The country is "uninvestable" not just due to political risk, but because of its legal structure. Current law requires foreign firms to partner with the national oil company, giving it a 51% stake. As this state entity is bankrupt and in default, any revenue it receives would be immediately frozen by creditors, making partnerships non-viable.

Related Insights

U.S. sanctions, intended to pressure the Venezuelan regime, create a legal barrier that prevents creditors and the government from even beginning negotiations on restructuring its defaulted debt. The path to resolution is ironically blocked by the very policy designed to force it.

While the Trump administration promotes investment in a post-Maduro Venezuela, major oil companies like ExxonMobil are publicly skeptical. Their stance that the country is "uninvestable" due to the absence of rule of law shows that political guarantees are insufficient without fundamental institutional reforms.

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.

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.

One of Hugo Chavez's first actions upon taking power was to dismantle the national oil stabilization fund. This mechanism, designed to insulate the domestic economy from volatile oil revenues, was a critical defense. Its removal left the nation fully exposed to price shocks, directly enabling the subsequent economic collapse.

A rapid rebound in Venezuelan oil production is improbable, even with massive investment. The effort is constrained by fundamental infrastructure failures, like a deeply unreliable national power grid, which is essential for running upgraders and refineries. This makes a quick recovery lasting years, not months.

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).

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.

China loaned Venezuela over $60 billion but halted funding due to extreme corruption. Instead of making new strategic investments, China now focuses on asset recovery, accepting oil shipments simply to pay down the massive outstanding debt. This highlights the limits of 'debt trap diplomacy' in utterly dysfunctional states.

The US action in Venezuela is self-defeating even if the goal is oil. The resulting political instability and lack of legal guarantees mean no private oil major will make the tens of billions of dollars in investments needed to restore production to previous levels, capping output far below its potential.