You’ve reached your free article limit
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
And that’s before we start talking about the tens of billions of dollars of investment required.

Donald Trump could not have been more clear about his intentions. Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro may be sitting in New York’s Metropolitan Detention Center on drugs and weapons charges, but the United States removed him from power — at least in part — because the Trump administration wants oil. And it wants American companies to get it.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies, the biggest anywhere in the world, go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, the oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country,” Trump said over the weekend in a press conference following Maduro’s removal from Venezuela.
The country’s claimed crude oil reserves are the largest in the world, according to OPEC data, standing at just over 300 billion barrels, compared to around 45 billion in the United States and 267 billion in Saudi Arabia.
But having reserves and exploiting them are very different things. Before oil producers can start pumping, both the Venezuelan government and the U.S. oil companies will have to traverse several geopolitical and financial steps. Some of these could take weeks; others may take years. The entire process will cost tens of billions of dollars, if not more, at a time when oil prices are low. And American oil companies may well be leery about investing in a country with a long history of instability when it comes to foreign investment.
Venezuela produced over 3 million barrels per day though the 1960s until the late 1990s. Then came nationalization, decades of underinvestment, and harsh sanctions imposed in Trump’s first term to pressure the Maduro government, and most recently, a U.S. naval blockade imposed in December. As of last year, production had fallen to around a million barrels per day.
About 120,000 barrels per day winds up at U.S. Gulf Coast refineries built to process its heavy sour crude, courtesy of a rare license to operate granted to Chevron. (Chevron shares were up in early trading Monday morning.) But “for the most part, the Venezuela oil story has been a small amount of production all going to China,” Greg Brew, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, told me.
To get a sense of where Venezuela’s oil production capacity sits in the international context, Texas alone has produced more oil every year since 2018 than Venezuela’s all-time peak production of 3.7 million barrels per day in 1970. Canada, which produces a comparably heavy and sour crude, produced over 5 million barrels per day in 2025.
The immediate question is whether the United States will lift its blockade and allow oil to flow more freely. Venezuela’s monthly exports dropped dramatically in December to 19 million barrels, down from 27 million the month before, according to S&P Global Commodities data.
“If that happens,” oil analyst Rory Johnston told me about the potential to lift the blockade, “those barrels will still largely go to China.”
But even that is in question.
When asked on Face the Nation how the United States would “run” Venezuela, as Trump indicated, without an active military presence in the country, Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated that the blockade would be a key pressure point. “That’s the sort of control the president is pointing to,” he said. The blockade “remains in place,” Rubio added, “and that’s a tremendous amount of leverage that will continue to be in place until we see changes.”
Even if the blockade were lifted, the next question over the medium to long term would be the lifting of U.S. sanctions, which have been in effect on Venezuela’s oil industry in their harshest form since 2019. With very few exceptions, these have prevented U.S. and other large oil companies from getting further involved with the country.
Sanctions are “why American companies either can’t or won’t buy Venezuela oil, and that keeps other buyers from not buying it as well,” Brew told me. “That’s another source of downward pressure on Venezuela oil exports.”
Even after it’s no longer literally illegal to work with Venezuela, however, there’s still the logistical and financial questions of long-term investments in Venezuela’s oil sector.
Venezuela would have to repair its connections to the international financial system, which have been strained by its defaults on tens of billions of debt. It would also likely have to overhaul its own laws around foreign investment in its oil industry that favor its state oil company PDVSA, according to Luisa Palacios, a former chairperson of Citgo, the (for now) majority-Venezuelan-owned energy company. Only then would U.S. oil companies likely have a plausible case to re-invest.
The next question is whether that investment would be worth it.
“Foreign companies are looking for an improvement in governance, the restoration of the rule of law, and an easing of U.S. oil sanctions,” Palacios wrote in a blog post for the Columbia Center on Global Energy Policy. “If the Venezuelan government were to commit to these reforms in a serious way (and the United States was therefore prepared to remove sanctions), an increase in oil production of 500,000 b/d-1 million b/d within a 2-year horizon, while optimistic, seems plausible” — though nowhere near the country’s 3.7 million-barrel peak.
Jefferies analyst Alejando Anibal Demichelis came to a similar conclusion in a note to clients, adding that “further increases beyond that level could be much more complex and costly.”
To get from here to there would require extensive investment in an environment where oil is plentiful and cheap. Oil prices saw their largest one-year decline last year since the onset of COVID in 2020.
“This is a moment where there’s oversupply,” Johnston told me. “Prices are down. It’s not the moment that you’re like, I’m going to go on a lark and invest in Venezuela.”
Venezuela will need that confidence to generate the necessary investments. The country’s oil industry “desperately needs more operational and financial support,” according to analysts at the consultancy Wood Mackenzie, which has estimated that it would require some $15 billion to $20 billion of investment over a decade to get production from existing operations to increase by 500,000 barrels per day.
Within six months to a year, Brew told me, “the volume of exports that could realistically be expected to increase is 200,000 to 400,000 barrels a day.” And that figure assumes “the stars align” in terms of the blockade, sanctions relief, and investment.
The “best case scenario,” Brew told me, is that tens of billions of dollars of U.S. investment flows into Venezuela as the blockade is lifted, sanctions are removed, and Venezuela reforms its laws to allow more foreign investment.
“Even there, I think realistically, it takes two years to get production from 1 million to 2 million barrels a day, and it costs a lot of money in a period amidst price conditions that are expected to be fairly soft,” he said.
As a rough guideline for what’s feasible over the long term, Iraq’s oil production rose from about 2 million barrels per day in 2002 to 4.7 million barrels by the end of the next decade, according to Wood Mackenzie. But that was at a time when oil prices were generally rising.
In any case, more oil is more oil, and it’s hard to see how Venezuela’s exports could get much lower. Industry analysts largely concluded that the operation to remove Maduro and put the United States in the driver’s seat would exert at least a mild downward pressure on oil prices.
But do major American oil companies want to get involved in the first place? “We’ve been expropriated from Venezuela two different times,” ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods told Bloomberg last year. Both Exxon and ConocoPhillips left the country in 2007 rather than accept new contracts with Venezuela’s state-owned oil company.
Brew is pessimistic. “I don’t see much of an upside in the short term,” he told me. That’s because the potential profits from reinvesting could be meager. When Maduro came to power in 2013, U.S. oil prices were over $90 a barrel, compared to around $60 today.
“But apart from commercial incentives, there is the incentive of, Okay the president wants us to do this. We can do it,” Brew said, but he cautioned, “I don’t think he’s in a position to leverage major US oil companies to go into Venezuela, simply by his own personal inclinations,” Brew said. “They’re going to need to see it make commercial sense. And right now it simply doesn’t.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.