Various estimates for the cost of revitalizing Venezuela’s once-powerful oil sector are already rolling out, and the number one caution for news consumers is clear: Pay no attention to the headline number. Instead, dig deep into the details of the report before jumping to any conclusions. A report released Monday by Rystad Energy provides a good example.
The headline on a story at Energy Voice reads as follows: “Venezuela needs $183bn to revive oil output, Rystad says.” To be sure, $183 billion is a big number in any company’s budget, one which, without proper context, seems near-unattainable to the casual reader. What in the world is Trump thinking, some readers who don’t move past the headline into the details of the story will be left wondering.
So, let’s go past that headline and explain why that topline number really isn’t unattainable and is in fact pretty digestible for the likely players who could become involved in the effort:
The first thing to know is that the $183 billion estimate covers a span of 15 years and thus comes to a more manageable $12 billion capital outlay per year — roughly the price tag for a single new mid-size refinery or LNG export facility.
It includes an estimated $53 billion of capital costs required to keep production at current levels, reducing the additional needs to an even more manageable $8.7 billion per year.
It is an estimate of what it would take to restore Venezuelan production to 3.5 million barrels of oil per day (bpd) from its current level of less than 1 million bpd. In other words, it’s the stretch goal for the long term, rather than an assessment of the investments needed to meet a reasonable shorter-term goal of adding 1 million bpd over the next five years.
It assumes that the capital costs would be shared between big U.S. firms like Chevron, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips and PDVSA, the national Venezuelan oil company, which is a very safe assumption. Given that current Venezuelan law requires that PDVSA receives a 50% share in all oil ventures, the additional capital outlays for the U.S. companies would then become an even more easily manageable $4.35 billion per year.
For context, here are each of those U.S. companies’ total capital budgets for 2026:
• ExxonMobil: Between $28-$33 billion.
• Chevron: $18-$19 billion.
• ConocoPhillips: $12 billion.
Thus, the low end of those three companies’ combined planned capital outlays for 2026 comes to $58 billion. The high-end totals $64 billion. Given that context, the additional estimated capital outlays become more manageable still.
It is also reasonable to assume that, given its compelling national interests in this project, the U.S. government will be willing to support the rebuilding efforts with the offer of low-interest or even zero-interest loans to further reduce the costs incurred by these U.S. companies. The President himself even said as much in an interview with NBC News on Monday.
It’s also important to remember that these companies risk billions of dollars on international projects every year as a matter of course. ExxonMobil’s Stabroek development in offshore neighboring Guyana is a great example: The company has committed a total of $60 billion in capital to that single offshore development over the last seven to eight years. Just last year, it made the final investment decision on a single project, Hammerhead, to allocate $6.8 billion between 2026 and 2029.
ExxonMobil owns a 45% interest in the Guyana development, and Chevron owns a 30% interest. These kinds of big, high-risk, high-reward projects are in these companies’ DNA.
You have to do a deep dive into the bowels of such reports to really assess what they’re saying about the feasibility of the overall effort. Given the proper context, even the seemingly outlandish topline number from the Rystad analysis becomes completely reasonable and digestible.
So don’t make any assumptions based on headline numbers. Dig down into the details and watch information coming from both the White House and directly from the companies involved to understand who is and isn’t willing to take on the risks involved in the Venezuelan oil rebuild. The headlines are noise: The details inside tell the real story.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
(Featured Image Media Credit: Screen Capture/PBS NewsHour)
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
