US Venezuela Oil Push Could Reshape Bitcoin Mining Economics

Bitfinex said cheaper and more abundant energy could ease mining margins at a time of rising difficulty and strained balance sheets. Meanwhile,  ESG researcher Daniel Batten argues that many criticisms of Bitcoin’s energy use are overstated or unsupported by data, and pointed to peer-reviewed research showing mining does not scale resource consumption with transaction volume and is increasingly powered by sustainable energy.

Venezuela Oil Shift May Improve Bitcoin Mining Margins

US involvement in Venezuela’s vast oil sector could have meaningful downstream effects for Bitcoin mining economics, even if the impact unfolds slowly. This is according to analysts at Bitfinex. In a recent note, the exchange’s research team said that a potential influx of cheaper and more abundant energy from Venezuelan crude production could eventually improve electricity pricing for Bitcoin miners, which could help ease one of the sector’s most persistent cost pressures and help restore profitability margins that have been squeezed over the past year.

The analysts argue that access to lower-cost energy would not only benefit miners directly but could also enable a new phase of global mining expansion, particularly in jurisdictions capable of locking in long-term power contracts. This comes at a time when miners are grappling with a roughly 25% pullback in Bitcoin from its all-time high, rising network difficulty, and elevated electricity costs that have strained balance sheets across the industry.

The backdrop to this thesis is a dramatic shift in US policy toward Venezuela. After the seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers in December and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, Washington is expected to move toward tapping the country’s estimated 303 billion barrels of crude oil reserves. Currently, Chevron is the only major US oil producer operating in Venezuela, but US President Donald Trump publicly pushed for other large American energy firms to enter the country and ramp up production.

While the long-term potential is exciting, analysts still warn that the timeline is likely to be measured in years rather than months. Bitfinex explained that meaningful increases in output will depend heavily on the political transition process and the removal or easing of lingering sanctions. 

Matt Mena, a crypto research strategist at 21Shares, said restoring Venezuela to its former status as a global production powerhouse could take a decade and require more than $100 billion in infrastructure investment.

Venezuela’s decline in oil production has been stark. In the 1970s, the country produced roughly 3.5 million barrels per day, accounting for about 7% of global supply. Today, output has fallen to around 1 million barrels per day, or roughly 1% of global production, thanks to decades of economic mismanagement and political repression.

So far, crude prices already reacted to the intervention, with US benchmark oil slipping to about $58 per barrel. While this offers only marginal relief, Bitfinex said any sustained decline in energy prices could incrementally benefit Bitcoin mining operations.

Bitcoin Energy Myths Clash With New Research

Bitcoin’s environmental impact is also still a point of contention, but ESG researcher Daniel Batten argues that many of the most common criticisms of Bitcoin mining are not supported by evidence. In a recent X thread, Batten said that nine widely repeated claims about Bitcoin’s energy use are contradicted by peer-reviewed research and grid-level data, suggesting the debate is often driven more by misunderstanding than by facts.

Daniel Batten X post

Batten’s comments were made amid sustained criticism from major media outlets. In November, Dow Jones criticized Harvard University for allocating a portion of its endowment to Bitcoin by describing the asset as environmentally catastrophic. Earlier in the year, Bloomberg claimed Bitcoin consumes electricity intended for the world’s poorest populations. While some environmental researchers still raise concerns about indirect emissions and opportunity costs, Batten argues that these claims rarely actually align with available data.

One of the central myths, according to Batten, is that Bitcoin’s energy, water, and e-waste usage scales with transaction volume. He pointed to multiple peer-reviewed studies summarized in the University of Cambridge 2025 Digital Mining Industry Report, which found that Bitcoin’s resource use is largely independent of transaction throughput. This means the network can process more transactions without a proportional increase in energy consumption. He also rejected claims that Bitcoin mining destabilizes power grids by arguing that flexible mining operations can help balance supply and demand, particularly on renewable-heavy grids like those in Texas.

Batten further disputed that Bitcoin mining raises electricity prices for everyday consumers, and said there is no peer-reviewed evidence to support the claim and that some data suggests miners can actually help lower costs during periods of excess supply. 

(Source: X)

Comparisons between Bitcoin’s energy use and that of entire countries were described as misleading, especially in light of guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which emphasizes decarbonizing energy sources rather than simply reducing energy consumption.

He also challenged the idea that proof-of-stake networks like Ethereum are inherently more environmentally friendly than Bitcoin, and argued that conflating energy use with environmental harm overlooks Bitcoin mining’s ability to mitigate methane emissions, stabilize grids, and monetize wasted renewable energy. According to Batten, Bitcoin is one of the few global industries with robust third-party data showing it has crossed the 50% sustainable energy threshold.