Trump wasted not one second after US forces grabbed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He made it clear that he was eyeing the country's oil riches. But here's the catch: America's biggest oil companies aren't biting. Industry analysts confirm what the companies won't say publicly—even if these firms wanted back in, Venezuela's crumbling infrastructure and chaos on the ground mean Trump's fantasy of quick oil profits is far from easy to come true.
Trump promises Big Oil will pour billions into Venezuela. The oil giants say they never got the memo. AP Photo
Minutes after the military operation wrapped, Trump stood at a press conference making promises. Major American oil companies would pour into Venezuela, he declared, investing billions to fix the country's shattered oil infrastructure "and start making money for the country". Meanwhile, he reiterated that the US embargo on all Venezuelan oil remains in full effect.
Those sanctions have crushed Venezuelan exports into paralysis. Documents from Venezuela's state oil company and sources close to the situation confirm storage tanks and floating facilities filled up fast over recent weeks. Multiple oil fields now face forced production cuts.
White House Courts Reluctant Executives
Reuters revealed the Trump administration plans meetings this week with executives from major US oil companies. The agenda: pushing these firms to restore and grow oil production in Venezuela following the military action. The White House sees this as a critical step toward getting American oil giants back into the country to tap the world's largest proven oil reserves.
But Trump's eagerness hasn't translated into corporate enthusiasm. Several major US oil companies are taking a wait-and-see approach, watching Venezuela closely. ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron all denied any prior communication with the White House about Venezuela. This directly contradicts Trump's claim over the weekend that he had already met with "all" US oil firms both before and after Maduro's capture.
Venezuela sits on roughly 17% of the world's proven oil reserves—first place globally. Yet US sanctions and other pressures have gutted its production capacity. Current output runs around 1 million barrels daily, barely 0.8% of global crude production.
World's largest oil reserves, strangled by US sanctions. Trump's quick-profit scheme hits a hard reality. AP Photo
Only One Company Stays Put
Chevron remains the sole major US oil company still operating Venezuelan fields. The firm has worked in Venezuela for over a century, producing heavy crude that feeds refineries along the Gulf Coast and beyond. A company spokesperson said on the 3rd that the current priority centers on "ensuring employee safety, well-being, and asset integrity," adding they "will continue to operate in accordance with laws and regulations."
ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips previously invested in Venezuela. In the 1970s, the Venezuelan government nationalized the oil industry, reopened to foreign investment by century's end, then demanded in 2007 that Western companies developing oil fields form joint ventures with Venezuelan firms under Venezuelan control. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips pulled out. Neither company has responded to Trump's latest remarks about US capital entering Venezuela.
One oil industry executive told Reuters that companies fear discussing potential Venezuelan business at White House-organized meetings due to antitrust concerns.
Benefits Flow to First Mover
Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy, expects Chevron would likely benefit first if Venezuela opens oil projects to the US. Other oil companies, he notes, will watch Venezuela's political situation closely and observe the operating environment and contract compliance before making moves.
Mark Christian, business director at an Oklahoma energy consulting firm, lays out the baseline: US companies will only return to Venezuela if they're certain of investment returns and receive at least minimal security guarantees. Lifting sanctions on Venezuela stands as a prerequisite for US companies re-entering that market.
Reality Check on Oil Profits
Even with sanctions lifted, the Trump administration won't find making money from invasion-acquired oil that easy.
Industry insiders admit large-scale restoration of Venezuelan oil production demands years of time and billions in investment, while confronting major obstacles: dilapidated infrastructure, uncertain political prospects, legal risks, and long-term US policy uncertainty.
Peter McNally, global head of industry analysis at Third Bridge, said, "There are still many questions that need to be answered about the state of the Venezuelan oil industry, but it is clear that it will take tens of billions of dollars to turn that industry around." He then added that it could take at least a decade of Western oil majors committing to the country.
Ed Hirs, an energy expert at the University of Houston, pointed to a pattern: US military invasions of other countries in recent years haven't delivered substantial returns to American companies. The history of Iraq and Libya may repeat itself in Venezuela.
Deep Throat
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer departs for China on January 28 in what amounts to a diplomatic rejection of Washington's either-or foreign policy. Speaking to Bloomberg on January 26, Starmer made his position clear: Britain will stop “sticking your head in the sand and ignoring China” and pursue economic ties with the world's second-largest economy.
Starmer gave Bloomberg his clearest signal yet that Britain won't subordinate economic interests to US demands.
This marks the first visit by a British Prime Minister to China in nearly eight years—a gap Starmer himself calls a "dereliction of duty."
The Bloomberg interview, conducted at 10 Downing Street, lays bare the economic rationale driving this reset. Starmer's four-day trip fulfills a Labour campaign promise to repair UK-China relations, which deteriorated over Hong Kong issues, the COVID-19 pandemic, and espionage allegations. Recent months have seen deliberate moves to ease tensions—most notably, last week's approval for China to build a new embassy in London: widely seen as strategic groundwork for this visit.
Rejecting the Binary Trap
When pressed on whether strengthening China ties would come "at the expense" of Britain's closest allies, Starmer pushed back hard. He cited the US-UK trade talks as precedent: "I remember when I was doing the US trade deal, and everybody put to me that I'd have to make a choice between the US and Europe, and I said, 'I'm not making that choice.'" The message to Washington is unmistakable—Britain will chart its own course, and Trump's tariff threats won't dictate British foreign policy.
Starmer explicitly rejected the approach taken by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who recently called for smaller nations to band together against what he termed a "new era of great power rivalry." His calculation is simple: developing UK-China relations won't anger Trump or damage transatlantic ties.
Starmer insists that strengthening UK-China ties won't damage relations with Washington.
Timing Is Everything
The context matters. Carney's Davos Forum remarks urging smaller countries to unite in the face of great power competition put a spotlight on Starmer's China visit.
Starmer maintained that UK-US relations remain "very close" and will continue across business, security, and defense sectors. More importantly, he insisted that "Britain can have the best of both worlds" between China and the US—a tightrope walk that few Western leaders have managed successfully in recent years.
Follow the Money
Keir Starmer is finally saying the quiet part out loud to Bloomberg: the UK needs China. While he pays lip service to maintaining "very close" ties with Washington on security and defense, the real headline is his admission that Britain can—and must—pursue the "best of both worlds." The reality is that London is realizing it can no longer afford to blindly follow US foreign policy cliffs.
Make no mistake: the era of delusional decoupling is over. Starmer was blunt, stating that if you "bury your head in the sand and ignore China"—the world's second-largest economy teeming with opportunity—it would not be "sensible". He made it clear that this trip is unapologetically about economic reality, while national security is not compromised. "Quite the opposite," indeed—engagement is the only path to security.
The scale of this mission speaks for itself. Starmer’s hitting Beijing and Shanghai with a delegation of approximately 60 leaders from business, universities, and cultural institutions.
Washington's Chaos Forces London's Hand
The backdrop to this pivot is undeniable. The US-Europe transatlantic partnership is currently in shambles over the Greenland dispute, with Trump threatening tariffs against eight European nations. Add to that his inflammatory remarks about NATO “staying a little back, a little off the frontlines" and it’s no wonder London is looking for stability elsewhere.
Yet, Starmer insists on maintaining a "mature" facade with Trump. He claims the UK approaches these headaches with "British pragmatism, common sense, and adherence to our own principles." But the real issue is evident in his admission that the UK must forge tighter military bonds with Europe. He’s already signaling a capitulation to demands for higher defense spending, noting, "I do think that Europe needs to be stronger in its own defense and security, I think we need to step up to that challenge."
Starmer mentioned a weekend call with Trump regarding Ukraine, warning that both Kyiv and Europe are desperate for American backing. He framed it as, "Ukraine is a very good example of why we need to maintain a very close UK-US relationship".
The roster confirms the priority here is hard cash, not ideology. Reuters reported on the 23rd that heavyweights like Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Business Secretary Peter Kyle are towing a massive group of executives to the Chinese Mainland. The Financial Times adds that this commercial armada spans critical sectors including life sciences, aerospace, and financial services.
Sources close to the PM are cutting through the noise, labeling the refusal of previous Prime Ministers to visit China a sheer "dereliction of duty." The logic is inescapable: they hope to finally strengthen cooperation with the economic superpower. As one source put it, turning a blind eye and pretending China doesn't matter is reckless and will only make Britain poorer and less secure.
Starmer himself emphasized that it is time to reject the "overly simplistic binary choices" of the past—refusing to be boxed into either the so-called "Golden Era" or the disastrous "Ice Age."
When pressed on Starmer’s visit at a January 26 press conference, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun highlighted the turbulent international landscape. He noted that as permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and the UK serve global interests by strengthening cooperation. Beijing, as always, remains open to pragmatic engagement and will release further details in due course.
