Oil industry executives and specialists in Venezuela consulted by Politico questioned the viability of the $100 billion plan announced by the Trump administration to reactivate Venezuelan oil production, warning that the agreement may not generate significant oil in the short term —or perhaps never.
On August 28, Donald Trump presented the deal as the largest oil agreement in history: the United States would acquire a 35% stake in the company North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP), based in Barbados, to exploit 17 Venezuelan fields with approximately 65 billion barrels of reserves.
In exchange, Washington would have "preferential access" to 20% of the oil produced at cost price, supposedly intended for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Criticism of the agreement is coming from multiple fronts. An oil executive who spoke on condition of anonymity summed up the reaction from part of the industry with a rhetorical question: "What is this? It’s too big for a company lacking capabilities and credibility."
Evanan Romero, former executive of Petróleos de Venezuela and consultant in Houston, was more specific: he pointed out that the industry considers the fields of the Orinoco Belt—where approximately half of the reserves covered by the agreement are located—"not economical until the 22nd century." "There is no economy to develop that right now," he stated.
Another anonymous executive familiar with the fields estimated that connecting those reserves to the market would require "at least a decade and hundreds of billions of dollars," and described the plan as "aspirational" at best.
Doubts about profitability also extend to the financial structure of the agreement. Jim Reardon from the law firm Nelson Mullins warned that the clause reserving 20% of production for the Strategic Reserve amounts to a gross royalty that would deter any private investor: "Will there be any profit at the end of the day? Who will assume the risk?"
Analysts add that Venezuelan extra-heavy crude is technically incompatible with the type of oil that the Strategic Reserve is designed to store, making that promise another questionable element of the plan.
The figure of the CEO of NABEP, Alejandro Betancourt, adds another layer of controversy. The Washington Post reported that the U.S. intervened in response to a Swiss arrest warrant to allow him to travel for negotiations regarding the agreement, amid investigations into alleged money laundering in several countries.
Professor Orlando Pérez from the University of North Texas in Dallas describes him as a "bolichico"—a term for entrepreneurs who became rich through connections with the chavismo—and doubts that a future Democratic administration will continue to protect him.
An anonymous U.S. official defended the choice of Betancourt, arguing that she is "a person who, in the past, has been helpful to the U.S. government," and that the agreement prevents the fields from falling into the hands of Russian and Chinese companies.
The Venezuelan opposition has also expressed concerns. Liliana Díaz, senior researcher at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center, summarized the political paradox of the agreement: «Criticism comes from opposing directions. The hardliners object to the sovereignty over the resource. The opposition challenges its constitutional legitimacy. Something that is attacked from both sides at once tends not to last, regardless of its economy».
This tension is compounded by an unresolved contradiction between the parties: while the White House's fact sheet mentions concessions lasting 100 years, the acting Venezuelan president Delcy Rodríguez stated that the contracts would last 25 years, indicating that the fundamental details of the agreement remain fluid.
María Corina Machado reacted to the agreement with "sadness and anger", questioning Rodríguez's constitutional authority to negotiate the country's resources and asserting that "Venezuela is worth much more than its oil."
Related videos:
Filed under: