Eight months after U.S. forces captured Nicolás Maduro, Washington’s involvement in Venezuela has moved far beyond politics. The United States is now gaining a direct economic stake in the country’s oil industry, turning what began as a military and political intervention into something that could last for decades.
At the center lies a new agreement involving North American Blue Energy Partners, or NABEP. The company has received 100-year concessions covering 17 Venezuelan oilfields with around 65 billion barrels of proven reserves.The U.S. government has also secured a 35 percent stake in NABEP’s parent company alongside guaranteed access to part of the oil it produces.
On its own, an American company investing in foreign oil would hardly be unusual. What makes Venezuela different is everything that happened before the deal.
Maduro was captured during a U.S. military operation in January and taken to the United States to face criminal charges. His vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, then became acting president. Although Maduro was gone, much of the existing Venezuelan political structure remained in place, making the transition more complicated than a simple change of government.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Washington soon began working with the new leadership, particularly on the future of Venezuela’s oil industry. Only months later, that relationship has resulted in an agreement giving American interests a long-term position in the country’s most valuable resource.
This does not necessarily mean that oil was the reason for removing Maduro. There were already years of political conflict between Washington and Caracas, along with sanctions and criminal charges against Maduro. But the speed at which political intervention has been followed by economic access makes the oil deal difficult to separate from the wider story.
There is also a clear economic argument for the agreement. Venezuela may have enormous oil reserves, but having oil underground is very different from being able to produce and sell it efficiently. Years of underinvestment, sanctions, political instability and problems within the industry have damaged production and infrastructure. Bringing the sector back to its full potential would require huge amounts of foreign money and technology.
The new agreement could provide some of that. NABEP has developed plans for up to $100 billion in new oil infrastructure, although whether investment eventually reaches that level remains uncertain. If production increases, Venezuela could gain badly needed revenue while the United States gains access to a major source of crude much closer to home.
For both sides, then, there are obvious benefits. The more difficult issue is what the United States receives in return.
Washington is not simply allowing private companies to invest and hoping that American businesses profit. The U.S. government itself has secured economic rights connected to the project. Its 35 percent position has even been structured to prevent that stake from being diluted as NABEP raises more capital. This blurs the line between foreign policy and commercial interest in a way that is difficult to ignore.
It also raises questions about sovereignty. Venezuela still legally owns its natural resources, and Rodríguez’s government has defended foreign investment as necessary for rebuilding the economy. The agreement has also been approved by Venezuela’s National Assembly. This is therefore not simply a case of Washington formally taking ownership of Venezuelan oil.
Yet the political circumstances surrounding the deal are impossible to remove from it. An agreement reached after the military capture of a country’s president carries a different meaning from an ordinary investment contract, especially when it could remain in place for generations.
The length of the concessions makes that especially important. Governments change. Foreign policies change. Relations between countries can change even faster. A 100-year oil arrangement could outlive all of them.
There are also practical questions over whether future Venezuelan governments would continue to accept the same terms. Any future administration that sees the agreement as too favorable to Washington could attempt to renegotiate or challenge it. For investors expected to spend billions rebuilding oil infrastructure, that uncertainty matters. The agreement is also part of a much larger competition.
China and Russia built strong ties with Venezuela during the years when Washington and Caracas were openly hostile. Their involvement gave Venezuela alternatives to the United States and helped both countries expand their influence in Latin America. According to the details released by Washington, many of the additional fields included in the NABEP agreement were previously operated or controlled by Russian and Chinese firms.
The United States is therefore gaining more than oil. It is also reducing the position of two major competitors in a country relatively close to American territory.
For Washington, this creates several advantages at once. It gains access to a huge source of oil, greater influence over Venezuela’s economic recovery and an opportunity to push Chinese and Russian interests out of part of the country’s energy sector. The agreement also guarantees the United States 20 percent of NABEP’s production at production cost and gives it first refusal on the remaining output. But this is where Venezuela could become important as a precedent.
Great powers have always used economic influence alongside military and political power. What is different here is how clearly these different forms of influence have followed one another. First came the military operation. Then came cooperation with the government that followed Maduro. Now comes an economic structure giving American interests a long-term role in Venezuela’s most strategically important industry.
There is no traditional occupation and no formal American ownership of Venezuela’s resources. Instead, influence is being built through contracts, investment, equity and guaranteed access. In some ways, that may be more effective. Military control is expensive and politically difficult to maintain. Economic arrangements can appear much less dramatic while lasting far longer.
For Venezuela, this creates a complicated trade-off. American investment could help revive an industry that badly needs capital and could bring more revenue into the country. Rejecting foreign investment entirely would not solve Venezuela’s economic problems. At the same time, becoming heavily dependent on one powerful country to rebuild the sector could simply replace one form of dependence with another.
That is why the real importance of the oil deal goes beyond how much petroleum Venezuela produces.
Venezuela may be showing what regime change can look like when military intervention is followed not by occupation, but by long-term economic integration. The United States does not need to formally control Venezuelan territory to gain a lasting position in its economy. Contracts can do part of that work instead.
Whether this arrangement survives future Venezuelan governments remains uncertain. But if it does, the most important result of the intervention may not be who replaced Maduro. It may be that a short military operation helped create an economic relationship designed to last for generations.
