US Negotiates 100-Year Oil Deal with Venezuela: A Billion-Dollar Pact Sparks Controversy
From the first U.S. military incursion in Caracas to the latest signing ceremony, President Donald Trump has pursued a policy to seize control over Venezuela’s oil wealth. The newly inked agreement gives a U.S.-backed consortium 100‑year rights to 17 oilfields that together contain 65 billion barrels of crude—over a fifth of the nation’s proven reserves.
Trump declared it the “biggest oil deal in world history”, and interim President Delcy Rodríguez called the pact “historic”, promising at least $200 billion in tax revenue and $100 billion in investment for Venezuela. In contrast, former U.S. special envoy Elliott Abrams described the venture as “a terrible deal” and accused Rodríguez of merely “compliance with Washington’s demands.”
The White House says the deal is a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, portraying it as “shifting the geopolitical centre of the global energy markets” away from Middle‑East choke points. The consortium, North American Blue Energy Partners (Nabep), would operate under U.S. oversight, with the U.S. government holding veto power over board appointments and requiring that a majority of its board be U.S. citizens.
Experts warn the Venezuelan oil sector’s crumbling state means the promised profits slated within two‑three years are unrealistic; it could take a decade to restore production. Baker Institute scholar Luis Pacheco noted that a $100 billion overhaul over eight years is needed to return Venezuela to 30‑year‑old output levels.
Opposition figures, including María Corina Machado and economist Ricardo Hausmann, denounce the agreement as a new colonialist incursion that seals Venezuela’s future under U.S. influence. Former PDVSA head Rafael Ramírez called it “the opening of a new colonialism of the United States.”
The move deepens division between supporters of the PSUV’s governing party—who see the pact as capitulation—and pro‑democracy groups calling for a return to constitutional order and an immediate election. The deal’s one‑sided nature, critics argue, mirrors a “fever dream of what colonialism looks like.”
With no concrete timetable for elections, the Venezuelan opposition sees the deal as a betrayal of sovereign intent, while U.S. allies highlight potential geopolitical benefits. The long‑term impact on the region’s energy security remains uncertain amid questions about ownership, management, and the nation’s ability to rebuild its oil infrastructure.
