"Chinese banks and Venezuela" Topic

Just saw this on X and I have no idea if it is accurate and if so how important it might be? Perhaps others here can comment?

🚨🇨🇳🇻🇪 CHINA TELLS BANKS: OPEN THE BOOKS ON VENEZUELA

Beijing just quietly told its biggest banks to open their books and reveal how much exposure they have to Venezuela, signaling that even China is getting nervous about Trump's foreign policy wild card.

Apparently, Chinese regulators are asking lenders to disclose their financial ties to Maduro's regime, after years of oil-backed loans, debt rollovers, and economic lifelines.

Why now? Because after the U.S. raid on Caracas, the legal and political risk around Venezuela's assets (especially Citgo) just went vertical.

And if Trump's threats toward Colombia escalate? China's financial footprint in the region could get caught in the blast radius.

Let's not forget, China has poured over $50 USDB into Venezuela since the Chαvez era.

But with oil repayments in limbo, U.S. sanctions back in play, and American military moves adding chaos, Beijing's asking a very simple and overdue question:

How exposed are we if this whole thing goes sideways?

If China starts pulling back or rethinking its role in Venezuela, Maduro may lose his last real lifeline, and the U.S. could find itself reshaping Latin America with more power than it even intended.

Source: Reuters via Bloomberg News

Of course Reuters . . . "Trump's foreign policy wild card" . . . others would characterize it quite differently! And as far as Columbia is concerned, they seem to be the ones escalating rather than Trump. But the fact of the Chinese banks being exposed, if they are, is surely significant.

Source: Reuters via Bloomberg News

Couple of minutes searching provided this Reuters news item, which is publicly available:

link

Which is presumably based on this Bloomberg news item (requires subscription for full access):

link

Edit: There is also this Business Times news item, presumably based on Bloomberg report:

link

Edit2: the text in docmcb's original post is not from the Reuters or Bloomberg news entry, it is presumably from this X post by Mario Nawfal:

link

Doc,

Although not brought up by anyone I've seen, Venezuela is another country with the mineral resources that many rely on China for today. 😉

Just my own thought, but if access is gained to "rare earth" in other countries to erode the reliance on China, the US would garner more leeway in responses, if China launched an attempt on Taiwan. Maneuverability is all important in any confrontation.

A good thing in my view.

Griefbringer, thanks for the links. So, accurate presuming Reuters is reliable.

35th, yes.

@35thOVI, there's often confusion between rare earth elements (REE) and non-REE critical minerals. REE are 'rare in terms of concentrations. The critical part of REE isn't so much deposits as processing capacity. This is where China dominates as it chose to develop the dirty, energy intensive processes by which REE are extracted from the stuff produced by other mining operations. Whatever deposits Venezuela has that can be used to process for REE, it doesn't have that capacity.

Venezuela does have non-REE critical minerals but in most cases there are stable, reliable sources for the US. These include:

(1) Niobium from Coltan – 90% from Brazil but some from Canada and Australia

(2) Bauxite for Aluminum – Australia, Guinea, Brazil, Jamaica, Canada

(3) iron ore – Australia, Brazil, Canada, Sweden

(4) tin/titanium/zirconium – Australia, Canada, South Africa

(5) Nickel/cobalt – Canada, Australia, Indonesia, Finland, DRC

When you factor in the investment to access Venezuelan deposits of these, the needle hardly moves. If one wants to erode reliance on China for REE then it's investment in processing one needs…and time to develop.

So, REE is a misnomer. They aren't rare as in scarce but are difficult to isolate and purify. In practice they are found abundantly but in trace amounts, so large amounts of ore needs to be processed to obtain REE in usable, purified amounts.

Many places have plans to replace China as a processing source. For example, the Saskatchewan Research Council is commissioning North America's first vertically integrated Rare Earth Processing Facility.

Shad, I was aware of the production issues, but I thank you. I also listened to the President address that issue early this year at a facility about an hour from home.

A few key things:

"China, Vietnam and Brazil hold 80% of the world's reserves of rare earths"
….
"How the U.S. lost its lead

Starting in the 1980s, China began surging ahead of the U.S. and the rest of the world in rare earth production. Around the same time, environmental concerns mounted at the only major U.S. rare earth mine, Mountain Pass in California, where spills of radioactive and toxic wastewater — byproducts of refining — raised alarms.

Mountain Pass is an open-cut mine where they "drill and blast, blend their types and locations in the pit" before grinding the solid materials into smaller particles, according to Kelton Smith, a lead process engineer for mining at Tetra Tech, a global consulting and engineering services firm. A flotation process then concentrates the rare earths that are in turn leached with hydrochloric acid.

The California mine had to halt production multiple times over the years due to environmental concerns. During that time, it changed ownership and ultimately filed for bankruptcy protection before being acquired by MP Materials in 2017, which reopened the mine.

The troubles at Mountain Pass helped China to gain a foothold and eventually overtake the U.S. in rare earths — just as demand for them was rising. Beijing now produces about 60% of the world's supply of these substances, according to the International Energy Agency. China also holds a substantial amount of the world's proven reserves of the ores that contain these elements — roughly 34%, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, but several other countries — including the U.S. — have substantial reserves as well."

🤔so environmental policies again. Who could have imagined?

….

"Taking a private-public approach

To reduce reliance on foreign supply, the White House is pursuing U.S. self-sufficiency in rare-earth production. The federal government under President Trump has supported the sector in ways that depart from traditional free-market principles. Rather than relying solely on private industry, the federal government has followed a strategy similar to China's, providing hundreds of millions in loans and even taking stakes in key mines and startups.

Indiana-based ReElement Technologies is among the beneficiaries of this government backing. Earlier this month, the Trump administration announced a partnership between the Pentagon, via its Office of Strategic Capital (OSC), ReElement and Vulcan Elements, a North Carolina based firm that produces rare-earth magnets for military applications.

ReElement says it has developed a more efficient, environmentally friendly method of rare-earth processing and recycling that involves chromatography. The company operates a commercialization facility in Noblesville, Ind., with a larger production site in Marion, Ind., slated to come online next year.

ReElement Technologies CEO Mark Jensen says confidently that by the end of 2026, "we'll be the largest producer of rare earth oxides in the United States.""

…

"The One Big Beautiful Bill passed in July appropriated $7.5 USD billion toward securing critical minerals. Days later, the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Capital announced a $400 USD million investment in MP Materials, making the U.S. government the company's largest shareholder. The Pentagon agency plans further investments in "[c]ritical components, raw materials, and rare earth elements utilized in microelectronic manufacturing."

As part of the deal with ReElement, Vulcan Elements will get a $620 USD million loan from the Pentagon's OSC with an additional $50 USD million provided by the Department of Commerce under the CHIPS and Science Act signed by former President Joe Biden. ReElement Technologies will receive an $80 USD million loan to support the expansion of its recycling and processing operations.

"I think we're making big strides now because of all the grants and all the critical-mineral-focused grants coming out," says Elliott, the University of Texas geology professor. "I think it really can set us up for success."
"
So I see this all as a BIG plan, not each as individual in themselves
. Part of the process that included negotiations with the Ukraine and other countries dealing with REE resources access.

An interesting list of global mineral resources.

You can't always bank on foreigners exporting to you, though.
A 'what-if'. The US is stupid enough to try to take over Greenland. NATO is then dead. Trade sanctions against the US?

I doubt that Canada or Australia would care to trade (or, indeed, have anything to do with what has become an Outlaw Nation). Any OZ PM attempting to cosy up to the Trump regime would lose the next election in a landslide. I really do not believe *that* particular alliance would still exist.

Where do you Americans get your minerals then?

OZ BTW is a mineral storehouse:
link

Will we be an outlaw nation or a high sheriff nation? And I think we should not assume either Canada nor Australia will remain governed by the left indefinitely.

"high sheriff nation" – do I laugh at this puerile notion or just shake my head in disbelief at your disconnection from reality?

You clearly don't know anything about Australian politics.
The centre-left is the ALP- the current governing party. The Liberals are the centre-right. Neither are very different from your Democrats. Neither are extreme right wing like your Republicans. Ideologically,there is no connection. If my 'what-if' occured, pragmatically, Trump would be electoral poison (TBH he already is).

Within the past year, Australian approval of the US has slumped to 8%:
link

The Liberals copped a hiding at the last Federal election for merely borrowing a few Maga tropes. A toxic US (that of course is dependent on how much empire-building occurs) would be political suicide – nay, political extinction – for any party in Australia to align to.

I would suggest you look at post-"51st state threatened" Canada for confirmation. Who would trust a new American empire? Who would want to trade with them (apart from Xi, Putin or Kim, of course)? Authoritarian wet-dreams are not a good basis for deciding foreign policy.

And you know absolutely nothing about the U.S., other than what you obtain from your like minded media sources.

Get out of your comfort zone, those of your like minded liberal associates, and sycophant media sources.

Come over, we will give you a tour of the real US and then leave you in a nice liberal Mecca like say … South Chicago. Give you a real feel for the results of decades of real US liberal political polices. A free education, the people there "might" let you take back. Big "might".

Let's not mistake political theatre for real intent vis a vis Greenland. John Mearsheimer has said that a US military occupation of Greenland would be the 'greatest mistakes a US president could make'.

Why? Because it would gain things the US already has with respect to Greenland – (1) military basing rights going back to a 1951 bilateral agreement, (2) the ability to surge forces without challenging Greenland's sovereignty, (3) cooperative access to minerals and (4) a stable Arctic environment, but it would lose NATO, including Artic cooperation with Nordic countries and/or Canada (don't forget NORAD) while gaining a hostile population, a furious Denmark (don't forget the Kattegut and access to the Baltic), diplomatic condemnation, and a weakening of alliances beyond NATO – all while over-extending itself in a logistically challenging environment (ice breakers anyone?).

Of course, both Russian and China would quickly move to exploit the situation (e.g., testing NATO in other areas). All of these leads to escalation and potential miscalculations by major nuclear powers.

No, Greenland isn't the trigger for WWIII but it leads to a series of cascading events that are highly unpredictable. And, for what? What the US already has – just without the Stars & Stipes hoisted over Greenland – which would likely be a short lived triumph. None of that takes into account cascading domestic US events – I'll leave that for the 'muricans.

Why the theatre? Greenland is a symbolic canvas for 'great power' posturing. Plays well with certain domestic audiences. It fits the narrative of America 'taking what it needs'. It distracts from other issues. Signals toughness without requiring action. But the moment rhetoric becomes orders the entire Western security architecture collapses.

ochoin LOL!

I understand why Aussie men dislike Americans.
When US Naval ships go to Australia the women would line up on the piers looking for American sailors to date. I'm a east coast sailor and knew 3 sailors that were married to Aussie women.

If the point ever comes that Australians have to choose between being under the protection of the US -- which they already are -- or being a Chinese satrapy, I hope and believe they will prefer the Yanks.

How is that submarine deal coming along?

link

They really want their three Virginia-class subs.

OSC +1

Shadoe +1

Part of the US reason for this raid. Was to also get the Chicoms, Russians, Iranian, Cuba and islamic terrorists out of our back yard. By getting the local gov't to oust them. After relations stabilize more between the two gov't.

But again, there is a lot to do, and this is Day 3 or 4.

Plus the Russians and Chicoms would like nothing better than to get a foothold on Greenland. Greenland is in our back yard too. So it is important keep that island well guarded to deter our enemies trying to do there as they have in South America.

I'm sure a deal will be made to have the US build or reoccupy bases. Just for the reason to keep our enemies off the island. Inching closer to the USA's shores.

Plus with the coming of US troops, businesses etc. It will be good for the island economically.

@docmcb. It's OK you have opinions but, at the risk of hurting your feelings, I generally prefer informed discussion. And when Hoi Polloi, losing the thread, attempt to get abusive, well, that's just sad.

It would be bad if the Free Peoples only have two choices- I agree:
YouTube link

Your linking Party Political Communiques definitely has entertainment value but maybe you should read something with a shade more balance? A pity you didn't even read the MyGov link I provided.

I thank you for your concern. Bless your heart.

ochoin, I do understand that Aussie politics right now runs from left to far left, but strategic realities remain. What do you think of the desire to have three VIRGINIAs? Interesting number, three, allowing one to be deployed constantly. That's a pretty big deterrent against an enemy naval threat. Wonder what threat they have uppermost in mind?

Maybe its the USA!

Not many other nations have been more fully committed to joining the US in a righteous fight over time. Lest we forget…

So the answer to an American threat is to buy American submarines? Not sure that works . . .

On a different subject, I just saw a video of an Iranian renaming at street in Teheran for Trump.

The centre-left is the ALP- the current governing party. The Liberals are the centre-right. Neither are very different from your Democrats. Neither are extreme right wing like your Republicans.

Only when the governing party doesn't also control the Senate, Ochoin- which is, fortunately, rare (despite party-aligned "Independents" that both sides try to get elected). When they do then they show their true colours, like Howard did after 2004 with "Work Choices" (aka "Modern Indentured Servitude") and I'm sure Albanese would- though The Voice referendum may have made him more circumspect. Governments complain about an obstructive Senate, refusing to acknowledge that the voters are hoping for just that result.

Not that it matters on TMP. Some seem to think anyone to the political left of Reagan is a Marxist-Leninist fundamentalist, so Australia, even under Howard, will be classified as Socialist. Luckily they're few in number, but you seem to sniff them out (and Vicky Verca).

Opposites attract?

PS Australia is a real, foreign country that even has its own Wiki page. Some of youse Yanks may want to get some facts before you type the complete BS I read in this thread.

Dal, are you happy that your government wants to have three VIRGINIA subs in its fleet?

I suspect most Americans are indifferent as to how other nations govern themselves. But having allies in a dangerous world is a good thing.

Dal, are you happy that your government wants to have three VIRGINIA subs in its fleet?

I have no problems with that, doc. However, you've only caught part of that story. For a start it will be three Va Class built in the US and nine more built here, if it goes ahead. There's so many reasons why it won't, eg what happened with the French-design sub project will likely happen again for the Va Class. Building Collins Class here, to create an industrial base, worked like a clockwork steamroller.

It's all on the net in biased, fair and fanciful commentaries/articles, as usual. But your understanding is well off the mark, doc.

One of the under-noticed stories this week: Chinese regulators asking banks to clarify their Venezuela exposure.

No commentary needed — balance sheets tend to notice realities before politicians do.

Thanks, Incav, for getting us back to the OP.

Dal, no doubt, there' always complexities'. I am simply pointing out that geostrategic realities often transcend ideologies and internal politics.

doc +1

Dal +1

balance sheets tend to notice realities before politicians do

Yes even the Chicoms would notice that.

Thanks, Legion.

geostrategic realities often transcend ideologies and internal politics

That's the problem, doc- you're basing your analysis of Australia, and what it may do, on a very faulty understanding of Australia's geostrategic position and world view. About all you have right is that, broadly, we are the US' friend and distrust China. The latter won't change (but that's me hoping, not knowing), however, there are numerous triggers (of varying probability) which could change the former. Some of them are looking possible (but fortunately not likely) these days.

I believe "Pulling a Macron" (ie signing up to a deal while knowing you'll break it) on the AUKUS subs is one. I doubt that the US will let Australia try to build nuke boats here, regardless of any signed contract/agreement. Considering our current capabilities (we can possibly keep the dunnies clean at the facility) that's not an unreasonable position to take, whereas "saving jobs for Americans" will go down like a concrete Zepplin. It would be seen as the US indeed "pulling a Macron". I'm not even going to guess what the outcome would be.

Just noticed this:

I understand why Aussie men dislike Americans.

Keep thinking that, pusser.

Happy to help, doc.

@Legion 4,

Ha ha, accounting does tend to be stubbornly acultural.

@Dal Gavan

Dal, fair enough — and I don't doubt there are layers and contingencies being simplified here. However, there is a narrower point to be made.

Alliances tend to be shaped less by ideological harmony than by hard geography, trade routes, and threat perception. Domestic politics matter, of course, but they often operate within constraints imposed by those larger realities.

That reliability is precisely why Australia has long been a valued partner for Washington: a broadly centrist strategic culture tends to produce continuity across electoral cycles.

Australia's choices will ultimately reflect its strategic environment first, and its internal debates second — as is true for most nations, including my own.

Reasonable people can differ on how those factors balance out.

As to the subs, sure, and given the history of procurement -- how many weapons systems have we seen go left, right, up, down, every which way except forward? and that's even with only the US involved? Add in a second nation with its own priorities and all bets are off.

Yet there IS, still, a non-zero chance that something develops. Australia has good reason to be apprehensive about China, and an American counter-weight makes good sense.

Incavart77, we're all guessing. Some guesses may be more informed than others. There's a lot of other things happening here, but the submarines are a trigger point. At least to me, but for OSA (I don't mean apnoea) reasons I can't give a full answer as to why I think that. I can say that if there's a way to screw the deal up then CASG's project managers will apply it, independent of any US/Oz policy changes.

As for internal debates, with 31% of the population immigrants the trust in the US and Europe is decreasing. As a lot of migrants have gathered in cultural enclaves within the capital cities, they are becoming a voting block that has some power. It's not a major factor, yet, but may become one in a generation of two.

Australia has good reason to be apprehensive about China, and an American counter-weight makes good sense.

Yes, doc, I agree. However, for several reasons Oz can no longer be expected to go "All The Way With LBJ!". The reaction to getting Maduro is mixed but, as Ochoin pointed out, trust in and support for the US is falling. Personally I don't think it's because of your president, but more about being a mouse in the elephants' enclosure of a zoo. Nobody is going to notice- let alone care about- the small smear of blood in the corner, should we miscalculate where one of the elephants will step next.

Another day, and things change again.

Source NPR

"WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump abruptly changed his tone Wednesday about his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, saying they had exchanged a friendly phone call and he'd even invited the leader of the South American country to the White House.

THE AMERICAS
From the border with Colombia: The view of the uncertainty in Venezuela
"It was a Great Honor to speak with the President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who called to explain the situation of drugs and other disagreements that we have had," Trump posted on his social media site. "I appreciated his call and tone, and look forward to meeting him in the near future."

He wrote that the upcoming meeting would take place at the White House."

Politicians often bluster in public while dealing privately.

Doc, maybe he is offering tons of free coffee beans. 😉

Maybe Petro told him how wonderful he is. Seems the way to get him to back off.

Works every time…. Maybe they can hold the number of countries who have been hit to seven.

Use the stick a few times and you bring them to heel. .

Just like Iran's scientists and Hamas terrorists have recently found out with Israel, you are not even safe in your own bed, or with the later, while cuddling up with your favorite goat. 🐐

Now the U.S. is doing it. Quicker than they can get to their "safe room".

Yes even the Chicoms would notice that.

But of course being Communists, they can make up their own numbers … No one would say anything. If they didn't want to get MIA'd.