Energy Market Amid the Maduro Incident: Short-Term Disturbances Unlikely to Alter Long-Term Supply-Demand Dynamics

At the dawn of 2026, the United States launched a military operation against Venezuela and arrested President Nicolás Maduro. This sudden geopolitical event sent ripples through the global energy market, triggering a brief shake-up. Nevertheless, after an initial phase of volatility, the market quickly regained its composure. Both New York WTI crude and London Brent crude prices saw only narrow fluctuations, closing at $57.13 per barrel and $60.70 per barrel respectively as of January 6, representing a decline of less than 2% from pre-incident levels. Behind this phenomenon lies a dynamic balance between short-term supply disruption risks and long-term cooperation expectations, which ultimately resulted in the actual impact of the incident on energy prices falling short of market projections.

In the short run, the supply disruption risks stemming from the hindrance to Venezuela’s oil exports were swiftly absorbed by the market. Despite boasting the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves (approximately 303 billion barrels, accounting for 17% of the global total), Venezuela’s current actual production capacity has shrunk dramatically, with a daily output of merely 1.1 million barrels in November 2025, accounting for less than 1.2% of global production. The U.S.-imposed oil embargo drove Venezuela’s December exports down to 500,000 barrels per day. Although the 17 million barrels of crude oil currently stranded at sea indicates a halt in exports, its impact on the total global supply volume remains limited. More crucially, Venezuela’s oil infrastructure has not suffered direct damage, and OPEC+ has explicitly committed to maintaining stable production in the first quarter of 2026, a policy that has provided a critical supply buffer for the market. An analysis by Goldman Sachs points out that in the short term, the situation in Venezuela poses only a "moderate risk" to oil prices, insufficient to alter the fundamentals of global energy supply.

The uncertainty surrounding long-term cooperation expectations has further curbed the momentum for price increases. While U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed that he will promote the entry of U.S. oil giants into Venezuela, the plan faces multiple obstacles in practical implementation. Major corporations such as ExxonMobil and Chevron have collectively adopted a wait-and-see stance, with three core concerns at play: first, the stability of Venezuela’s political landscape is questionable, and long-cycle oil investments require a sustained and stable policy environment; second, the country’s oil facilities are severely outdated, and their reconstruction would demand tens of billions of dollars in investment, which, given the current oil price range of $57–$61 per barrel, would result in an overly long payback period; third, against the backdrop of the global energy transition toward green alternatives, long-term demand expectations for fossil fuels remain weak, making companies reluctant to make rash investments in capital-intensive projects. Even if the situation improves, the industry generally expects that it will take at least several years for Venezuela to restore its production capacity, meaning it is unlikely to generate substantial supply growth in the short term.

The shift in market pricing logic constitutes the core reason behind the limited impact of this disturbance. The current global energy market has moved away from being "geopolitical risk-driven" and toward being "fundamentally supply-demand dominated". A Reuters survey shows that 34 economists unanimously predict that the global oil market will face a supply surplus in 2026, with the average price of Brent crude expected to reach only $61.27 per barrel. OPEC+’s decision to maintain production stability, combined with the flexible adjustment capacity of U.S. shale oil production, has rendered supply fluctuations in a single country unable to affect the overall market landscape. Meanwhile, safe-haven capital has increasingly flowed into precious metals such as gold and silver, driving the price of COMEX gold futures up by 1.22% to $4,505.70 per ounce. This asset rotation has further diverted safe-haven buying interest away from the energy market.

Notably, the market has already fully reflected divergent expectations regarding the incident’s impact. Institutions including Soochow Securities argue that if the U.S. eases sanctions later and facilitates the entry of technical and capital resources, the long-term release of Venezuela’s production capacity may exert downward pressure on oil prices. In contrast, BCA Research has flagged the upside risk of short-term supply disruptions. Regardless of the scenario, however, the market has already priced in these possibilities in advance through price fluctuations. Going forward, unless black swan events such as sanctions escalation or infrastructure damage occur, energy prices will continue to revert to a fundamentals-driven volatile pattern.

In summary, while the Maduro incident triggered a temporary rise in geopolitical risk premiums, multiple factors—including Venezuela’s low share of global production capacity, the policy cushion provided by OPEC+, and the challenges in implementing long-term investments—have caused the incident’s impact on energy prices to dissipate rapidly. For the global market, the core variables that will truly determine the 2026 oil price trend are the pace of global economic recovery, the scale of OPEC+ production cuts, and the progress of the new energy transition. This incident once again demonstrates that against the backdrop of diversified global energy supply, individual geopolitical events are no longer capable of altering the long-term supply-demand balance, and the market’s ability to absorb short-term shocks is continuously strengthening.