Venezuela’s vast heavy oil reserves are once again in the sights of global powers looking for cheap barrels and geopolitical leverage. The crude that lies under the country’s plains is among the dirtiest and most difficult to handle on Earth, and scaling it up at speed risks locking in a wave of climate pollution and local ecological damage that will be hard to reverse. The push to revive this “very dense, very sloppy” industry is not just another fossil fuel bet, it is a direct test of how seriously governments take their own climate limits.
At the center of this story is the Orinoco Belt, a stretch of land in eastern Venezuela that holds some of the world’s largest deposits of extra heavy crude. The type of oil that dominates in Venezuela is thick, carbon intensive and laced with methane and other pollutants that leak at every stage of production. Turning that resource back on at scale, in a country where infrastructure is already failing, would supercharge emissions and spread contamination across rivers, forests and coastal ecosystems that are already under strain.
The carbon cost of “very dense, very sloppy” crude
The basic physics of Venezuela’s oil make it a climate problem before a single new well is drilled. Extra heavy crude from the Orinoco Belt is so viscous that it must be heated, diluted or upgraded just to flow, which means more energy burned and more greenhouse gases released per barrel than conventional oil. Analysts who have examined the Orinoco Belt warn that this kind of production, dominated by dense hydrocarbons and high methane leakage, carries a significantly higher lifecycle footprint than lighter grades from places like Texas or the North Sea, and that the type of oil that dominates in Venezuela is among the most emissions intensive on the market, particularly in the Orinoco Belt.
That higher baseline matters because the volumes under discussion are not trivial. Energy scholar Mahdavi has calculated that raising output by about 1 million barrels a day, a level often cited as a near term goal by those eager to tap Venezuela’s reserves, would add roughly 360 m tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over a decade. In climate terms, that is the difference between a world that still has room to decarbonize heavy industry and one that has burned through a big slice of its remaining budget, and Mahdavi’s warning is that such an increase would come on top of existing emissions, worsening climate and environmental damage rather than displacing cleaner fuels, which is why the figure of 360 m has become a shorthand for the stakes.
A 13 percent hit to the 1.5C carbon budget
When I look at the global picture, the most sobering assessment comes from climate modelers who have tried to quantify what a full scale push into Venezuelan heavy oil would mean for the Paris Agreement. An Exclusive analysis by ClimatePartner, cited by campaigners pressing Washington and Caracas to rethink their plans, found that a United States backed plan to exploit Venezuela’s oil could eat up 13 percent of the remaining carbon budget compatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. In other words, a single national project, focused on one country’s extra heavy reserves, could consume more than a tenth of the world’s remaining room for emissions if the 1.5 degree threshold is to be kept within reach, according to that analysis.
That 13 percent figure is not a marginal rounding error, it is a structural threat to the entire architecture of climate targets that governments, including the administration in Washington, claim to support. If the world spends such a large share of its remaining budget on one pool of “very dense, very sloppy” crude, it leaves far less space for poorer countries to grow or for sectors like aviation and cement that are harder to decarbonize. It also sends a political signal that stated commitments to phase down fossil fuels can be bent whenever a large, cheap resource becomes available, a message that undermines trust in climate diplomacy just as negotiators are trying to ratchet up ambition.
Decrepit infrastructure and chronic spills
Even if the climate math were less stark, the on the ground reality of Venezuela’s oil fields would still raise red flags. Years of underinvestment and mismanagement have left pipelines corroded, refineries offline and storage tanks leaking, so any rapid ramp up would be built on a foundation that is already failing. Environmental experts who have toured production sites describe storage facilities literally sinking into the ground, broken wellheads spewing crude and degraded infrastructure across the board, a picture of decay that makes new drilling especially risky for nearby communities and fragile ecosystems.
Reviving Venezuela’s oil industry under these conditions would deepen environmental damage in a country already plagued by spills, gas leaks and dilapidated facilities. The dense and sticky Venezuelan crude does not disperse easily when it escapes, instead it coats riverbanks, mangroves and farmland, lingering for months or years and complicating cleanup efforts. Reports from affected regions describe repeated contamination events that have become almost routine, and analysts warn that any large scale restart would mean more frequent accidents and chronic low level pollution as operators push aging equipment harder in the rush to increase output, a pattern that has already emerged as companies talk about Reviving Venezuela.
Slow moving rivers, fast moving damage
The geography of Venezuela’s oil heartland magnifies the harm when things go wrong. Much of the Orinoco region is crisscrossed by slow moving rivers, wetlands and floodplains where water lingers rather than flushing quickly out to sea. Environmental scientist Lisio has warned that Any oil spill has the potential to worsen because these are not fast moving rivers, they are slow moving waters, a simple hydrological fact that turns every leak into a long running disaster as thick crude spreads gradually through interconnected channels and lagoons. In such conditions, even modest spills can smother fish nurseries, bird habitat and the subsistence fisheries that Indigenous and rural communities depend on, and Lisio’s warning about Any spill worsening is not theoretical.
Those hydrological realities collide with political pressure to move quickly. Officials and executives who see a chance to monetize heavy crude while prices are high are unlikely to wait for comprehensive environmental upgrades or new containment systems. One expert quoted in recent reporting put it bluntly, saying that any rapid push to expand production is likely to prioritize output over pollution controls, with regulators sidelined and safety budgets squeezed. That assessment is backed by a poll of industry insiders and residents who fear that environmental and clean energy policies will be sacrificed in the name of short term economic gains, a concern that has been linked to a poll showing limited confidence in enforcement.
Deforestation, Washington’s role and the path not taken
Beyond the oil fields themselves, the renewed focus on Venezuela’s reserves is reshaping land use across the country. Satellite data from Global Forest Watch, an online forest monitoring platform hosted by the World Resources Institute, show Venezu losing tree cover in areas linked to extractive activity, including zones near existing and planned energy infrastructure. Those Satellite observations suggest that pipelines, access roads and informal mining are eating into forests that once acted as carbon sinks, compounding the climate impact of burning the oil itself and eroding biodiversity in one of the most species rich regions on the planet.
All of this is unfolding as Washington weighs how far to go in easing sanctions and encouraging companies to reenter Venezuela’s long declining petroleum industry. Even a modest increase in production, framed by some diplomats as a way to stabilize global markets and reduce reliance on other petrostates, would in practice extend the life of a carbon intensive sector that is structurally at odds with stated climate goals. Analysts who have examined the tradeoffs argue that Why boosting production of Venezuela’s “very dense, very sloppy” oil could harm the environment is not just a rhetorical question but a concrete policy dilemma for Washington, which risks undermining its own clean energy agenda if it leans too heavily on Why this particular crude is so damaging while courting Caracas for short term supply.
Supporting sources: Why boosting production.
More from Morning Overview