President Trump has put a number on how much he wants the biggest U.S. and European oil giants to pour into Venezuela: at least $100 billion.
Less clear, even after executives met with him at the White House on Friday afternoon, was whether oil companies would follow through.
Some smaller businesses have been clamoring to establish or expand oil production in the South American country, and energy trading or refining businesses would be happy to have more of Venezuela’s oil flow to the United States.
But oil giants like Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips that have the money and expertise needed to meaningfully increase Venezuela’s oil production have privately expressed reservations about committing significant capital to the country, and they did so again on Friday.
After Mr. Trump promised $100 billion in investments by Big Oil, two people close to the companies attending Friday’s meeting cautioned that they were not aware of any such commitment by the businesses. The White House did not respond to questions seeking clarification.
Darren Woods, Exxon’s chief executive, was especially blunt during a televised portion of the meeting.
“We’ve had our assets seized there twice, and so you can imagine to re-enter a third time would require some pretty significant changes,” he said. “Today it’s uninvestable.”
For the company to return to Venezuela, legal changes would have to be made, and there would need to be “durable investment protections,” Mr. Woods said. But he offered an olive branch to the White House, saying Exxon was prepared send an exploratory team to Venezuela within the next few weeks if it received security guarantees.
Other executives were similarly cautious.
When pressed by the president, Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma oil tycoon and one of Mr. Trump’s closest oil-industry allies, also stopped short of committing to work in Venezuela.
“It excites me as an explorationist. Everybody has that in their blood,” Mr. Hamm said. But, he added, Venezuela has “got its challenges.”
The question of how much money oil companies may spend in Venezuela will come down to how those investments are defined. Simply maintaining Venezuela’s oil output at current levels, around one million barrels per day, would cost more than $50 billion over the next 15 years, according to estimates from the consulting firm Rystad Energy.
Executives and analysts widely agree that there is room to boost Venezuela’s production by several hundred thousand barrels per day within the next two years, at modest cost. But raising output above 1.4 million barrels per day most likely would require another $120 billion or more between now and 2040, Rystad estimated.
To put those numbers in context, the largest U.S. oil company, Exxon, has said it expects to spend around $28 billion this year on big projects.
Chevron, whose vice chairman, Mark Nelson, attended Friday’s meeting, is in a unique position for having stayed in Venezuela long after many other U.S. oil companies left. It is now Venezuela’s largest private oil producer.
After Mr. Nelson spoke, Mr. Trump made what came off as a not-so-veiled threat. “If we make a deal, you will be there a long time. If we don’t make a deal, you won’t be there at all,” he said without naming Chevron.
When pressed, Mr. Nelson later said Chevron expected to be able to increase its oil production in Venezuela by about 50 percent over the next two years.
The energy secretary, Chris Wright, suggested earlier Friday on Fox News that the U.S. Export-Import Bank might provide “credit support” for companies making large investments in Venezuela. The independent federal agency offers financing when private capital is not available.
Mr. Trump said the U.S. government was prepared to provide security guarantees, but not money for oil projects.
“Our giant oil companies will be spending at least $100 billion of their money, not the government’s money. They don’t need government money,” he said. “But they need government protection.”
Rebecca F. Elliott covers energy for The Times.
The post Trump’s $100 Billion Venezuela Oil Plan Gets a Cool Reception appeared first on New York Times.
