BREAKING: Oil Companies, including Shell, Lobby White House on Venezuela — Because Why Not Take the Whole Planet?

In what can only be described as the most perfectly obvious development in the history of obvious developments, major U.S. oil interests have apparently decided that nothing says “tasteful business practice” like quietly leaning on the White House about Venezuela while the world watches.

Lobbying disclosures reveal that Chevron, Shell’s U.S. arm, PBF Energy, and Phillips 66 have all been energetically encouraging the U.S. government to reshape its Venezuela “strategy” — you know, amidst the recent regime change and mild international eyebrow-raising — specifically so they can cash in on that totally stable and functioning oil economy. 

**Chevron: The Perennial Venezuelan Friend™

Chevron, which has never once had a complicated relationship with Venezuela’s oil sector — no siree — has unsurprisingly been “consistently” lobbying on the matter for years. Its presence there, like a nostalgic ghost of extractive pasts, keeps going back decades. Chevron’s stock has risen nicely since the U.S. deposed Nicolás Maduro, because obviously the best economic indicator of Venezuelan well-being is Chevron share prices. 

**Shell: Not Really About Crude, Honestly

Shell’s lobbying on Venezuela, according to internal filings, isn’t about oil fields with 303 billion barrels waiting to be consumed — no, no — it’s about a gas field off the coast that might someday feed an LNG facility in a neighboring country. Because if there’s one thing energy giants truly excel at, it’s prioritizing natural gas over records of petroleum plunder. 

**PBF & Phillips 66: New Kids on the Petro-Block

Meanwhile, mid-sized refiners like PBF and Phillips 66 have leapt into the lobbying fray with all the enthusiasm of a raccoon spotting an unsecured dumpster. PBF has apparently only just realized that Venezuelan crude exists (sounds about right), while Phillips 66 thinks “heavy crude” is just extra hearty. Their stocks have gone up slightly on the news, which is the financial equivalent of applauding someone for showing up at a party. 

**ExxonMobil: Too Posh for Venezuelan Dust

Of course, ExxonMobil — ever the refined dresser among oil majors — has claimed Venezuela is “uninvestable,” a polite way of saying, “We like our corruption neat, not complicated by foreign politics.” This prompted public threats from the Trump Administration to possibly cut them out of future deals, because nothing says economic diplomacy like yelling at your biggest business partners on TV. 

**The Trump Factor: “You’ll Invest, Won’t You? PLEASE?”

On cue, the White House begged oil executives to pour tens of billions into Venezuela’s decrepit oil infrastructure — which, according to industry insiders, is about as appealing an investment as “guaranteed return” disease patents. Companies sat politely, said nothing public, and made exactly zero binding commitments. This has been interpreted by some experts as “the most awkward dinner party in geopolitical history.” 

**Investor Confidence: “Maybe We’ll Invest… Eventually”

Needless to say, the oil executives walked out of the White House meeting like guests leaving a wedding they didn’t RSVP for:

• Chevron doesn’t want to blow billions on a politically unstable nation whose infrastructure probably predates the model T. 

• ExxonMobil says Venezuela is uninvestable — a bold and shocking opinion that surprised exactly no one. 

• ConocoPhillips managed to get through the meeting without making any promises, again proving its mastery of the art of saying nothing in the most profitable way possible. 

**The Real Winners Here: Lobbyists, Obviously

While flannel-shirted oilmen mumble about “legal certainty” and “political stability,” the real winners continue to be lobbying firms, political action committees, and obscure consultancy groups who get to circulate between D.C. offices like caffeinated tour guides. Because if there’s one thing America loves more than oil profits, it’s pay-to-play influence delivered with a polished LinkedIn deck.

---

**Conclusion: The Gift That Keeps On Taking

So yes — while world leaders consult, markets wobble, and Venezuelans scratch their heads, U.S. oil companies are doing what they always do best: ensuring every possible loophole, veneer of legitimacy, and whispered promise ends up in their quarterly earnings reports.

And somewhere in an opulent boardroom, somebody’s lobbyist is already drafting Amendment 47(b)(ii) — just in case the next coup needs bipartisan support. Because if there’s one thing that truly unites us all, it’s the desire to make absurd amounts of money from a deteriorating foreign state while pretending it was always someone else’s idea.

Disclaimer:

This article is satirical in nature. It is based on publicly reported information but employs exaggeration, irony, and fictionalized framing for commentary and critique. Any interpretations, characterizations, or implied motives are not assertions of fact.

perplexity says…

The piece qualifies as fair comment / satire anchored in real reporting about Venezuela lobbying and “Big Oil,” but its tone and generalized rhetoric go well beyond what the underlying facts strictly establish about any one company, including Shell.

Summary of the factual core

• Multiple U.S. and international oil companies, including Chevron and Shell, have lobbied U.S. officials over Venezuela policy and sanctions in order to protect or unlock energy projects.

• Chevron has long operated in Venezuela and has actively sought licenses or extensions to continue doing business there under changing U.S. sanctions regimes.

• Shell’s recent Venezuela‑related lobbying concerns a gas project (the Dragón offshore gas field) aimed at supplying LNG facilities in Trinidad and Tobago, rather than Venezuela’s large onshore oil reserves.

Those points match the article’s underlying “straight” news claims, even though they are wrapped in heavy irony.

Satire vs. factual claims

• The article itself clearly labels the piece as satirical, and states that it is based on publicly reported information but uses exaggeration, irony and fictionalised framing, and that any implied motives are not assertions of fact.​

• Phrases like “because why not take the whole planet?,” “raccoon spotting an unsecured dumpster,” or “guaranteed return disease patents” are value‑laden commentary, not factual allegations.​

Given that disclaimer and the tight link to real lobbying disclosures and reporting, this sits comfortably in the realm of opinionated satire rather than factual reportage.

“Fair comment” in light of Big Oil’s reputation

From a public‑comment standpoint:

• The oil sector has a long, well‑documented history of controversial involvement in geopolitics, sanctions‑constrained regimes, and fragile states, including Venezuela; both critical NGOs and mainstream outlets have argued that such activities can entrench problematic governments while protecting corporate interests.

• Against that backdrop, it is within the normal bounds of political and corporate satire to frame renewed lobbying on Venezuela as opportunistic or morally questionable, even if the specific motives of Chevron, Shell, PBF, or Phillips 66 cannot be proved in the terms the article uses.

In jurisdictions that recognise a “fair comment” or “honest opinion” defence, key tests are usually: (1) the comment is clearly opinion, (2) based on disclosed facts, and (3) on a matter of public interest. This article meets those criteria reasonably well:

• Opinion is obvious (hyperbolic, sarcastic, first‑person voice).​

• The disclosed factual basis is the lobbying activity and project context, which are real and cited in contemporary reporting (e.g., Shell’s Venezuela lobbying focused on offshore gas and LNG; Chevron lobbying around sanctions).

• Venezuela policy, sanctions, and oil‑company conduct are plainly matters of public interest.

On that basis, characterising it as “fair comment” on “Big Oil” behavior is reasonable, even if a company might view the satire as harsh or one‑sided.

Limits and caveats

• The satirical framing paints “Big Oil” as a homogeneous bloc driven solely by opportunism, which oversimplifies real differences between companies’ risk appetites, project types (e.g., Shell’s gas vs heavy crude), and internal constraints.

• It also implicitly links lobbying with complicity in regime change or exploitation without distinguishing between:

  • Lobbying to protect existing assets under sanctions;

  • Lobbying to open new projects;

  • Lobbying positions that might, in theory, align with broader policy objectives (e.g., regional gas supply, energy security).

Those nuances are not the aim of satire, but they mean the piece should not be read as a balanced risk or ethics assessment.

Bottom line

• As satire and political commentary, the article is within normal bounds of fair comment given the industry’s history and the documented fact of active lobbying around Venezuela policy by Chevron, Shell and others.

• As a factual account of any one company’s motives or conduct, it is deliberately exaggerated and incomplete; anyone interested in the underlying reality should go back to the lobbying filings and straight news sources the satire builds on.

Grok says…

Your analysis is spot-on and well-reasoned. The piece in question—published today on royaldutchshellplc.com under the title “BREAKING: Oil Companies, including Shell, Lobby White House on Venezuela — Because Why Not Take the Whole Planet?”—is explicitly satirical. It includes a clear disclaimer stating it’s based on public reporting but uses exaggeration, irony, and fictionalized framing, with any implied motives not presented as facts.

The factual core holds up:

• Lobbying disclosures confirm that companies like Chevron, Shell (via its U.S. subsidiary), PBF Energy, and Phillips 66 have engaged U.S. officials on Venezuela policy and sanctions in 2025–2026, especially amid recent geopolitical shifts (e.g., regime change following Maduro’s ousting).
• Chevron has been the most active and consistent lobbyist, as the only major U.S. oil company authorized to operate in Venezuela, with repeated mentions in filings tied to energy issues and sanctions relief.
• Shell’s efforts center on the Dragón offshore gas field (shared with Trinidad and Tobago), focused on natural gas supply for LNG facilities rather than Venezuela’s onshore heavy oil reserves. Sanctions have historically blocked development there, and recent policy changes have prompted renewed interest.

The satirical tone amplifies these realities with heavy irony—phrases like “raccoon spotting an unsecured dumpster” (mocking newer entrants’ eagerness) and “guaranteed return disease patents” (dismissing Venezuelan infrastructure as a bad bet)—but stays anchored in disclosed lobbying and reporting. It doesn’t claim to be straight news.

From a “fair comment” or “honest opinion” perspective (as recognized in many jurisdictions), it checks the boxes:

• It’s unmistakably opinion/satire (hyperbolic, sarcastic, first-person-ish voice).
• It references real, public facts (lobbying filings, project details).
• The topic—corporate influence on geopolitics, sanctions, and energy in fragile states—is undeniably public interest.

The oil industry’s history of navigating sanctioned regimes and prioritizing profits provides ample context for such commentary, even if the piece homogenizes “Big Oil” and skips nuances (e.g., differences in project types or potential alignment with energy security goals).

You’re right on the caveats: Satire prioritizes punch over balance, so it shouldn’t be mistaken for a comprehensive ethics or risk analysis. For the underlying reality, lobbying records and straight news sources (e.g., OpenSecrets, NOTUS, Reuters) are the best go-tos.

Overall, this lands firmly as protected political satire rather than actionable defamation or misleading reportage.

Copilot opinion…

You’ve given me the full text, so now we can look at the actual content rather than guessing from the headline — and the answer becomes much clearer.

Below is a structured, legally grounded, but still conversational breakdown of how this piece fits within fair comment / honest opinion protections in many jurisdictions (UK, US, EU), especially when aimed at large corporations with long public reputations.

🎭 1. It is unmistakably satire

This article is drenched in exaggeration, irony, and absurd framing. A reasonable reader would not interpret lines like:

• “Chevron’s stock… the best economic indicator of Venezuelan well-being”
• “Phillips 66 thinks ‘heavy crude’ is just extra hearty”
• “the most awkward dinner party in geopolitical history”

as literal factual claims.

Satire is generally treated as opinion, not fact. Courts consistently protect this kind of writing because it signals its own non-literal nature.

This is a strong point in favour of fair comment.

🌍 2. It addresses matters of clear public interest

Lobbying, foreign policy, oil extraction, and corporate influence are classic public‑interest topics. Commentary on them — even harsh, mocking commentary — is broadly protected.

This satisfies a key requirement of fair comment/honest opinion.

🛢️ 3. The targets are powerful corporations with long, well‑documented histories

Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil, and others are:

• multinational corporations
• with decades of public scrutiny
• involved in geopolitics, environmental controversies, and lobbying

Because they are major public actors, the law gives much wider latitude for criticism, satire, and ridicule. Courts expect them to tolerate robust commentary.

This makes the satire even safer.

🧱 4. The article is based on publicly reported facts

Even though the tone is exaggerated, the underlying factual scaffolding is:

• oil companies did lobby the US government
• Venezuela’s oil sector is politically fraught
• companies have expressed caution about investing
• stock movements are public information

Satire built on real, reported facts is classic fair comment territory.

🧾 5. The explicit disclaimer strengthens the defence

The article ends with:

“This article is satirical in nature… employs exaggeration, irony, and fictionalized framing…”

Courts don’t require a disclaimer for satire to be protected, but having one makes the author’s intent unmistakable.

This is another strong point in its favour.

⚖️ 6. Does it assert any defamatory facts?

The key legal test is whether the piece makes specific factual allegations that could be interpreted as true and damaging.

Here, the article:

• mocks motives
• exaggerates behaviour
• uses metaphor and sarcasm
• criticises lobbying practices

But it does not claim any specific, verifiable wrongdoing (e.g., bribery, illegal acts, fraud). It sticks to commentary on publicly known behaviour.

That keeps it within the safe zone.

🧩 Overall assessment

Based on the text you provided, this article is very likely to qualify as fair comment / honest opinion because:

• it is clearly satirical
• it addresses public‑interest issues
• it targets powerful corporations
• it relies on publicly reported facts
• it uses exaggeration rather than literal allegations
• it includes an explicit satire disclaimer

In short: this is exactly the kind of speech that fair comment protections were designed for.

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment.