Reform

Carlos Mendoza Potellá is an economist and university professor with vast experience and expertise regarding the Venezuelan oil industry. In this exclusive interview with Venezuelanalysis, Mendoza Potellá offers his analysis on the recent reform of the Hydrocarbon Law, the longstanding influence of Western conglomerates over Venezuela’s energy sector, and the struggle for sovereignty.

In late January, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved a reform of the Hydrocarbon Law. What are your views on the new law?

In broad terms, it is the relinquishing of our condition as a sovereign nation, plain and simple. We are not a nation anymore. We are a territory with some delegate administrators implementing decisions made abroad. Who decides? Emperor Trump, who has his proconsul Marco Rubio.

The approved law meets the maximum demands that the Venezuelan right and the oil conglomerates have been making for at least the last 25 years. The 2002 coup against Chávez was to impose something like this, the return to the old concession model. It is the fulfillment of all the dreams of the old “meritocratic” leadership of [state oil company PDVSA], the people who did everything to minimize the fiscal contributions to the country, whether that meant buying 37 refineries abroad or other disasters that wrecked the country.

The reform is a victory for international oil capital, alongside a discourse that hands over the destiny of the industry to major corporations and diminishes national participation as some unproductive “rentierism.”

The Venezuelan oil industry has gone through various stages, with varying degrees of influence from major transnational corporations, whether that is the period prior to the formal nationalization in 1976 or the Oil Liberalization (Apertura Petrolera) of the 1990s. How do we situate the new law within that context?

I believe this is a step backward beyond the apertura or the pre-nationalization period –perhaps it’s a return to 1832! In 1829, Simón Bolívar issued a decree transferring the Spanish crown’s mining rights to Gran Colombia. This, in turn, was based on old medieval law, essentially establishing that mines were the property of the sovereign, the king. In fact, that is where the term “royalty” comes from –as a tribute to the king. And in 1832, when Venezuela separated from Gran Colombia, that decree ratified the nation’s ownership of its mines. 

Obviously, oil didn’t emerge until 30 or 40 years later, but by 1866 concessions were already being granted. For a time, people spoke of “material that comes from the subsoil,” even though everyone already knew it was oil.

Our first boom was with asphalt. In 1883, Guzmán Blanco granted the Lago Guanoco concession to his buddy Horacio Hamilton, who later transferred it to the New York & Bermúdez Company, a subsidiary of the US firm General Asphalt. The asphalt boom lasted 50 years, and with it, streets and highways were built all over the United States.

But the example of New York & Bermúdez is significant because when Cipriano Castro came to power in 1899, he found out that the company had not paid taxes and attempted to collect them. What did the corporation do? It financed the so-called Revolución Libertadora led by Manuel Antonio Matos, a banker from La Victoria, which was ultimately defeated after two bloody battles. It was the first instance of foreign hydrocarbon interests seeking to control national politics. And it was always linked to the United States.

In the 1920s, then-dictator Juan Vicente Gómez tasked his minister, Gumersindo Torres, with drafting a hydrocarbons law, but the foreign companies did not like it. And Gómez told them, “Well, then, write the law yourselves!” Later, in 1936, the López Contreras administration drafted a very good law, but since it wasn’t retroactive, the companies did not mind because they already had their concessions granted.

When do we start seeing the first steps toward Venezuelan oil nationalism?

It was precisely in 1941 that Medina Angarita took office and commissioned a massive dossier on all the concessions in the country, informing the US government that Venezuela was aware of the importance of its oil. This was during World War II, and the oil companies were haunted by the specter of the 1938 Mexican nationalization under the government of Lázaro Cárdenas.

What was [Franklin D.] Roosevelt’s response? He sent a delegation from the State Department, not to intercede on behalf of the oil companies, but to convince them to accept Medina’s reform, because Venezuelan oil was vital to the war effort. The law passed in 1943 was quite progressive. Its first article stated that hydrocarbons are a matter of national public interest, and as such, concessions were granted for a maximum term of 40 years. Eighty percent of the concessions were granted at that time, to expire in 1983.

Venezuelan production grew through the 1970s, but as the end of the concessions approached, the transnational corporations began implementing policies to somewhat ease the hostility toward foreign investment.

Thus, a policy of “Venezuelanization” of the industry’s management was put into effect. That is why, when the so-called nationalization took place (1976), companies such as Shell and Creole, a subsidiary of Standard Oil-Exxon, had Venezuelans serving as president or vice president. These executives later assumed leadership of the newly created national companies. Their passports were Venezuelan, but their hearts belonged to foreign corporations!

Historically, how was the relationship between foreign corporations and Venezuelan authorities? And how did they respond to the 1976 nationalization?

The corporations grew accustomed to the idea of an industry tailored to their interests. I mentioned how they were the ones who drafted the first Hydrocarbons Law. Oversight bodies, such as the Technical Office of Hydrocarbons, were constantly undermined in their efforts to regulate oil activities. And so the companies could extract oil without paying royalties, violate technical standards for field exploitation, or export gasoline instead of fuel oil.

The 1970s were a turbulent time for the oil sector, marked by geopolitical tensions and the 1973 crisis in the Arab countries. In 1973, James Akins, the Nixon administration’s Director of Energy at the State Department, wrote an article in Foreign Affairs titled “The Oil Crisis; This Time the Wolf Is Here.” He argued that Venezuela could be key to reducing dependence on the Middle East, and that in the face of growing oil nationalism, it was necessary to cede some ground and consider other models of participation, while maintaining control over critical areas such as refining and commercialization.

Put differently, it was possible to offer some token concessions to the nationalist aspirations of oil-producing countries like Venezuela. And that rhetoric spread to the transnational corporations. The president of Shell said at the time, “Venezuela is going to have to take action regarding its oil industry,” while the head of Creole spoke of “the Venezuelans’ oil”!

There were growing signs of how the nationalization would take shape and how the transnationals were restructuring. A good example is the Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation (CVP), created in 1960. Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonzo, whom I consider a visionary and a deeply nationalist figure, had conceived it as a company that would develop until the time came for the state to take over production. But the governments did not let it grow; they did not assign concessions it was entitled to, and by the time of nationalization, the CVP was simply one more operator among 13 or 14. 

In contrast, [Petróleos de Venezuela, SA] PDVSA, created with the nationalization, did have a very clear vision from the start. I remember hearing senior PDVSA executives talking among themselves, discussing how one came from the “Exxon culture,” which was more vertical, and the other from the “Shell culture,” which was more horizontal. And these were the managers! They were the leaders of the Venezuelan oil industry, which had very little “Venezuelan” about it. What we are seeing now is the reconstitution of all these things.

Circling back to the current reform, we have seen that sovereignty is a central issue. How is it affected on different fronts?

For me, a fundamental issue is the return of concessions. Because that means going back decades, handing control back to transnational conglomerates. With taxes and royalties, the problem is not whether the rate is 30% or 15%; that flexibility existed in the past. But now it is the transnational corporations that tell the government what their operating costs are and how much goes to the Venezuelan state. There is no oversight body to verify this; instead, the company says, “I need you to lower royalties to this level” for the project to be profitable.

The return of international arbitration is also a brutal setback, because it means that disputes are not settled in Venezuelan courts, but in other bodies that have a history of defending corporate interests. There is no role left for the Public Solicitor’s Office (Procuradoría General), which is essentially the nation’s attorney. 

For months we were told we were ready to confront imperialism, but the truth is that everything is being imposed on us. Even the National Assembly is castrating itself. It has enacted a law stating that oil projects no longer require the parliament’s approval; they need only be notified. And on top of all that, there is also the constitutional issue. The reform conflicts with Articles 1, 12, 150, 151, and several others of the Constitution. But this is not merely a constitutional violation; it is a total surrender. A surrender of sovereignty that calls into question our status as a republic.

One of the issues under debate is the distinction between a country that owns oil and a country that produces oil. How should we understand the difference?

Of course, that’s fundamental. A country that owns oil simply collects royalties, and it does so according to its political capabilities. At the moment, Venezuela’s capabilities are limited, because the military cannot confront the enemy, and allies like Russia and China have not shown themselves willing to take any risks. So, there is little room to impose conditions on the US.

But this is a country that has grown used to the multinational corporations having free rein over its oil sector. Unfortunately, there are many people, within the industry itself, who believe that “the foreign conglomerates developed this and therefore have a right to these privileges.” Curiously, that is the same rhetoric Trump uses! 

This struggle for sovereignty is fundamental in oil-producing countries. We have seen this with the countries of the Middle East, which try to assert themselves but remain highly dependent on the United States. Obviously, they have the advantage of not being as close as we are. But in my opinion, historically we have lacked nationalism on this issue.

One of the arguments in favor of reforming the Hydrocarbon Law was the need to attract investment to so-called “green fields,” on the grounds that when the previous law was passed in 2001, there were many mature fields ready for development and this is no longer the case. However, major corporations have not shown much enthusiasm. What is your reading on this?

Those are fantasies about oilfields that have always been unviable; it is the obsession with the Orinoco Oil Belt. Humberto Calderón Berti, minister of mines in the 1980s and a major proponent of PDVSA’s internationalization, was already talking about green fields back then. By the way, Calderón Berti is now talking about the possibility of fracking in Lake Maracaibo, which would make the lake’s environmental disaster even worse.

The idea that an avalanche of investment is coming is an illusion, and the oil companies themselves know it. Trump talks about investments of $100 billion, but transnational corporations like ExxonMobil use the word “uninvestable.” With market volatility, no one is thinking about investing in oil with extremely high production costs. There is a study that concludes that increasing production to 2.6 million barrels per day based on the Orinoco Belt would require US $90 billion in investments and $122 billion in operating expenses over the next 10 years to drill 13,000 new wells! In other words, it is completely unfeasible.

On top of that, OPEC’s forecasts for oil demand over the coming decades aren’t particularly ambitious. (1)

So who stands to benefit from this new landscape? On the one hand, small “rogue” companies that can take on a well here and there. But above all, the conglomerates that are already here, like Chevron, which know the lay of the land and can expand their operations or make their current operations more profitable. The same goes for Eni and Repsol, which have some crown jewels, like the offshore Perla natural gas field. The corporations that come will be betting mostly on conventional fields, not the Orinoco Belt.

It is very commonplace to hear about US refineries in the Gulf of Mexico that are built to receive Venezuelan crude. That is true, but it is not oil from the Orinoco Belt! It is oil from the Oriente (East) and Occidente (West) oil-producing regions.

Let us stay for a moment on the Orinoco Oil Belt, since that is where the talk of the “largest oil reserves on the planet” centers, as well as the prospects for a massive increase in production. What are the myths and realities surrounding these deposits?

The Orinoco Belt is a geological miracle. Eighty million years ago, 10–15 percent of all life that existed on the planet was fossilized north of the Orinoco River. It is something to cry out to the heavens. But that is not exploitable oil. It is extra-heavy crude, a sticky mess that needs to be upgraded. First it must be converted into liquid petroleum so it can flow through pipelines, and then taken to be refined and turned into gasoline. 

In the 1970s, the United States saw the energy crisis coming and asked, “When conventional oil runs out, where can we find oil around the world?” In three places: the Soviet Union, Canada, and Venezuela. And where in Venezuela? In the Orinoco Oil Belt. Pérez Alfonzo spoke of the belt as “something for the future,” but the United States wanted to accelerate exploitation and sent a delegation in 1971 to convince President Rafael Caldera to begin the process. In fact, the name was changed from “Tar Belt” to “Oil Belt” to make it more attractive.

The US Geological Survey estimates that there are 513 billion barrels of “technically recoverable” oil. But that is absurd, because there is no capacity. What makes a reserve recoverable has to do with economic ability, the market, and the available technology. Nevertheless, the Orinoco Belt has been at the center of grandiose projections over the past few decades, alongside the highly lucrative business of certifying reserves.

The oil reform took place in a specific context, following years of economic sanctions that have left PDVSA in a very difficult situation. What would be an alternative path? How can the industry recover without surrendering sovereignty?

There are no magic solutions, obviously. We are facing imperialism in the Trump era; we see all its destructive potential. It is a phase where the US, paradoxically, recognizes its weakness and is entrenching itself in its “backyard.” But we must be aware that the industry’s current course is one of total capitulation.

Whether we can recover, whether it is possible or not, we must think about it rigorously, in a sovereign manner. And above all, we must have a serious plan; we cannot be dreaming of 5 or 6 million barrels a day.

There are 17,000 conventional oil wells, with the capacity to produce, abandoned around the country. Of the 35,000 wells in Venezuela, only half are currently producing. The others require investment, though not particularly large ones. And what kind of oil will these wells produce? Crude grades ranging from 20 to 30 degrees. But we need a plan, to examine wells one by one. These are wells that will produce 20, 50, or 100 barrels a day, but it is light and medium crude—the “classic” Venezuelan oil.

So, from a nationalist perspective, what does the future hold for Venezuela’s oil industry? 

The future is to build a post-oil Venezuela. This was already being discussed by theorists such as Francisco Mieres and Pérez Alfonzo in the 1970s. Then, in recent years, many began talking about a post-oil or post-rentier country, but mostly to cover up their incompetence and inability to maintain production levels.

There is no magic solution, and the oil industry will have to play an important role. But the current situation is dire. We are in a new phase of absolute political dependence. It’s not just about oil, or that the US controls revenues, imposes concessions, and so on. It is that the country has lost the ability to make its own decisions.

There are also expectations of the people, who to a large extent have become accustomed to the idea that their oil will last forever. That creates the illusion that things can improve very quickly. The path will be slow, but it has to start with regaining sovereignty.

Note

(1) The interview was conducted before the launch of the US-Israeli war against Iran.

Published on
27/03/2026 – 12:15 GMT+1

The EU approved a sweeping customs reform to handle growing trade volumes and streamline the application of its standards.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The agreement, which was reached on Thursday evening, introduces new tools to improve the collection of customs duties and increase controls on non-compliant or unsafe goods, without imposing excessive burdens for authorities and traders.

“Today’s agreement marks the greatest reform since the creation of the Customs Union in 1968”, Cypriot Finance Minister Makis Keravnos said in a statement following the adoption of the reform. “This modern toolbox will facilitate trade and ensure the proper collection of duties, in a simplified manner, and with the required legal certainty”, the minister added.

Customs management and trade have gained renewed urgency after trade volumes have sharply increased in the last years. Some €4.6 billion low-value items under €150 were imported to the EU in 2024, representing an average of 12 million parcels per day, according to European Commission data. That is a major increase from the €2.3 billion that entered in 2023 and €1.4 billion in 2022.

In addition, uncertainties over US tariffs, combined with new EU trade deals such as those with MERCOSUR and Australia, make this reform particularly timely.

EU customs data hub

The new rules foresee the creation of an EU customs data hub, which will be an online platform to facilitate the monitoring of trade flows without disrupting their smooth operation.

Businesses importing and exporting from the EU will only need to submit customs information on that single portal.

The hub, which will be operational for e-commerce from July 2028, will be managed by a new European Custom Authority, headquartered in Lille, France.

The Authority will oversee the EU customs by coordinating national offices and supporting them in the risk management. In particular, the Authority will analyse the import and export data to flag cargos that poses the highest risk for inspection.

The reform will also introduce simplified procedures for “trust and check traders” for transparent businesses that will not be subjected to active customs interventions.

For e-commerce operators that fail to comply with EU standards, it will be applied a new system of financial penalties.

The reform foresees a new EU handling fee for small parcels entering the EU starting November 2026, with the exact amount to be decided by the European Commission. From July to November, a temporary €3 tax will apply to all parcels under €150.

When he entered the race for California governor, San José Mayor Matt Mahan pitched himself as a pragmatic Democrat who would prioritize improving residents’ quality of life and government efficiency.

He unveiled a key part of that promise on Tuesday with an expansive plan to reform state government, including tying pay raises for elected officials and other top leaders to improvements on key issues, and pledging not to approve any tax increase until the state proves “that we can deliver better outcomes with the dollars we already have.”

Mahan also delivered a blistering rebuke of ballooning state spending — which, as he often points out on the campaign trail, has increased nearly 75% over the last six years. In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, California lawmakers approved a no-frills state budget that came in at $202 billion. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s latest spending proposal is nearly $349 billion.

“We have fallen into this lazy, reflexive mindset of always going back to voters and telling them that the only solution to every problem is a tax increase or a new bond or a new rule coming down from Sacramento,” Mahan said in an interview. “We need to step back and take a really hard look at our existing spending and increase the level of transparency and accountability in government.”

His eight-page plan includes ways to measure and track accountability, some of which are drawn from policies in other states. They include lobbying reforms, following up on audit recommendations and overhauling the state’s digital infrastructure and its procurement process — services Mahan described as “clunky and cumbersome.”

He also proposed a “California Performance Review,” inspired by a similar effort in Texas throughout the 1990s, that would review state agencies and solicit input from employees to eliminate waste and inefficiencies.

But near the top of the list is a proposal to tie pay raises for state officials including the governor, lawmakers and thousands of gubernatorial appointees to “measurable outcomes” in areas such as reducing homelessness and unemployment.

“People in the real world don’t get raises if they don’t do a good job,” Mahan said, “and I think it should be the same for the politicians and senior administrators who are allocating budgets, leading projects, making the big decisions on behalf of the people of California.”

Though the benchmarks would be created with input from the state Legislature, Mahan floated one example: reducing unsheltered homelessness by 5% to 10% within one year, something he said he’s accomplished three years in a row in San José.

It’s a solution one might expect from a former entrepreneur and mayor of a city in the heart of Silicon Valley. Mahan made a similar proposal at the local level last year, but it was rejected by the City Council.

“Tying pay to performance is nothing short of revolutionary in government. It’s a private-sector model that is overdue,” said former state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), a Mahan supporter who sponsored several bills aiming to increase transparency in government.

Dozens of tech company executives are backing Mahan in the race for governor and have collectively donated millions to his campaign, as well as two independent expenditure committees supporting him.

That has raised concerns from some voters, and criticism from some of Mahan’s opponents, that he would be beholden to their interests and veto future regulations on tech or artificial intelligence companies.

Mahan has sought to dispel those concerns, arguing that he believes AI and social media platforms should be regulated. Of his plan to overhaul state information technology systems and infrastructure, he said that “whenever we spend public dollars, we have to run open, transparent and competitive procurement processes that ensure best value for the taxpayers.”

Though Mahan did not specify how he would link government outcomes to pay raises, state lawmakers have largely panned his campaign and are unlikely to get on board. The change probably would also require voter approval.

Currently, annual raises for elected officials are determined by a citizen commission that was added to the California Constitution in 1990. Changing how that panel works or imposing limits on when it can approve raises would require a constitutional amendment, which requires voter sign-off.

But Mahan contended it would be one of the fastest ways to fix a system that he says works for special interests at the expense of working people.

“I’m under no illusion that this will be easy, but I think it’s a necessary realignment of incentives,” he said. “We have to make ourselves as accountable to the people as we possibly can be.”

The Cabinet on Tuesday approved two prosecution reform bills that would dismantle the current prosecution service later this year to separate its exclusive power to both initiate criminal probes and indict suspects.

When promulgated, it would mark a sweeping overhaul of the nation’s prosecution system. Under the new laws, the prosecution office will be shut down in October, 78 years after its establishment in 1948, and two new agencies will exercise indictment and investigate roles, respectively.

The bills on establishing the so-called serious crimes investigation agency and the indictment agency, pushed by the ruling Democratic Party (DP), were passed at the National Assembly last week in a plenary session boycotted by the main opposition People Power Party (PPP).

Under the laws, the new indictment agency will handle only indictments, while investigative powers will be transferred to the newly established serious crimes investigation agency.

The new investigative body will be established under the Ministry of the Interior and Safety and will be responsible for probing six major crimes, including corruption, economic offenses, defense industry-related crimes and drug offenses.

The government has been seeking to separate the prosecution service’s authority over both indictment and investigation amid longstanding criticism that the prosecution has abused its exclusive powers by carrying out politically motivated investigations.

The DP has argued that the reform is needed to curb potential political abuse of prosecutorial power, while the PPP has warned it could weaken checks on investigators and increase the risk of political influence.

The two new agencies are set to be established after the abolition of the prosecution office.

Copyright (c) Yonhap News Agency prohibits its content from being redistributed or reprinted without consent, and forbids the content from being learned and used by artificial intelligence systems.

March 18 (Asia Today) — A South Korean civic group on Wednesday called for changes to ethics laws after finding that dozens of former police officers took jobs at law firms shortly after retirement, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

The People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy said 144 retired police officials joined law firms between January 2020 and February 2026, based on data from the government ethics oversight body.

Of 228 post-retirement employment reviews during that period, 63.2% were approved, allowing former officers to take positions at law firms, the group said.

Nearly half of those cases – 68 out of 144 – involved individuals who joined law firms within three months of leaving the police force.

The group said the trend raises concerns that former officers could still wield influence over active investigators, particularly because many held mid-level supervisory roles directly involved in criminal investigations.

Such overlap could undermine the neutrality and fairness of police work, it added.

The civic group also noted that the expanding role of police following recent criminal justice reforms has increased the need for stronger safeguards to ensure impartial investigations.

It called for revising the Public Officials Ethics Act, arguing that current rules do not sufficiently restrict employment at law firms for retired officials who hold legal qualifications.

The group urged lawmakers to amend the law to require stricter review of such employment and prevent potential conflicts of interest.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260318010005507

It’s taken 18 months, but Bob Lomas has been shown the error of his ways and has said sorry to all those he offended

Sacked Reform candidate Bob Lomas has apologised for the racist comment that saw him disowned by party leader Nigel Farage 18 months ago, after being chained to a Black youth worker on Channel 4’s Handcuffed.

The former soldier, 70, has posted his apology on Instagram, after he was persuaded by Chris Preddie that his views were offensive and racist. In the video post the ex-Reform member, from Yorkshire, said: “My name is Bob Lomas and 18 months ago I said that Black people should get off their lazy arses, go and get a job and stop acting like savages.

“I can’t change what I said, I can only apologise for saying it. I vehemently apologise for using those words. I made a bloody big mistake and I am bloody sorry that I did and I want to apologise to anybody that is affected.”

Handcuffed, hosted by Jonathan Ross, sees people with opposing viewers shackled together for a shot at the £100,000 prize. In Monday’s episode viewers will see Chris Googling Bob to find out who he is actually chained to.

Bob admits having made the shocking comment that ended his political career, on Facebook, but starts off defending himself, arguing: “Everything’s racist if you want it to be. I witnessed a riot in London and was appalled by what was happening in my capital city. I could have worded it better but it gets to the point where you can’t say anything about anything.”

But Londoner Chris, who was awarded the OBE 13 years ago at the age of 25 for his inspirational youth work, said that the terminology had left him feeling “quite disgusted”. And once he has explained his own background, Bob backs down and admits that his views were wrong.

In the programme, Chris tells him that his father had died after being caught up in gangs and he was quickly groomed for a life of crime. himself. “I didn’t have a role model,” he explains. “I didn’t want to sell drugs but, if I didn’t, then I’m not eating. Not surviving.”

He credits the youth worker who helped him to break out with having “saved my life” because Chris feels certain he’d be “dead or in prison” without that support. Getting the OBE from the late Queen Elizabeth had been a huge honour. “I was so proud,” he confesses. “People started to see me as a normal citizen – I was told my whole life that I’d amount to nothing.”

Looking moved by what he’s learned, Bob admits that Chris’s story is “very, very shocking” and tells the camera that he’s impressed by how he not only got out, but went on to help others do the same. “He used that experience to help bring other young men and women out of that mindset. What he does for his community is unbelievable. I salute him.”

Bob was standing as the Reform candidate for Barnsley North when he was dropped by party leader Farage, along with two others, in June 2024 over remarks made by all three on social media. Speaking on Question Time afterwards, Farage claimed: “I wouldn’t want anything to do with them”. The racism within Reform was widely condemned by other political leaders, with Farage told to “get a grip” on his party.

– Handcuffed – Last Pair Standing continues on Monday, Channel 4, 9pm

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Caracas, March 10, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly preliminarily approved a new mining law on Monday as part of continued efforts to attract foreign investment to the country.

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez had announced the new legislation last week during a visit from US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum alongside mining executives and urged parliament to act “swiftly.”

“This law will increase all the legal guarantees that can generate confidence and attract national and foreign investment,” said Orlando Camacho, a congressman from the ruling PSUV-led bloc, during the legislative session.

Camacho added that the bill is adapted to the Caribbean nation’s “present needs” and aims to take advantage of the country’s vast mineral riches, mostly located in the country’s Southeast.

Monday’s vote was endorsed by the pro-government legislative majority. Opposition deputies abstained, complaining that they received the draft less than one hour before the parliamentary session. The text will be subject to consultations and proposals before being put to a second and definitive vote in the coming weeks. 

Consisting of 126 articles split into 19 sections, the bill establishes regulations for small, medium, and large-scale mining, as well as the state’s ability to declare certain minerals as strategic and reserve areas for security purposes. It also creates a “social fund” to support mining workers, an oversight superintendency, and a state-run data bank.

Concerning mining activities, the proposed law establishes that joint ventures, private corporations, and small-scale artisanal mining groups are allowed to receive concessions. The new law will replace a 2015 decree that imposed state control over mining exploration, as well as the 1999 Mining Law.

The legislation establishes concessions of up to twenty years that can be renewed for two additional ten-year periods. The issuing of contracts is the responsibility of the Ministry of Ecological Mining Development and will not require National Assembly approval. Corporations are also entitled to several tax breaks, likewise granted at the ministry’s discretion, and can take disputes to international arbitration outside the Venezuelan court system.

The Venezuelan government is also seeking to reorganize the mining sector. A decree published on Friday ordered the Venezuelan General Mining Company (MINERVEN) to be absorbed by the Venezuelan Mining Corporation (CVM).

The mining reform follows a similar pro-business overhaul of Venezuela’s Hydrocarbon Law in January. In an interview, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez vowed that parliament would “adapt” laws to attract US investors in the wake of the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro

During his visit last week, Burgum touted Venezuela’s mineral riches and potential opportunities for Western conglomerates. On Friday, the Trump official announced the arrival of US $100 million worth of Venezuelan gold as part of a deal involving Trafigura to export up to 100 tons of gold doré bars worth approximately $165 million.

However, Caracas is not expected to immediately receive the revenue. The US Treasury issued General License 51 (GL51) allowing US entities to purchase, transport and resell Venezuelan-sourced gold but mandating that proceeds be deposited in US government-run accounts before being returned to Venezuela under conditions dictated by the White House.

The sanctions waiver additionally blocks transactions with companies from Cuba, Iran, Russia, and North Korea, and bans involvement in exploration and refining activities.

In tandem, the Trump administration reportedly issued a 30-day license allowing select companies, including Canada’s Gold Reserve, to negotiate mining concessions with the Venezuelan government.

Venezuela possesses vast proven reserves of gold, iron, and bauxite, in addition to lesser quantities of copper and nickel. Analysts have also drawn attention to Venezuela’s significant reserves of coltan, which has important military, aerospace, and electronics applications, as well as unproven deposits of rare earth minerals.

Former President Hugo Chávez sought to end foreign mining concessions in the 2000s, pushing instead for the state to play a leading role and link extraction activities to its basic industries in sectors such as steel and aluminum. 

The Chávez government likewise revoked a number of concessions from Western mining companies. Several of them, including Canada’s Crystallex and Gold Reserve, went on to secure compensation via international arbitration bodies.

Since 2015, the Nicolás Maduro administration looked to mining as a potential revenue source amid escalating US sanctions, particularly in the 112,000 square-kilometer Orinoco Mining Arc. Nevertheless, the sector was likewise hit by unilateral coercive measures, while the proliferation of irregular mining groups has generated environmental concerns.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Fusagasugá, Colombia.

Caracas, March 5, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez met Wednesday with US Interior Secretary Doug Burgum at the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas to discuss a bilateral agenda focused on energy and mining.

Senior officials from both countries also attended a closed-door meeting, including US Chargé d’Affaires Laura Dogu and Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello. Rodríguez and Burgum later gave a joint press conference.

“We welcomed Burgum to address important aspects related to metallic, non-metallic, strategic and non-strategic minerals,” the acting president told reporters. “We want the Venezuelan people to see the advantage of having good relations with the world and with the United States.”

Rodríguez said that her economic team will soon present a proposal to the National Assembly to “expand” Venezuela’s Mining Law, urging lawmakers to reform it “swiftly” in order to showcase “investment and development opportunities in the mining sector” to both domestic and international business groups.

Venezuela’s current mining legislation was approved in 1999. Rodríguez noted that the government intends to replicate the “win-win formula” of the recent hydrocarbon reform approved on January 29, which introduced wide-reaching benefits for foreign capital in the oil sector.

Under the overhauled legislation, private operators get expanded control over operations, with limited parliamentary oversight and a reduced tax burden.

Rodríguez also thanked US President Donald Trump for a social media post praising the Venezuelan acting president for “doing a great job.” The Venezuelan leader highlighted the US government’s “kind disposition” to work on a “mutually beneficial” cooperation agenda.

For his part, Burgum said that Venezuela is “an extraordinarily rich nation” in oil, gas, and critical minerals, adding that the opportunities for collaboration between the two countries “have no limits.” He serves as chair of the US National Energy Dominance Council as well.

According to the senior White House official, who holds the natural resources portfolio, the potential cooperation could deliver something “truly remarkable” for both the Venezuelan and American people. Burgum’s delegation included representatives from over 20 US and Canadian mining companies, some of them with a past presence in Venezuela.

“These companies are ready to begin,” he said. “I know that [Acting President] Rodríguez, like President Trump, wants to cut bureaucratic red tape so this capital investment can start flowing.”

Among the companies represented in the visit were US firms Peabody Energy—the world’s largest private coal company—Hartree Partners, Orion CMC, Paulson & Co., and Caterpillar Inc., along with Canada’s Lundin Mining Corp and Singapore-based commodities trader Trafigura.

Canadian miner Gold Reserve also announced plans to return to the Caribbean nation and disclosed a 30-day US Treasury license to negotiate with Caracas.

According to Axios, US officials additionally negotiated a multimillion-dollar agreement with Venezuela’s state mining company Minerven to sell up to one metric ton of gold to the US market, currently valued at roughly $165 million.

The deal would require Minerven to supply between 650 and 1,000 kilograms of doré gold bars—a crude alloy of gold and silver with 50 to 90 percent purity—to Trafigura, which would transport the metal to US refineries. The transaction details were not disclosed, including whether Trafigura will deposit payment in US-run accounts in an arrangement similar to the one the Trump administration has imposed for Venezuelan oil exports.

Burgum is the fourth senior US official to visit Venezuela since the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, National Assembly deputy Cilia Flores.

Earlier visits included US Southern Command chief Francis Donovan, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and US Energy Secretary Chris Wright.

Venezuela possesses vast unexplored and proven mineral reserves, including significant gold, iron, bauxite, diamonds, nickel, and copper deposits. Coltan reserves have likewise been touted in recent years.

According to the International Center for Productive Investment (CIIP)—an agency attached to the Venezuelan vice presidency—the country holds the eighth-largest iron reserves in the world, estimated at 14.7 billion metric tons, as well as more than 321 million tons of bauxite, the raw material used to produce aluminum.

Regarding gold, the CIIP estimates that Venezuela may hold between 2,200 and 8,000 metric tons, which would place the country among the largest gold reserves globally. 

Analysts have also highlighted the possibility of finding rare earth deposits in the South American country. The 17 elements have diverse applications in cutting-edge technology and advanced weapons systems. Washington is currently highly dependent on rare earth imports from China.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

The size of the Los Angeles City Council should increase from 15 to 25 seats, the city’s Charter Reform Commission recommended Thursday.

On a 9-2 vote, the commission backed the council expansion, with supporters saying that smaller ethnic groups, including Black and Asian American and Pacific Islander residents, would be better represented.

The council has consisted of 15 members since 1925, when the city had fewer than 600,000 residents, compared with 3.9 million today.

“I think we owe the people of Los Angeles to walk out of this room saying that we are a commission that’s concerned about equity, that we are a commission that is concerned about Black and AAPI folks who live in this city,” said Commissioner James M. Thomas, who supported the expansion.

The commission also recommended ranked choice voting, where voters list candidates in order of preference, for municipal elections beginning in 2032. The city should also establish a new position, chief financial officer, which would essentially be a title change for what is now called the city administrative officer, the commission recommended.

By April 2, the commission, which has been meeting since last July, must send all its recommendations to the City Council on changes to the city’s governing charter. The council will then vote on which changes will go before city voters as ballot measures in November.

Thursday’s meeting was packed with supporters of City Controller Kenneth Mejia, who feared that the commission would gut his office’s watchdog role.

Among the CFO’s duties would be preparing the city budget, advising the mayor on fiscal policy and producing revenue forecasts — duties currently under the CAO.

Tim Riley, owner of Heavy Water Coffee Shop in Chinatown, said trust in government is at an all-time low and urged the commission to keep the controller’s powers intact.

“Kenneth has been the only form of government that we have felt has represented us as a community,” Riley said.

City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo spoke briefly and confirmed his support for designating the CAO as the city’s chief financial officer, without impacting the controller’s office. The CFO role recommended by the commission does not take away any duties from the controller.

In 1925, each of the 15 City Council members represented about 38,000 residents. Now, each council district has an average of 265,000 residents. If the council grows to 25, each member would represent roughly 159,000 residents.

The commission did not discuss whether the council members’ salaries and office budgets should remain the same, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.

Nick Caputo, who has been chronicling the charter reform commission‘s progress online, advocated during public comment for the commission to endorse more than 23 seats. The commission had debated for weeks about whether to go as low as 23 seats or as high as 31, settling on 25 as a compromise.

With smaller council districts, Caputo said, residents will be represented by people who know their neighborhoods better.

“I’m happy that they did go to 25,” Caputo said Friday. “I think that would be a tremendous boost for not just representation, but also you’ll get real specialists.”

Commissioner Carla Fuentes noted that three City Council members — Nithya Raman, Ysabel Jurado and Heather Hutt — have publicly supported expanding the council to 25.

“This is a huge moment for the commission,” Chairperson Raymond Meza said after Thursday night’s meeting. “We have been hearing from hundreds of stakeholders, academics, members of the public, other interested parties — and to be able to begin drafting charter language for the City Council to consider is pretty momentous.”

During the debate on ranked choice voting, Commissioner Diego Andrades explained that the city would no longer hold a primary election, which would save money. Instead, all candidates would run in a general election.

Commissioner Christina Sanchez expressed concern that non-English speaking voters and those in under-served communities might have trouble understanding the complexities, which drew ire from the crowd.

“Are you calling us stupid?” two people said.

The commission also passed a recommendation that the city should approve an ordinance for language accessibility and educating residents about the new voting system.

Two days earlier, the commission voted unanimously to bifurcate the duties of the city attorney, currently an elected official who prosecutes misdemeanors and represents the city in civil litigation. Under the commission’s proposal, an appointed city attorney would take over the civil litigation duties, while an elected city prosecutor would handle the misdemeanors.

The decision to bifurcate the position came after consulting with good governance groups, the public and city departments, Andrades said. The current system allows a city attorney eyeing higher office to potentially offer bad advice to a sitting mayor, and conflicts of interest could occur on issues like police-related settlements and misconduct, he said.

Times staff writer Dave Zahniser contributed to this report.

Feb. 27 (Asia Today) — Park Young-jae, chief of the National Court Administration, has offered to step down, just over 40 days after taking office, as the ruling party moves ahead with a package of judicial reform bills.

According to court officials, Park conveyed his intention to resign Thursday morning to Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae.

In a statement, Park said, “Considering recent discussions both inside and outside the judiciary, I concluded that stepping down would better serve the public and the courts.”

“I regret leaving at a time when the judiciary faces many challenges,” he added, expressing hope that discussions on reforming the judicial system would proceed “in a direction that benefits the public.”

His resignation is widely seen as linked to the National Assembly’s handling of three controversial reform measures: the creation of a new crime of “distorting the law,” the introduction of a system allowing constitutional complaints against court rulings and an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices.

The National Assembly has been processing the bills in plenary sessions since Monday. Lawmakers passed a revised version of the “distortion of law” bill Wednesday, narrowing its scope to criminal cases and adjusting the elements required to establish the offense. A separate bill to allow constitutional petitions against court decisions was expected to be voted on later Thursday.

Since his appointment last month as successor to former court administration chief Cheon Dae-yeop, Park had repeatedly voiced concerns about the reform package.

He warned that the proposed “distortion of law” offense could be abused and lacked sufficient clarity, raising potential constitutional issues. On the plan to allow constitutional complaints against court rulings, he said it risked plunging citizens into excessive litigation. Regarding the proposal to expand the number of Supreme Court justices, Park said it could weaken lower courts by drawing experienced judges away without a clear plan to fill the gaps.

Earlier this week, he convened an emergency meeting of court presidents nationwide, saying the three bills could bring fundamental changes to the courts’ role and directly affect the public. He stressed that the judiciary’s views should be reflected in the legislative deliberation process.

Park had also faced criticism from some lawmakers over his prior involvement in an appeal case related to President Lee Jae-myung under the Public Official Election Act before his appointment as court administration chief.

His departure comes as tensions between the judiciary and the legislature intensify over the scope and direction of judicial reform.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260227010008381