What do Fort Worth-based oil producers stand to gain in Venezuela?
President Donald Trump has said the Venezuelan oil industry is now open for American investment following the ouster of former leader Nicolás Maduro. But what exactly does that mean for U.S. oil companies, especially the small and midsize firms based in Fort Worth?
So far, the companies the Star-Telegram has reached out to have been quiet, but oil industry analyst Trisha Curtis, founder of PetroNerds, shared her perspective on the potential for an oil bonanza in Venezuela.
First, Curtis made it clear that she generally advises smaller companies to invest in the domestic energy sector. Going abroad, she said, brings uncertainty for a variety of reasons, the least of which are challenging political environments, like what you’ve had — and still have — in Venezuela.
But, Curtis added the caveat that if small and midsize producers are given an opportunity in Venezuela, alongside the likes of Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil, they could see a profitable return.
“They’re the ones that move the needle, make moves and take risks,” Curtis said of those smaller operations.
Though it likely won’t be easy for any American company, regardless of any size, to monetize Venezuelan oil, at least at first.
To start with, Curtis said, the country’s oil infrastructure is reportedly “dilapidated.” Despite having the largest proven oil reserves in the world, Venezuela produces only a fraction of the total global output, in part because of things like facilities and pipeline constraints.
Bloomberg analysts estimated it could take several years and $100 billion to get that infrastructure to the point where it can handle full capacity.
Beyond that, there’s the issue of the crude oil itself. The type extracted in Venezuela is heavy and thick, which makes it harder to transport and refine. But that might actually benefit Texas.
Curtis said Gulf Coast refineries are already equipped to handle the viscous Venezuelan oil since those refineries were built to process similar grades of oil from Canada and Mexico.
“The idea that we can’t refine this Venezuelan crude is silly, because we can,” said Curtis.
What worries Curtis most is the political situation in Venezuela, what she calls the “above ground problems.”
Twice since the 1970s, the Venezuelan government has nationalized its oil industry. When that happened in 2007, Chevron entered a deal to continue operating in the country, but ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil departed, accusing the Venezuelan government of unfairly appropriating billions in assets.
Given that history, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods expressed reservations about re-entering Venezuela.
Curtis said the future of American involvement in the Venezuelan oil industry depends on companies having assurances about where their money is going and how much control they’ll have over their operations and their profits. Essentially, Curtis said, it comes down to establishing the rule of law in Venezuela.
“You need massive reforms in Venezuela, and you need to weed out corruption,” said Curtis. “That’s not going to happen overnight.”
For now, Curtis believes the biggest benefit of the U.S. removing Maduro from power has little to do with oil and more to do with national security.
“We checked China and Russia in our backyard,” she said.
Venezuela provided most of its oil to China, and Russian “shadow fleet” tankers moved a portion of Venezuelan oil to avoid U.S. sanctions, both of which gave those powers a foothold in the region.
Curtis thinks deterring China and Russia is more valuable to the U.S. than getting a piece of the 800,000 barrels of oil per day produced in Venezuela, especially when we’re producing nearly 14 million barrels a day domestically.
This story was originally published January 28, 2026 at 12:48 PM.