The deal to give the U.S. majority control over 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s proven oil reserves is a step toward stability and economic growth in the South American country, according to U.S. officials, even as major questions linger about the agreement’s implications for citizens of the recovering nation.
The deal will bring with it positive economic consequences, U.S. officials argued in a background briefing with reporters on Tuesday, allowing for the eventual elected government of Venezuela to inherit a functioning democratic country and not one in crisis.
The agreement, announced by the Trump administration last week and signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, creates a new private company, North American Blue Energy Partners, to develop 17 Venezuelan oil fields holding a proven 65 billion barrels of reserves.
Venezuela’s government has granted the company, led by Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt, 100-year operating rights over the fields. Mr. Betancourt has committed to a $100 billion investment in oil infrastructure.
The Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital holds a 35% equity position in NABEP, according to the White House, and the State Department has secured a right to purchase 20% of the company’s output at cost, constituting a U.S. claim to 55% of the fields’ effective output. The official text of the deal has not been released publicly.
U.S. officials argue the arrangement would end a corrupt system that benefited China and Cuba while cutting out the Venezuelan people. One official said Venezuela under the Maduro government had given away more than $40 billion in subsidized oil to Cuba, while China received steep discounts on crude exports and Russia accepted oil as debt repayment.
Officials maintain the restructured arrangement will channel oil-generated revenue into public goods such as infrastructure and schooling, rather than continuing to subsidize regime loyalists who benefited under the Maduro government.
Since U.S. forces arrested former President Nicolas Maduro in January, officials have not provided a firm timeline for democratic elections to replace the interim government, led by former Vice President Delcy Rodríguez. The U.S. is facilitating reconciliation talks between the interim government and representatives of Venezuela’s 2015 National Assembly, the last legislative body elected before Chavismo-era institutions were widely regarded as illegitimate.
Despite Washington’s optimism, Ms. Rodríguez’s public messaging suggests she may be managing growing domestic resistance to perceptions of U.S. control. In a televised address last month, she insisted that Venezuela maintains “ownership and sovereignty” over its resources.
Much like U.S. officials, Ms. Rodríguez cast the deal as a way for her country to improve and scale its own oil capacity, saying Venezuela could eventually become an international oil powerhouse and a “major national petrochemical developer.” She said $19 of every barrel sold will go to Caracas, which she estimated would generate more than $200 billion in annual revenue, while adding that Venezuela will pursue expanded deals with international oil companies such as Shell and Chevron.
Ms. Rodríguez’s comments appear aimed at easing concerns that the deal could violate Article 12 of Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, which designates the country’s mineral and hydrocarbon deposits as inalienable public property. A separate provision, Article 13, bans the lease or sale of Venezuelan territory to foreign states, which could be a significant issue for the U.S.’s equity stake in NABEP.
Without the full text, legal experts say it remains difficult to determine whether the agreement violates either provision. Venezuela’s 2026 Organic Hydrocarbons Law dictates that the government must retain official ownership of the deposits even when extraction and development are run by private companies. That framework has not previously accommodated a 100-year concession like the one reportedly laid out in the U.S. deal.
The deal could also face unwinding under a future U.S. or Venezuelan administration. Because the agreement was not structured as a ratified treaty, a future president in either country could modify or withdraw from it without legislative approval.
Additionally, oil corporations have previously expressed skepticism about investing in Venezuela’s development. Exxon CEO Darren Woods famously called Venezuela “uninvestable” in January, drawing a rebuke from President Trump.
The Chavez government’s decision in 2007 to nationalize much of its oil also led to Exxon and ConocoPhillips pulling out of the country, a history that could prevent extensive future investment.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.