El juego proxy entre Estados Unidos y Venezuela: Volatilidad geopolítica y oportunidades en el sector energético

The U.S. military and political intervention in Venezuela, culminating in the January 2026 capture of President Nicolás Maduro, has ignited a high-stakes proxy contest with profound implications for global energy markets. This operation, framed as a bid to "fix" Venezuela's oil infrastructure and restore democratic governance, has reshaped the geopolitical landscape of Latin America while creating both risks and opportunities for investors in oil and infrastructure equities.

Geopolitical Context: A New Cold War Battleground

The U.S. action has intensified tensions with China and Russia, Venezuela's traditional allies. Beijing and Moscow have condemned the intervention as "illegal and unjustifiable", signaling a potential escalation in their rivalry with Washington over resource control. Venezuela's oil sector, long a cornerstone of its economy, has become a proxy for broader ideological and economic competition. The Trump administration's pledge to involve U.S. energy firms in revitalizing Venezuela's oil infrastructure-while promising billions in investment-also underscores a strategic shift toward resource nationalism.

This intervention has disrupted Venezuela's existing alliances. China, which imported 300,000–470,000 barrels per day of Venezuelan crude in November 2025, now faces blocked oil flows and a stalled $10–$12 billion debt repayment mechanism. Meanwhile, Russia's influence in the region has been weakened, though its response remains constrained by its own economic vulnerabilities.

Energy Sector in Crisis: Sanctions and Structural Collapse

Venezuela's oil sector has been crippled by years of U.S. sanctions and mismanagement. Production plummeted from 2.08 million barrels per day in 2017 to 0.47 million barrels per day in 2020, a 77% decline. The Trump administration's 2025 "maximum pressure" strategy escalated this crisis, with physical enforcement measures like the December 2025 seizure of the M/T Skipper-a vessel carrying Venezuelan crude- under Title 50 USC § 1705. Additional sanctions on tankers and firms further restricted Venezuela's ability to export oil, historically its primary revenue source.

State-owned PDVSA remains in disrepair, with a brain drain of skilled labor and outdated infrastructure. Legal disputes involving U.S. firms like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, expropriated in 2007, remain unresolved, deterring new investment. Yet, the Trump administration's promise to "run" Venezuela and "fix" its oil infrastructure has sparked speculation about a potential production rebound to 1.2–1.4 million barrels per day by 2027, contingent on political stability and sanctions relief.

U.S. Energy Companies: Opportunities Amid Uncertainty
For U.S. oil firms, Venezuela represents a tantalizing but high-risk opportunity. Chevron, already with a limited presence in the country, could benefit from renewed access to heavy crude, which aligns with U.S. Gulf Coast refining capabilities. ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, despite unresolved legal claims, may see infrastructure contracts as a path to recoup losses. However, global oil oversupply and low prices could dampen returns, as any production increase would likely exacerbate an already saturated market.

Infrastructure equities tied to energy sector rebuilding-such as pipeline operators and engineering firms-also present opportunities. Yet, these depend on sustained political stability and the willingness of international banks to finance projects in a high-risk environment.

Risks and Geopolitical Pushback

The intervention's success hinges on volatile factors. Political instability in Venezuela could derail investment, while China and Russia may retaliate through diplomatic or economic means. For instance, Beijing has emphasized its "commitment to economic cooperation" despite U.S. actions, suggesting it may seek alternative routes to maintain influence. Similarly, Moscow's potential military or financial support for the Maduro-aligned regime could prolong the crisis.

Legal and reputational risks for U.S. firms are significant. The unresolved expropriation claims against ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips highlight the fragility of long-term partnerships. Additionally, the global backlash against U.S. military intervention-particularly in Latin America-could strain regional alliances and fuel anti-American sentiment.

Market Implications: Volatility and Strategic Positioning

The energy market's initial reaction to the intervention was muted, with oil prices rising slightly but gold surging as a safe-haven asset. The U.S. dollar's safe-haven status, meanwhile, was tested by the Federal Reserve's easing monetary policy. These dynamics suggest that investors should hedge against geopolitical volatility by diversifying across energy equities, precious metals, and defensive assets.

For infrastructure investors, the key lies in identifying firms with expertise in high-risk, high-reward markets. Companies with experience in post-conflict reconstruction or partnerships with U.S. government agencies may be better positioned to navigate Venezuela's uncertain landscape.

Conclusion: Navigating the Proxy Play

The U.S.-Venezuela proxy play is a complex interplay of geopolitical ambition, energy sector potential, and systemic risk. While the Trump administration's vision for Venezuela's oil sector offers tantalizing opportunities for U.S. firms, the path to recovery is fraught with political, legal, and economic hurdles. Investors must balance the allure of Venezuela's vast reserves with the realities of a fractured market and global pushback. Strategic positioning in oil and infrastructure equities-coupled with a diversified approach to mitigate volatility-could yield long-term gains, but only for those prepared to navigate the storm.