Historic Energy Pact: US Firm Granted 100-Year Rights to 17 Venezuelan Oil Fields

The geopolitical architecture of global energy shifted dramatically on September 2 when Washington and Caracas finalized what is being hailed as the most consequential petroleum agreement in modern history. Signed in the Venezuelan capital, the landmark pact grants a private American firm unprecedented access to 17 massive oil fields over a sweeping 100-year horizon. 

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, left, shakes hands with Venezuela's acting President Delcy Rodriguez during a press conference after a meeting at the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas on Feb. 11, 2026. (Photo: Juan Barreto/AFP via Getty Images)

Encompassing an estimated 65 billion barrels of crude—amounting to more than one-fifth of Venezuela’s entire proven petroleum reserves—the accord represents a staggering realignment of energy dominance in the Western Hemisphere. President Donald Trump immediately lauded the arrangement as the "greatest oil deal in world history," while Venezuelan interim President Delcy Rodríguez echoed this sentiment, framing the pact as a monumental milestone projected to inject $100 billion in direct capital investments while generating over $200 billion in downstream taxes and royalties for the nation.

Under the intricate framework orchestrated by the White House, the American government will partner directly with North American Blue Energy Partners (Nabep), vaulting the private entity into a dominant position as the second-largest oil producer in Venezuela, trailing only Chevron. The administrative oversight built into the agreement reflects intense strategic control: the US government retains direct veto power over the appointment of any board member within Nabep, and a mandated majority of the board must consist of US citizens.

 US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum championed the accord as a masterstroke of energy security, asserting that it fundamentally relocates the geopolitical center of global energy markets away from fragile Middle Eastern chokepoints and firmly into the Western Hemisphere, insulating Western supply chains from eastern volatility.

Yet, the sweeping accord has ignited fierce controversy across multiple ideological and political spectrums, exposing deep fractures both domestically and internationally. Critics within Washington, most notably former US special envoy for Venezuela and Iran Elliott Abrams, harshly condemned the arrangement as a flawed deal, accusing interim President Rodríguez of essentially signing away 20% of the sovereign nation's primary wealth asset with minimal reciprocal concessions. Simultaneously, the agreement has infuriated Venezuela’s fractured political opposition, who view Washington’s willingness to normalize institutional ties with Rodríguez—a former vice president under Nicolás Maduro—as a betrayal of democratic transition efforts, particularly given the absence of a concrete timeline for open elections.

Opposition is equally fierce from the nation’s entrenched socialist factions and nationalist hardliners, who view the century-long lease as a humiliating capitulation to American imperialism. High-profile figures, including former Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramírez, vocally denounced the pact, characterizing it as a blatant doorway to a modern iteration of American neo-colonialism. By binding Venezuela's vast subterranean wealth to US corporate and strategic oversight for a full century, the agreement bypasses traditional sovereign autonomy, transforming the South American nation into a cornerstone of American energy hegemony while drawing intense fire from those who fear the long-term cost of such profound geopolitical entanglement.