting its price and demand, according to this Yahoo Finance article.

In essence, Venezuela's massive reserves are not "plug-and-play" oil; they are a specific, challenging type that requires tailored infrastructure and processes,

Heres an interesting fun fact. The US is not actually energy independent despite being an oil exporter. Why? Because most of US production is light sweet crude---and we actually NEED to mix that light sweet with some heavy crude in order to utilize much of our refinery base in order to produce the fuels used in inside the US. In other words---we cant produce all the fuels we need without using those gulf coast refineries that require heavier crude---and that requires the use of some imported heavier crude oil to mix with the lighter domestic crude.

Another fact, there's actually two definitions of "energy independent" Further, energy is NOT just oil.

(01-06-2026 12:55 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Keep in mind not all crude oil is the same.

From AI confirming my earlier understanding…

“Not all crude oil is the same, and Venezuela's oil is a prime example: it's heavy, dense, and sulfur-rich (sour), unlike lighter U.S. shale oil, making it difficult and expensive to process, requiring specialized refineries, but valuable for products like diesel and asphalt, with Gulf Coast refineries uniquely built for it. While Venezuela holds vast reserves, its heavy crude needs special handling, blending, or upgraders, and production has suffered from underinvestment, corruption, and sanctions, making it harder to extract and refine compared to lighter crudes. “

Key Differences in Venezuelan Crude:
Heavy & Viscous: It's thick like molasses, contrasting with lighter crudes that flow easily, as noted in this Yahoo Finance article.

High Sulfur (Sour): Contains high sulfur and metals, requiring more complex refining to meet environmental standards, says a Grist article.

Specialized Refining: Few refineries can process it efficiently; U.S. Gulf Coast facilities were designed for this type of heavy crude.

Why It Matters:
Production Challenges: Heavy crude requires more energy, diluents, and advanced tech to extract and transport.
Refinery Compatibility: Some U.S. refineries prefer it, while others struggle, making it a complex market, explains a Grist article.

Market Dynamics: Its unique properties make it less universally desirable than light sweet crude, affecting its price and demand, according to this Yahoo Finance article.

In essence, Venezuela's massive reserves are not "plug-and-play" oil; they are a specific, challenging type that requires tailored infrastructure and processes,

I read where the best refinerys in the world to process it are in Texas and Louisiana

Remove a commie dictator, help a country, and get paid.

Winning and winning and winning

This has got to drive the prog filth and the so called "middle" cucks insane

(01-06-2026 02:07 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Hey Tom, Chevron never left VZ.

And the oil industry was largely nationalized under Chavez and continued that way under Maduro.

SK: Indeed. We (the Greater Houston area) are the energy capital of the world for a reason. (And yes, I put "energy" for a reason. Because that's part of this particular nickname. If anybody has a problem with it, tough.)

(01-06-2026 01:08 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-06-2026 12:55 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Keep in mind not all crude oil is the same.

From AI confirming my earlier understanding…

“Not all crude oil is the same, and Venezuela's oil is a prime example: it's heavy, dense, and sulfur-rich (sour), unlike lighter U.S. shale oil, making it difficult and expensive to process, requiring specialized refineries, but valuable for products like diesel and asphalt, with Gulf Coast refineries uniquely built for it. While Venezuela holds vast reserves, its heavy crude needs special handling, blending, or upgraders, and production has suffered from underinvestment, corruption, and sanctions, making it harder to extract and refine compared to lighter crudes. “

Key Differences in Venezuelan Crude:
Heavy & Viscous: It's thick like molasses, contrasting with lighter crudes that flow easily, as noted in this Yahoo Finance article.

High Sulfur (Sour): Contains high sulfur and metals, requiring more complex refining to meet environmental standards, says a Grist article.

Specialized Refining: Few refineries can process it efficiently; U.S. Gulf Coast facilities were designed for this type of heavy crude.

Why It Matters:
Production Challenges: Heavy crude requires more energy, diluents, and advanced tech to extract and transport.
Refinery Compatibility: Some U.S. refineries prefer it, while others struggle, making it a complex market, explains a Grist article.

Market Dynamics: Its unique properties make it less universally desirable than light sweet crude, affecting its price and demand, according to this Yahoo Finance article.

In essence, Venezuela's massive reserves are not "plug-and-play" oil; they are a specific, challenging type that requires tailored infrastructure and processes,

Good find. I heard a verbal presentation of this info last night, but I didn't take notes, lol. It matches pretty much with what you found here.

My main takeaway is that some Gulf Coast refineries are set up to process exactly this type of oil.

Are those refineries already at or near capacity?
What is the cost of moving that oil to them to refine?

And that's not even counting the costs to actually get the oil out of the ground...or the fact THAT IT'S NOT OUR ******* OIL!

(01-06-2026 11:37 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And to a larger point, why the **** are they doing this now? There is no immediate threat to the USA from anything coming out of Venezuela.

It was a message to the Chinese and (IMO) Hesbollah (see Iran protests) in particular.

China just met with Meduro i think they said 6 hours before the raid.

Quote:The drug angle is flimsy...VZ doesn't even export much, if any, Fentanyl.

You believe that one? VZ exports Fentanyl, Cocaine, and other Opiods regularly, usually brought in via China.

Quote:And even funnier, one of the pieces in the indictment is for him having a certain type of gun...pretty funny coming out of the pro-2A crowd.

I'm going to admit, I don't get the Machine Gun indictment whatsoever... Unless there's more to the story that we're not seeing.

(01-06-2026 02:02 PM)TripleA Wrote:  As for US oil companies, Chevron is still there. Never left.

And do you know why?

From AI:

Quote:Chevron remains in Venezuela under a specific U.S. Treasury license, operating joint ventures with state oil company PDVSA to produce and export heavy crude, primarily to the U.S. Gulf Coast, allowing them to recoup debts owed by Venezuela while complying with sanctions by limiting cash flows to the government. They are currently managing oil exports, with plans for loading tankers, and are positioned to potentially expand production as the political situation evolves, focusing on asset integrity, employee safety, and supporting local communities.

They lost a ****-ton the first time around and remained to try and get back some of the money. They're basically just being paid back with oil.