The Daily Journal – The announcement of the oil agreement between Venezuela’s Acting President Delcy Rodríguez and U.S. President Donald Trump has sparked widespread debate among the country’s economists.
Unlike the critical consensus among former oil ministers, economic experts have expressed a broader range of views, from deep fiscal skepticism to cautious optimism and open support for the deal. However, most appear to agree on the need for greater transparency and share concerns about the feasibility of the projected revenues.
Former Central Bank of Venezuela director José Guerra focused his analysis on the timeline and the need for clarity regarding the applicable fiscal regime. On his X account, Guerra said that extracting around two million barrels per day from the fields covered by the agreement would take 89 years to deplete the deposits, while stressing that the reserves will remain national property.
However, he warned that the government has yet to specify fundamental aspects such as the location of the 17 fields or the extraction mechanism, although he assumes that concessions similar to those that existed before the 1976 nationalization will govern operations. The economist also questioned the government’s lack of transparency in managing the funds and called for clarification on the scope of the agreement regarding the administration of oil revenues.
Francisco Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University’s Baker Institute, offered one of the most technical and critical analyses. Monaldi described the amount of taxes announced by the interim government as “unusually low.”
“We need to know the details of the oil agreement announced yesterday to assess it properly,” he wrote on X, adding: “The amount of tax revenue announced by the interim government is unusually low.”
According to his calculations, the $209 billion that the government expects to receive from 65 billion barrels amounts to just $3.20 per barrel. Monaldi warned that “if that amount is expressed in nominal terms, its present value is negligible,” and described the lack of transparency surrounding oil policy as “very alarming.”
He also noted that “most of these are not properly proven reserves,” adding further uncertainty about the fields’ actual potential.
Francisco Rodríguez, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and a professor at the University of Denver, took a methodical approach by raising nine questions about the agreement on his X account.
“I welcome the fact that the Acting President offered some additional details last night about the oil agreement between Venezuela and the United States. However, we need much more information than she provided in that brief address to determine whether this agreement benefits the nation,” he wrote.
Among his main concerns, Rodríguez asked whether the government will submit the agreement to the National Assembly, noting that Article 150 of the Constitution establishes requirements for contracts of national public interest involving foreign states.
He also called for an explanation of how authorities selected the operating companies and why they did not conduct a public bidding process. Regarding the projected $209 billion, Rodríguez asked the government to clarify whether the figure represents nominal amounts, inflation-adjusted amounts or present-value calculations: “The $209 billion amounts, over 25 years, to approximately $8.4 billion annually, a relatively low figure compared with the fiscal revenues Venezuela has generated in the past at similar production levels.”
The economist also questioned the government’s promised transparency portal, noting that “its latest update dates back to March 13, 2026, and shows only one inflow of $300 million.”
Taking a more moderate position, economist and business consultant Asdrúbal Oliveros urged observers to avoid extremes. “That is why I prefer neither premature celebration nor automatic rejection. I see this as an important opportunity, and I believe an energy alliance between Venezuela and the United States could have very positive effects for the country,” he said.
However, Oliveros stressed that the announcement marks only the beginning: “What will truly matter is seeing what rules will govern it, who will provide the capital, how that investment will receive protection and, above all, what institutions we are going to build so that this time oil can help sustain a more stable economy.”
The economist insisted that the necessary investments “need years to mature and therefore require something Venezuela has struggled to provide: clear and predictable rules over time. Legal certainty, contracts that parties honor, arbitration mechanisms and institutions that do not depend on who governs in Caracas or Washington.”
On fiscal matters, Oliveros warned: “Given the level of risk that Venezuela still represents, imposing an excessively high tax burden could ultimately make projects that look very attractive on paper unviable.”
Luis Oliveros, economist and dean at Metropolitan University, emerged as one of the agreement’s most outspoken supporters.
“Details and data are undoubtedly still missing, but signing a long-term agreement with U.S. companies — not Iranian, Cuban, etc. — to develop part of our reserves does not seem like a bad strategy,” he said.
The economist described the deal as a “good strategy” and argued that “we have always talked about the need for foreign investment in the oil industry and in the Venezuelan economy in general.”
Oliveros also said the agreement covers around 17 oil projects, more than half of which would involve new developments under Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs), with a 25-year horizon.
According to his estimates, the Venezuelan state would receive approximately $20 per barrel, using a Brent price of $65 as a benchmark, while investments could reach $100 billion. “We are looking at a true game changer,” he said, although he acknowledged that numerous aspects still require further disclosure and analysis.
Ronald Balza, dean of the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences at Andrés Bello Catholic University (UCAB), emphasized that a lack of public information is an obstacle to investment and credit.
Balza said the government has failed to fulfill its transparency promises: “Information on oil flows was supposed to be available on a website… Those pages do not exist.”
The dean stressed that “it is a priority to know the actual flow of revenues and expenditures from oil sales, as well as where those resources go — debt payments, imports of medicines or diluents.” For Balza, any profound transformation of the industry will depend on ensuring access to information.
Hermes Pérez, an economist with extensive experience at the Central Bank of Venezuela, has approached the issue from the cryptocurrency market perspective, noting that normalizing oil trade with the United States could cause the supply of digital assets in the country to “decline considerably.”
