US President Donald Trump has long been enamored with Venezuela's vast oil reserves, but it's unlikely that he'll secure a lucrative deal anytime soon. The issue is twofold: first, the global market is saturated with oil, making Venezuela's crude an unattractive investment opportunity; second, the country's decrepit infrastructure and lack of major investments render it unable to produce much oil.
To justify investing in greenfield projects, the price of Brent crude must reach at least $80 a barrel. However, prices have been hovering between $58.7 and $62.3 over the past month, far below this threshold. Even if there was demand for Venezuelan oil, the process of extracting it would be daunting.
As the US economy has become less dependent on foreign oil in recent decades, the economic benefits of acquiring Venezuela's resources are diminished. The country produces only 1% of world oil production and 4.3% of what the US pumped last year. Furthermore, crude oil is a resource that cannot be easily exploited; contracts would likely be abrogated by new governments, or worse, destroyed in conflict.
This reality was illustrated during the US occupation of Iraq, where ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods advised Trump that Venezuela was "uninvestable." The country's experience with production disruptions and payment arrears has driven multinational oil companies away. It is likely safer for US firms to procure whatever oil they need domestically rather than risking investment in a troubled economy.
The US has a history of intervening in the oil industries of other countries, often using regime change as a means to secure access to valuable resources. However, even this precedent suggests that it's not worth the risk; Iraq, for example, showed that such attempts can backfire.
In conclusion, while Trump may still fantasize about Venezuela's oil riches, the economic case is weak, and the risks far outweigh any potential benefits. It's likely that US companies will continue to prioritize domestic production over investing in a troubled country with uncertain prospects.
To justify investing in greenfield projects, the price of Brent crude must reach at least $80 a barrel. However, prices have been hovering between $58.7 and $62.3 over the past month, far below this threshold. Even if there was demand for Venezuelan oil, the process of extracting it would be daunting.
As the US economy has become less dependent on foreign oil in recent decades, the economic benefits of acquiring Venezuela's resources are diminished. The country produces only 1% of world oil production and 4.3% of what the US pumped last year. Furthermore, crude oil is a resource that cannot be easily exploited; contracts would likely be abrogated by new governments, or worse, destroyed in conflict.
This reality was illustrated during the US occupation of Iraq, where ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods advised Trump that Venezuela was "uninvestable." The country's experience with production disruptions and payment arrears has driven multinational oil companies away. It is likely safer for US firms to procure whatever oil they need domestically rather than risking investment in a troubled economy.
The US has a history of intervening in the oil industries of other countries, often using regime change as a means to secure access to valuable resources. However, even this precedent suggests that it's not worth the risk; Iraq, for example, showed that such attempts can backfire.
In conclusion, while Trump may still fantasize about Venezuela's oil riches, the economic case is weak, and the risks far outweigh any potential benefits. It's likely that US companies will continue to prioritize domestic production over investing in a troubled country with uncertain prospects.