To spur investment in Venezuela's risky environment, the U.S. administration may need to employ a "carrot and stick" approach with oil majors. This could involve offering capital guarantees to de-risk investments (the carrot) or threatening to revoke leases on U.S. federal lands for non-compliance (the stick).

Related Insights

In a future restructuring, the typical fight between creditors and citizens will likely be preceded by a new top tier of claimants. The U.S. government, seeking to cover its intervention costs, and oil companies, needing payment for past expropriations, will likely get first access to revenues.

Before any significant capital flows into Venezuela's oil sector, the near future will be dedicated to political negotiation and establishing a stable legal framework. Major players like Exxon still consider the country "uninvestable," meaning the primary focus will be on creating the conditions for future investment, not the investment itself.

Chevron's decision to remain in Venezuela, unlike other oil majors, isn't just about future potential. It's heavily influenced by massive, decades-long sunk costs, including U.S. Gulf Coast refineries specifically optimized to process Venezuela's unique heavy sour crude.

Contrary to assumptions, oil majors are cautious about re-entering Venezuela. They worry about a lack of legal certainty and the risk that any deals could be undone and heavily scrutinized by a future U.S. administration, making the investment too risky.

A potential restart of Venezuelan oil is significant because it is a heavy, diesel-rich crude that has become scarce as U.S. shale dominates supply with light oil. U.S. Gulf Coast refiners, built decades ago, are specifically configured to process this heavy crude, creating a unique high-margin opportunity.

Despite significant upfront costs of $15-20 billion to bring 500,000 barrels per day online, developing Venezuela's oil sector is comparatively inexpensive. The cost is estimated to be 25% cheaper than current deepwater projects in neighboring countries, presenting a compelling relative value proposition for energy investors if political risks can be mitigated.

While Chinese firms are anxious about their Venezuelan assets, their history in Iraq provides a roadmap. After the 2003 US-led invasion, Chinese companies were initially worried but eventually became the largest investors in Iraq's oil industry. This suggests a long-term strategy of patience and high risk tolerance to outlast political instability.

The hosts argue that even with vast oil reserves and government encouragement, the political instability, power vacuum, and lack of rule of law in Venezuela make it a poor investment for oil companies. The cost and uncertainty of securing profits are too high.

By consolidating influence over Venezuelan and Guyanese reserves alongside its own, the U.S. could control nearly a third of global oil reserves. This would fundamentally reshape energy geopolitics, diminishing the influence of powers like Saudi Arabia and potentially keeping oil prices in a lower range.

The Trump administration's intervention in Venezuela is overtly focused on securing oil to lower global prices, rather than promoting human rights. The plan involves seizing and selling Venezuelan oil with the president personally controlling the proceeds in what critics are calling "high tech piracy."