Throughout the first year of Donald Trump’s second term, with the U.S. midterm elections approaching in November, the president’s energy agenda has maintained an aggressive focus on U.S. “energy dominance.”
This has included intervention in Venezuela following the capture of Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, threats of 25% tariffs on buyers of Iranian crude amid internal protests weakening the regime, and tensions over Greenland, framed by rivalries over critical minerals and Arctic shipping routes.
Trump has pressured companies such as ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips to invest billions of dollars in rebuilding Venezuela’s infrastructure, with promises of “total security” and plans to redirect 30 million to 50 million barrels to the United States, aiming to push prices down to around $50 a barrel in a key election year. He has also proposed a “Board of Peace” for Gaza, with signings planned in Davos, and has raised concerns about spillover effects on global markets, including a weaker dollar and rallies in gold and silver as safe-haven assets.
The four most closely followed analysts in the sector — Giovanni Staunovo of UBS, Amena Bakr of Kpler, Eric Nuttall of Ninepoint Partners and Josh Young of Bison Interests — agree on a core point: Trump’s policies generate significant volatility and uncertainty in markets, but their real impact on global oil supply is limited and gradual in the short term. They argue that any increase in Venezuelan production is not a “quick win” because of deteriorated infrastructure and political, legal and security risks, which could translate into only marginal output gains, estimated at no more than 500,000 barrels per day in the first year or two.
They also say OPEC+ is maintaining discipline, prioritizing market stability over external political pressure, with forecasts for global demand growth of about 1.38 million bpd in 2026 and 1.34 million bpd in 2027, and no quota changes directly tied to geopolitical events such as Venezuela or Iran.
Tariffs and sanctions are widely seen as inflationary — largely paid by U.S. consumers — counterproductive to growth and more noise than structural change, though potentially bullish over the medium to long term given the looming peak in non-OPEC+ production.
They further note that reliance on private investment in Venezuela faces hurdles such as low returns on investment, high security risks and logistical complexity, while issues such as Greenland draw global attention without altering near-term energy fundamentals.
Giovanni Staunovo (UBS): Neutral stance and macro volatility
Staunovo, known for a pragmatic, macro-driven approach, highlights the chaos and volatility triggered by Trump’s tariffs, including threats involving Greenland and Europe. He says these measures weaken the dollar, push safe havens such as gold and silver to record highs, and act as a headwind to global growth, according to the International Monetary Fund. On Venezuela, he notes that any recovery would require substantial investment after years of underinvestment and decaying infrastructure, with production and exports already under pressure from tanker blockades. He warns that tariffs are paid by Americans, citing recent studies. In his view, OPEC+ acts as a key stabilizer amid the geopolitical noise, with no fundamental shift in the supply-demand balance.
Staunovo also stresses efforts to protect Venezuelan oil revenues from U.S. creditors, while pointing to persistent legal risks that deter rapid investment. In his analysis, disputes such as Greenland fuel safe-haven buying in precious metals, while trade tensions with Europe — including coordinated responses from Germany and France — could slow global economic growth. He cites specific cases, such as Carlos Slim’s expansion into Mexican offshore fields or agreements like Mol and Gazprom in Serbian refineries, to illustrate how geopolitics shape energy investment flows without driving sharp short-term price changes. Overall, his outlook underscores that Trump’s policies create macro uncertainty more than structural shifts in commodities, pointing to data such as a 46% drop in Russian oil and gas revenues as evidence of global vulnerabilities.
Amena Bakr (Kpler): Geopolitical skepticism and OPEC+ resilience
Bakr is blunt and critical, saying Venezuela is not a "quick win” for Trump or the market, constrained by logistics, legacy sanctions and political complexity. She criticizes Trump’s election-driven push to cut oil prices, calling it contradictory. While Trump has argued it is better for Venezuela to remain within OPEC+, Bakr doubts the group would yield to pressure to flood the market, instead prioritizing stability and internal cohesion. On Iran, she says tariffs create turbulence without quickly collapsing the regime, and she sees hypocrisy in the “America First” slogan when sanctioned imports are encouraged alongside promises of domestic production.
She argues that OPEC+ does not react to political shifts without fundamental changes, keeping a steady hand during uncertainty. Bakr broadens her analysis by noting China’s diversification of buyers for Venezuelan crude, which cushions the impact of U.S. sanctions, and warning that a power vacuum in Iran could destabilize regional economic transitions. Her forecasts keep global demand growth at 1.38 million bpd in 2026 and 1.34 million bpd in 2027, arguing OPEC+ will not adjust quotas in response to events such as Maduro’s capture. She highlights Venezuela’s complexity, estimating that $15 billion to $20 billion would be needed over a decade just to sustain and grow output. She also criticizes the proposed 25% tariff on buyers of Iranian crude as ineffective and points to projections such as ADNOC’s outlook, which sees hydrocarbons accounting for about 70% of energy, as a path to sustainable progress without choking growth. Her skepticism extends to what she calls “adventures” like Venezuela, driven more by efforts to curb Chinese influence than by market fundamentals.
Eric Nuttall (Ninepoint): Pragmatism and a non-OPEC+ view
Nuttall takes a pragmatic stance that feeds a bullish outlook for U.S.-made energy. He calls a return to Venezuela “noise,” with output gains capped by high risks tied to security, infrastructure and low returns. He criticizes inconsistencies in sanctioning Iran, Venezuela and Russia while threatening allies. He forecasts a peak in non-OPEC+ production in 2026, followed by declines that could fuel a bull market. He describes $50 a barrel as a “death zone” for crude production and views midterm election noise as a temporary source of volatility, arguing the world will be “begging” for Venezuelan barrels within three years as global supply tightens.
Nuttall expands on Chinese buying patterns and questions whether a non-OPEC peak closes the window for cheap inventories. He argues U.S. shale is entering a late phase, with 117% non-OPEC growth over 15 years in a cycle that is now exhausted, and says that at $45 WTI, shale output would fall below 1 million bpd. He criticizes what he sees as energy illiteracy in certain policies and sees opportunities in natural gas and Canadian shale, where buyers discount carbon footprints. He says Venezuela would require years and trillions of dollars, with little near-term appetite among U.S. CEOs.
Josh Young: Critique of contradictions and long-term bullishness
Young is sarcastic and critical, saying Trump has effectively “killed ‘drill, baby, drill’” by allowing sanctioned barrels that ultimately cost U.S. jobs, with inconsistent policies that hurt manufacturing and contradict domestic promises. He argues that forcing prices lower today sets the stage for future spikes, pointing to bullish signals such as Chinese buying, underestimated demand and what he calls an overstated “historic surplus.” He sees geopolitical risks in Iran and Greenland as underpriced and argues that higher prices are needed to avoid shocks, saying OPEC+ is repositioning toward a bull market despite early volatility.
Young delves into the employment multiplier in oil and gas — one worker at the well supports three to five others across the ecosystem — arguing that higher prices benefit the U.S. economy as a net exporter. He criticizes narratives of “oversupply” versus what he sees as modest supply growth and highlights bimodal price regimes and patterns such as “first gold, then silver, then oil,” with a bullish commodity yield curve.
He underscores elevated geopolitical risks, including Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries, and sees opportunities in contrarian plays such as Argentina’s Vaca Muerta shale formation and pro-energy policies in Chile. His bullish stance is rooted in the view that OPEC expects demand to grow faster than non-OPEC supply can keep up — creating a gap in 2026 — and that policies such as tariffs or lower Federal Reserve rates tend to support commodities.