Trump announced that the U.S. would take control of Venezuela and allow American oil giants to enter Venezuela—what does this mean? What crises will Venezuela face next?

Some answers are truly masterclasses in wishful thinking: when it comes to oil issues, even asking AI yields nothing but subjective opinions—no evidence, no citations. Taking control of Venezuela is the opening gambit; only if this round of talks with South Korea bears fruit can it be considered a modest draw. This is an exceptionally professional and incisive question. The answer is: the U.S. not only has the capacity to handle Venezuelan oil—but the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries are among the world’s very few industrial systems that are both *most eager* and *best suited* to process Venezuela’s heavy crude. Regarding the characteristics of ‘heavy crude’ and the U.S.’s capacity to absorb it, we can analyze the issue from three angles: technological complementarity, current infrastructure status, and strategic bottlenecks. 1. Technological Level: Perfect Complementarity (“Light Meets Heavy”) Many hold the mistaken belief that, as the world’s top oil producer, the U.S. no longer needs Venezuelan oil. In fact, the opposite is true: ・U.S. oil is too “light”: The shale revolution has yielded predominantly light, sweet crude. ・U.S. refineries have a “heavy” appetite: The massive Gulf Coast refining complex (e.g., in Texas and Louisiana) was built over decades at a cost of tens of billions of dollars—specifically designed to process heavy, sour crude from Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada. ・Current reality: Due to prior sanctions on Venezuela, these refineries have been forced to import expensive heavy crude from Canada or operate below optimal efficiency. Restoring direct Venezuelan heavy crude supply would be a long-awaited relief for U.S. refiners—significantly boosting refining margins and operational efficiency. 2. The Real Obstacle to “Full Absorption”: Lies Not in the U.S., But in Venezuela Although the U.S. is fully capable of “consuming” this oil, Venezuela currently lacks the capacity to “serve it up.” ・Production collapse: Venezuela’s oil output has plummeted from over 3 million barrels per day at its peak to under 1 million bpd today. U.S. refineries have enormous appetites—the country’s residual output barely fills a fraction of one U.S. refinery’s daily intake. ・Infrastructure collapse: Venezuelan heavy crude is as viscous as asphalt; its extraction and transport require specific diluents (previously often supplied by the U.S.). Decades of sanctions and mismanagement have left pipelines, pumping stations, and upgraders largely rusted and nonfunctional. ・“Invest First, Produce Later”: For the U.S. to achieve full absorption, American oil majors (e.g., Chevron, ExxonMobil) must first return to Venezuela with capital and technology to rehabilitate these derelict facilities. 3. Why Rubio’s “Takeover” Proposal Is So Significant to the Energy Industry This explains why the U.S. is resorting to such an extreme model as “governorship/takeover”: ・Forced reallocation: Venezuelan crude is not only heavy but also high in sulfur. Previously, large volumes were sold cheaply to independent Chinese refiners (“teapot refiners”) equipped with specialized units. The U.S. strategy may now aim to sever this eastward supply chain and forcibly redirect Venezuela’s remaining output back to the Gulf Coast. ・Debt-offset model: Trump’s reference to “using oil profits to repay the U.S.” implies that American companies would enter, repair infrastructure, extract heavy crude, ship it to U.S. refineries—and retain the resulting profits within the U.S. financial system.

Avoiding the Middle East! International energy giants focus on Africa, heavily investing in ultra-deepwater projects.

Geopolitical uncertainty is the fundamental driver forcing capital to accelerate its relocation. By examining TotalEnergies’ African strategy alongside moves by ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and other oil majors, we can clearly see how the global oil and gas industry—amidst a complex operating environment—is pursuing diversified investment to break free from overreliance on any single region, thereby achieving dual goals: risk mitigation and long-term sustainable development. A panoramic view of divergence among the majors: Who’s sprinting ahead—and who’s holding back? Historically, global oil and gas resources have been highly concentrated, with the Middle East serving as the traditional core production zone. Its inherent geopolitical uncertainties—compounded by volatile output from a single region—can trigger cascading disruptions across global supply chains, exposing oil majors overly dependent on the area to substantial investment risks. For international oil majors, excessive regional concentration not only heightens operational uncertainty but may also constrain long-term growth potential. Breaking free from single-region dependence and advancing diversified investment has thus become an industry-wide imperative—to manage geopolitical risk and ensure sustainable development. ExxonMobil has chosen to re-enter Africa and make a major bet on deepwater Nigeria. In April this year, ExxonMobil notified Nigeria’s upstream petroleum regulatory authority of a $24 billion investment plan covering multiple deepwater projects. Of these, the Bosi project alone carries a price tag of $15–16 billion—representing the largest single deepwater investment by an international oil company in Africa in recent years. Chevron, meanwhile, is placing its chips on South America. In April, Chevron signed a series of agreements with the Venezuelan government, significantly expanding its footprint in the Orinoco Belt through asset swaps. In January, Chevron announced plans to increase its Venezuelan oil production by 50%. Unlike ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies’ intensive investments in Africa, Chevron has opted for a different path—deepening its presence in a region where it already holds established assets, boosting output via asset swaps rather than launching large-scale new developments. BP’s recent strategic moves have centered tightly on Namibia—the global oil and gas exploration hotspot. Through acquisitions of exploration blocks and accelerated resource appraisal, BP is strengthening its presence in this emerging hydrocarbon province—aiming to reduce overreliance on any one region, hedge against geopolitical risk, and secure long-term sustainability. In mid-April, BP acquired a 60% operating interest in three offshore exploration blocks in Namibia from Eco Atlantic Oil & Gas—marking the company’s formal entry into this southern African nation as an operator. Unlike TotalEnergies, which has already secured the giant Venus discovery in the Orange Basin, BP’s positioning remains at the early exploration stage—a low-cost “follow-on” strategy: securing initial footholds with modest capital, then deciding whether to scale up investment once geological data becomes clearer. Shell, for its part, is focusing on Nigeria. In January, Shell’s CEO announced the company is partnering with others to explore development of the large deepwater Bonga South West field. If a final investment decision is reached, the project could attract approximately $20 billion in foreign direct investment, with the decision targeted for 2027. Shell has already laid groundwork in Nigeria—including a $500 million investment in the Bonga North project and a $200 million investment in the HI project.

Exxon Advances Talks to Return to Venezuela's Orinoco Belt, Sources Say

Sep 16, 2026

ExxonMobil is negotiating to return to Venezuela's Orinoco Belt heavy oil projects, reversing its exit from nearly two decades ago. Competitors like Continental Resources and Eni are also expanding operations as US policy shifts encourage investment.

reuters

2026-09-16

Exxon Advances Talks to Return to Venezuela's Orinoco Belt, Sources Say

2026-09-21

Venezuelan Delegation Led by Rodriguez to Discuss Energy, Debt in US

Exxon Advances Talks to Return to Venezuela's Orinoco Belt, Sources Say

FAQ