The post-Maduro era has arrived, but the oil tycoons are collectively silent. Is Trump's oil dream about to fall apart?
2026-01-13 15:25:13
Amidst a rapidly changing global energy landscape, the US government, having successfully overthrown the Maduro regime in Venezuela, quickly turned its attention to the country's oil industry revival. However, this ambitious plan has been met with a lukewarm reception from oil giants. Several international energy companies have expressed strong hesitation, believing that returning to invest in Venezuela without fundamental reforms remains highly uncertain.
This article will analyze the causes of this phenomenon from multiple dimensions, explore the complex factors behind it, and reveal its potential impact on the global energy market. Through a detailed examination of statements from corporate executives, historical losses, and structural problems, we can see that Venezuela's path to oil revival is not smooth sailing, but rather fraught with difficulties.
At the start of the new year, the United States swiftly overthrew the Maduro regime, a move aimed not only at holding the former president accountable but also with the revitalization of Venezuela's oil industry as its core objective.
At a press conference, Energy Secretary Chris Wright optimistically predicted that Venezuela's oil production could rise rapidly with the return of giants like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. This vision stems from Venezuela's abundant underground oil reserves, often referred to as "Oil Gold."
However, this optimism cooled rapidly at a high-level meeting held on January 9, 2026. While the energy executives present expressed support for the government's strategy, they unanimously emphasized that Venezuela's current investment environment was not yet ripe.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods stated bluntly that Venezuela requires significant changes to its business framework, legal system, and hydrocarbon regulations, otherwise companies will struggle to restart operations. He specifically mentioned that ExxonMobil's assets in Venezuela had been confiscated twice, a history that makes the company wary of a third entry. This pragmatic consideration reflects that companies are not only pursuing short-term profits but also focusing on long-term, stable returns on investment.
It is noteworthy that representatives from two of the world's largest oilfield service providers—Halliburton and Schlumberger—were absent from this crucial meeting. Had they attended, they would likely have issued similar cautionary warnings.
These companies are considered the core force in the upstream energy industry, possessing professional labor and technical capabilities, and are able to repair old oil wells or drill new ones, thereby directly driving production increases.
When Halliburton withdrew from Venezuela in 2020 due to international sanctions, it left behind approximately $200 million worth of equipment that could not be removed and accumulated trade debts of up to $700 million with Venezuela's state-owned oil company, PDVSA.
From 2016 to 2020, the company wrote down a total of approximately $6.5 billion in losses and filed for arbitration last year in an attempt to recover some of the funds.
Similarly, Schlumberger, burdened with approximately $2 billion in debt, will inevitably demand full compensation before its return. These historical debt issues involve not only money but also the rebuilding of trust. Other onshore drilling contractors, such as Helmerich & Payne, have suffered similar blows: over $100 million in trade debt was written off, and several drilling rigs were nationalized.
ENSCO, the predecessor of offshore drilling company Valaris, lost $35 million in a contract dispute and at one point lost control of its equipment. These cases, layered upon each other, have created psychological barriers for companies to return to the market, reminding investors that past wounds have not yet healed.
Beyond financial disputes, the factors hindering a significant short-term increase in Venezuelan oil production are more profound and multifaceted.
In a column published in The Wall Street Journal, renowned petroleum historian Daniel Yergin expressed a rather pessimistic view on the prospects for corporate repatriation.
He pointed out that the "mess" left by the Chavez and Maduro era has become the primary problem: long-term lack of investment and maintenance has led to the continuous depreciation of oil assets; corruption and political interference have further damaged the industry value chain.
Juan Saab, a former senior PDVSA official, echoed this view, emphasizing that these problems are deeply entrenched. The current politically volatile environment makes contract enforcement uncertain, and further regime change could further damage corporate interests. The presence of lingering corrupt elements also poses a potential threat.
Furthermore, Venezuela lacks modern legal infrastructure, making it unable to provide reliable business protections. More seriously, the brain drain of the past two decades has led to a severe shortage of skilled engineers and managers; this "brain drain" has hollowed out the core workforce of its industries.
Nevertheless, Yergin argues that while some startups may enter the market driven by debt collection or opportunistic motives, this is far from sufficient for a full recovery. To truly regain its former status as an oil giant, Venezuela needs a fundamental political and policy transformation, and businesses must reach new agreements with the country—despite the latter's continued insistence on state control of oil resources.
Venezuela's oil revival also faces external geopolitical pressures. Major powers like Russia, traditional allies of the country, have not yet made a significant response to the US-led restructuring, but it is foreseeable that their involvement will not benefit Western interests. This great power rivalry adds uncertainty to investments, causing companies to worry about the safety of their funds.
American companies are naturally reluctant to invest billions of dollars, especially in a country that has repeatedly burned them, given the many uncertainties surrounding the industry. Overall, the core of this hesitation lies in the risk-reward trade-off: in the short term, oil production increases will proceed gradually rather than explosively. This reflects a rational shift in global energy investment, emphasizing sustainability and legal safeguards.
In conclusion, the hesitation of oil giants to invest in post-Maduro Venezuela stems from a confluence of factors, including historical losses, structural problems, and geopolitical uncertainties. While Venezuela possesses immense potential, its revival depends on the will of its people and the deepening of international cooperation. Only through comprehensive reforms can the country shake off the shadows of its past and rejoin the global energy arena.
In its analysis of the impact on the crude oil market, this hesitation may prevent a significant increase in global oil supply in the short term, thus maintaining high oil prices. If Venezuelan production fails to recover quickly, it will exacerbate the market dominance of Middle Eastern and North American oil producers, potentially pushing up energy inflationary pressures. However, in the long term, if reforms are successful, injecting Venezuelan oil into the market could smooth price fluctuations and promote global energy diversification.
At 15:23 Beijing time, US crude oil is currently trading at $59.95 per ounce.
This article will analyze the causes of this phenomenon from multiple dimensions, explore the complex factors behind it, and reveal its potential impact on the global energy market. Through a detailed examination of statements from corporate executives, historical losses, and structural problems, we can see that Venezuela's path to oil revival is not smooth sailing, but rather fraught with difficulties.
The US government's ambitions and the practical considerations of businesses
At the start of the new year, the United States swiftly overthrew the Maduro regime, a move aimed not only at holding the former president accountable but also with the revitalization of Venezuela's oil industry as its core objective.
At a press conference, Energy Secretary Chris Wright optimistically predicted that Venezuela's oil production could rise rapidly with the return of giants like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. This vision stems from Venezuela's abundant underground oil reserves, often referred to as "Oil Gold."
However, this optimism cooled rapidly at a high-level meeting held on January 9, 2026. While the energy executives present expressed support for the government's strategy, they unanimously emphasized that Venezuela's current investment environment was not yet ripe.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods stated bluntly that Venezuela requires significant changes to its business framework, legal system, and hydrocarbon regulations, otherwise companies will struggle to restart operations. He specifically mentioned that ExxonMobil's assets in Venezuela had been confiscated twice, a history that makes the company wary of a third entry. This pragmatic consideration reflects that companies are not only pursuing short-term profits but also focusing on long-term, stable returns on investment.
The absence of oilfield service giants and historical debt entanglements
It is noteworthy that representatives from two of the world's largest oilfield service providers—Halliburton and Schlumberger—were absent from this crucial meeting. Had they attended, they would likely have issued similar cautionary warnings.
These companies are considered the core force in the upstream energy industry, possessing professional labor and technical capabilities, and are able to repair old oil wells or drill new ones, thereby directly driving production increases.
When Halliburton withdrew from Venezuela in 2020 due to international sanctions, it left behind approximately $200 million worth of equipment that could not be removed and accumulated trade debts of up to $700 million with Venezuela's state-owned oil company, PDVSA.
From 2016 to 2020, the company wrote down a total of approximately $6.5 billion in losses and filed for arbitration last year in an attempt to recover some of the funds.
Similarly, Schlumberger, burdened with approximately $2 billion in debt, will inevitably demand full compensation before its return. These historical debt issues involve not only money but also the rebuilding of trust. Other onshore drilling contractors, such as Helmerich & Payne, have suffered similar blows: over $100 million in trade debt was written off, and several drilling rigs were nationalized.
ENSCO, the predecessor of offshore drilling company Valaris, lost $35 million in a contract dispute and at one point lost control of its equipment. These cases, layered upon each other, have created psychological barriers for companies to return to the market, reminding investors that past wounds have not yet healed.
Analysis of deep structural barriers
Beyond financial disputes, the factors hindering a significant short-term increase in Venezuelan oil production are more profound and multifaceted.
In a column published in The Wall Street Journal, renowned petroleum historian Daniel Yergin expressed a rather pessimistic view on the prospects for corporate repatriation.
He pointed out that the "mess" left by the Chavez and Maduro era has become the primary problem: long-term lack of investment and maintenance has led to the continuous depreciation of oil assets; corruption and political interference have further damaged the industry value chain.
Juan Saab, a former senior PDVSA official, echoed this view, emphasizing that these problems are deeply entrenched. The current politically volatile environment makes contract enforcement uncertain, and further regime change could further damage corporate interests. The presence of lingering corrupt elements also poses a potential threat.
Furthermore, Venezuela lacks modern legal infrastructure, making it unable to provide reliable business protections. More seriously, the brain drain of the past two decades has led to a severe shortage of skilled engineers and managers; this "brain drain" has hollowed out the core workforce of its industries.
Nevertheless, Yergin argues that while some startups may enter the market driven by debt collection or opportunistic motives, this is far from sufficient for a full recovery. To truly regain its former status as an oil giant, Venezuela needs a fundamental political and policy transformation, and businesses must reach new agreements with the country—despite the latter's continued insistence on state control of oil resources.
Geopolitical uncertainty and corporate prudence
Venezuela's oil revival also faces external geopolitical pressures. Major powers like Russia, traditional allies of the country, have not yet made a significant response to the US-led restructuring, but it is foreseeable that their involvement will not benefit Western interests. This great power rivalry adds uncertainty to investments, causing companies to worry about the safety of their funds.
American companies are naturally reluctant to invest billions of dollars, especially in a country that has repeatedly burned them, given the many uncertainties surrounding the industry. Overall, the core of this hesitation lies in the risk-reward trade-off: in the short term, oil production increases will proceed gradually rather than explosively. This reflects a rational shift in global energy investment, emphasizing sustainability and legal safeguards.
In conclusion, the hesitation of oil giants to invest in post-Maduro Venezuela stems from a confluence of factors, including historical losses, structural problems, and geopolitical uncertainties. While Venezuela possesses immense potential, its revival depends on the will of its people and the deepening of international cooperation. Only through comprehensive reforms can the country shake off the shadows of its past and rejoin the global energy arena.
In its analysis of the impact on the crude oil market, this hesitation may prevent a significant increase in global oil supply in the short term, thus maintaining high oil prices. If Venezuelan production fails to recover quickly, it will exacerbate the market dominance of Middle Eastern and North American oil producers, potentially pushing up energy inflationary pressures. However, in the long term, if reforms are successful, injecting Venezuelan oil into the market could smooth price fluctuations and promote global energy diversification.
At 15:23 Beijing time, US crude oil is currently trading at $59.95 per ounce.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
