In the wake of political shifts and the potential easing of sanctions, Venezuela’s beleaguered oil industry is once again in the spotlight. With proven reserves rivaling Saudi Arabia’s, the country could theoretically become a major player in global energy markets. However, decades of mismanagement, corruption, and underinvestment under the Maduro regime have left its oil fields in disrepair, with production plummeting from over 3 million barrels per day (bpd) in the late 1990s to less than 1 million bpd today.
As U.S. oil majors like Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips eye opportunities amid talks of regime change or stabilization, a key question emerges: What will it truly cost to revive this sector?
Drawing from a recent Rystad Energy report and insights from energy analyst David Blackmon, this article explores the investment landscape, compares perspectives, and examines implications for investors and consumers.
Insights from the Rystad Energy Report
Rystad Energy, a leading independent energy consultancy, released a special market update outlining the staggering investments needed to revitalize Venezuela’s oil output.
According to their analysis, bringing production back to 3 million bpd—a level last seen in the late 1990s—would require approximately $183 billion in capital expenditure (capex) over the 2026-2040 period. This figure breaks down into $102 billion for upstream activities (such as drilling and exploration) and $81 billion for midstream infrastructure, including pipelines, upgraders, and repairs.
The report presents a phased approach:
Short-term stabilization (to 1.4 million bpd): Within 2-3 years, an additional 250,000-300,000 bpd could be restored through targeted workovers, infrastructure fixes, and short-cycle investments, costing about $14 billion. This assumes quick access for international operators.
Medium-term growth (to 2 million bpd): By the early 2030s, production could hit 2 million bpd with an additional $41 billion, focusing on expanded drilling and facility upgrades.
Long-term ambition (to 3 million bpd): Reaching the full target by 2040 would demand another $75 billion, with roughly 60% ($44 billion) of this phase reliant on oil prices staying above $80 per barrel to ensure economic viability.
Rystad also provides a baseline for comparison: Maintaining current production at around 1.1 million bpd (without growth) would still cost $53 billion over 15 years, primarily to combat natural decline rates. In a “base case” scenario with ongoing sanctions, output could slide to 700,000 bpd by 2040, requiring only $36 billion—funds that state-owned PDVSA could potentially self-finance but with diminishing returns.
Critically, the report emphasizes that success hinges on a stable investment climate, including revamped governance, legal protections, U.S. guarantees, and PDVSA restructuring. At least $30-35 billion in international capital would need to be committed in the first 2-3 years to kickstart momentum, with annual additional investments of $8-9 billion thereafter. Risks abound, from political instability to market volatility, but Rystad notes that technological advancements could lower breakeven prices, making a 2-2.5 million bpd ceiling more realistic in the medium term.
David Blackmon’s Perspective on LinkedIn
Energy commentator David Blackmon, in a widely shared LinkedIn post, offers a more optimistic spin on these figures, urging caution against “overinterpreting early cost estimates.”
Referencing the same Rystad report, Blackmon breaks down the $183 billion total as an average of $12 billion annually over 15 years. He subtracts the $53 billion needed just to hold production flat, leaving $130 billion—or about $8.7 billion per year—for actual growth.
Blackmon highlights the shared-risk model under Venezuelan law, where PDVSA retains a 50% stake in joint ventures. This effectively halves the burden for U.S. firms like Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips, reducing their annual additional outlay to roughly $4.35 billion combined. Comparing this to the majors’ projected 2026 capex budgets ($58-64 billion total), he argues the investment is “entirely manageable.”
He draws parallels to ExxonMobil’s $60 billion commitment in Guyana, including $6.8 billion for a single project (Hammerhead) from 2026-2029, noting that such mega-investments align with Big Oil’s risk profile.
Blackmon also suggests potential U.S. government support through low- or zero-interest loans could further ease costs. While acknowledging risks flagged by firms like Wood Mackenzie (e.g., political uncertainty), he emphasizes the companies’ proven track records in high-stakes environments, framing the opportunity as feasible rather than prohibitive.
Comparing the Rystad Report and Blackmon’s Summary
At first glance, Rystad’s $183 billion headline figure paints a daunting picture, evoking comparisons to building multiple refineries or LNG plants from scratch.
The report underscores the long timelines—up to 15 years for full recovery—and the prerequisite of political stability, warning that without early commitments of $30-35 billion, momentum could stall. It also highlights infrastructure bottlenecks, with over $65 billion needed for repairs alone, reflecting the sector’s deep decay.
Blackmon, however, reframes this as less intimidating by annualizing costs and factoring in cost-sharing.
His analysis downplays the total by comparing it to routine Big Oil expenditures, suggesting the real hurdle is not the dollar amount but securing a reliable operating environment. Where Rystad focuses on scenarios and risks, Blackmon emphasizes practicality, arguing that the investment scales appropriately for majors accustomed to billion-dollar bets. This contrast highlights a key debate: Is Venezuela a black hole for capital, or a calculated opportunity in a supply-constrained world?
Other analysts echo elements of both views. For instance, some estimates suggest $110 billion to merely double output by 2030, aligning with Rystad’s medium-term phase but underscoring the variability in projections.
Ultimately, the “real cost” depends on assumptions about oil prices, partnerships, and geopolitics.
What Investors in Oil Majors Should Look For
For shareholders in oil giants like Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips, Venezuela represents both upside potential and volatility.
Key factors to monitor include:
Partnership Structures and Government Backing: Watch for joint ventures with PDVSA that include favorable terms, such as U.S. loan guarantees or arbitration protections. Blackmon’s point on cost-sharing is crucial—investors should scrutinize how much skin the majors truly have in the game.
Production Milestones and ROI: Short-term wins, like the 300,000 bpd boost in 2-3 years, could provide quick cash flows. Evaluate breakeven prices; Rystad notes that much of the later-phase investment requires $80+ oil, so track global demand trends.
Risk Mitigation: Political stability is paramount—look for signals from the Trump administration on sanctions relief or direct involvement. Diversification matters; companies with strong portfolios (e.g., Exxon’s Guyana assets) are better positioned to absorb setbacks.
ESG and Market Impact: Investors should assess environmental risks in Venezuela’s heavy crude operations and potential backlash. On the positive side, increased supply could bolster energy security, supporting long-term stock performance in a high-price environment.
Overall, while risks are high, successful entry could enhance reserves and dividends, rewarding patient investors.
How Consumers Might Benefit
A revitalized Venezuelan oil sector could ripple positively through global markets, benefiting everyday consumers. Boosting output to 2-3 million bpd would add significant supply, potentially easing upward pressure on prices in a world grappling with OPEC cuts and geopolitical tensions.
U.S. refineries, optimized for Venezuela’s heavy crude, could see lower input costs, translating to cheaper gasoline and heating oil—especially along the Gulf Coast.
Longer-term, diversified global supply reduces reliance on volatile regions, stabilizing pump prices. If investments lead to cleaner technologies (e.g., reduced flaring), environmental benefits could emerge, though this is secondary. Consumers in energy-importing nations stand to gain from moderated inflation in fuel-dependent sectors like transportation and manufacturing.ConclusionRebuilding Venezuela’s oil fields is no small feat, with Rystad Energy’s $183 billion estimate underscoring the scale of the challenge.
Yet, as David Blackmon astutely points out, when viewed through the lens of annual commitments and shared risks, it becomes a viable proposition for Big Oil. Stu Turley will be talking with David Blackmon and Doomberg on a podcast and will be covering this article.
Investors should weigh opportunities against uncertainties, while consumers could reap rewards from enhanced supply. As developments unfold in 2026, the true cost will be measured not just in dollars but in political will and strategic execution.
Stay tuned to Energy News Beat for updates on this evolving story.
Be the first to comment