How have U.S. sanctions and ship seizures since 2019 altered Venezuela’s oil export strategies and 'shadow fleet' practices?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
U.S. sanctions imposed beginning in 2019 and stepped-up maritime enforcement, including the 2025 seizure of the tanker Skipper, forced Venezuela to adapt by shifting sales channels, deepening reliance on a covert “shadow fleet,” and accepting steeper discounts and operational risk—while intermittent U.S. license relief to firms like Chevron produced limited, uneven re‑integration into formal markets [1] [2] [3] [4]. Those adaptations have made Venezuela’s oil commerce more opaque, more costly, and more geopolitically entangled, but have not entirely halted exports, especially to China, nor eliminated the leverage of selective U.S. permissions [1] [5] [3].
1. Sanctions reshaped customers and volumes: from open markets to concentrated, discounted buyers
When the U.S. moved in 2019 to sanction PDVSA and choke formal flows, Venezuelan official exports plunged—U.S. imports stopped shortly after January 2019 and crude exports fell by roughly half that year—forcing PDVSA to sell heavily discounted cargoes to fewer buyers, notably China, to keep crude flowing [3] [1] [2]. Temporary OFAC licenses and later easing in late 2022 allowed a partial comeback—Chevron’s special permissions helped raise official exports to the U.S. in 2023 and into 2024–25—but those reprieves were narrow, politically conditioned, and did not restore pre‑sanctions markets [3] [6] [7].
2. The “shadow fleet”: techniques, scale and purpose
To evade sanctions and buyer scrutiny, traders and refiners turned to a “shadow fleet” of older tankers operating in “dark mode” (transponders off), ship identity swaps, and route obfuscation so that cargoes could be delivered while hiding Venezuelan provenance—practices documented repeatedly since the first energy sanctions in 2019 [8] [4]. These tactics enabled sustained exports—data show Venezuela exported hundreds of thousands of barrels per day in recent years despite sanctions—but at the cost of increased operational risk and reduced transparency in the supply chain [5] [2].
3. Seizures and threats altered behaviour almost immediately
The U.S. seizure of the Skipper in December 2025 represented a sharp escalation and a tangible enforcement risk for vessels linked to sanctioned cargoes; sources and shipping data indicate exports fell sharply afterward, with many loaded tankers stranded in Venezuelan waters for fear of interception [2] [5] [9]. Reuters and other reporting show that after the seizure, only tankers chartered by Chevron—operating under U.S. authorization—sailed normally, while sanctioned or “dark” vessels faced delays, sanctions, or immobilization [5] [9].
4. Costs rose: discounts, “war clauses,” and insurance friction
Sanctions and interdiction risk have translated into clear economics: PDVSA has been forced to offer larger discounts to move oil, buyers and shipowners demand “war clauses” and higher premiums to cover interception or diversions, and a U.S. naval presence in the Caribbean further raised shipping costs and risks—factors that depress PDVSA revenues even if gross export volumes sometimes appear resilient [10] [4] [2].
5. Mixed outcomes: greater secrecy and risk, but incomplete isolation
The net effect is a bifurcated picture: sanctions and seizures have made Venezuelan oil exports riskier, more opaque, and costlier—driving shadow‑maritime tactics and closer ties to buyers willing to accept discounts and legal exposure—yet they have not eliminated exports or Syrian‑style market links; partial license reliefs for firms like Chevron and episodic market demand have allowed some legally transparent flows to resume, underscoring that sanctions shape behavior without producing total economic severance [1] [3] [11] [6]. Alternative viewpoints exist: U.S. officials argue seizures and blockades can further squeeze Maduro’s revenue streams, while critics warn aggressive interdiction risks legal overreach and regional escalation and could entrench clandestine workarounds [12] [4].