I mean I totally see Exxon's point. Even a GW Bush level of competency in leadership would have gone into Venezuela full force with an opposition party ready to take over (with assurances of cooperation with US oil companies) after a full decapitation strike. Whether that would really work or not? Eh... but I have a feeling Venezuela is not Afghanistan and there would not be nearly as much opposition to a very unpopular government being taken out.Looking at the remarks ExxonMobil's CEO posted to their website, it doesn't seem like ExxonMobil is stating they will never work in Venezuela while Trump is president. It reads to me that as things are currently, they will not invest in Venezuela. Maybe that is them trying to stay on President Trump's good side, but I think it could be a frank assessment of the situation (and the omitted part is how likely Venezuela becoming investable is).
I do wonder how much ExxonMobil views the cooperation of the people in Venezuela as essential to investment (versus the Venezuelan government); I think it could be read either way and worry that the Trump Administration will see it as a green light to force Venezuela's government into that stance (and forcibly replace them to find a government who will if they do not) without considering the effects of doing so:
What Trump did instead was unbelievably lazy from a military point of view. Maduro was bad news but he was merely the head of a large power apparatus that seems to be ticking along just fine. It was the regime change equivalent of hitting a wasp nest with a blow dart.
Nothing has really changed in Venezuela as far as Exxon is concerned. The same government is in place, the courts are still stacked, the infrastructure is still in shambles. Chevron can smile and nod along with Trump because they never left Venezuela, but to try to go in and basically rebuild from scratch? That dog won't hunt unless something actually changes.