Workers connect drill bits and drill collars used to extract oil in the Permian basin outside of Midland, Texas.
Brittany Sowacke | Bloomberg | Getty Images
After three and a half years, a tripling in the S&P 500 Energy Index, and many soon-to-be-forgotten culture-war volleys, the U.S. Department of Energy announced Oct. 12 that U.S. crude oil production had hit an all-time high of 13.2 million barrels per day, entirely wiping out Covid-era losses of more than 3 million barrels per day.
The news came a day after a $60 billion deal between Exxon Mobil and independent oil producer Pioneer Natural Resources. The combination of recovering production, sustained pressure from Wall Street for cost containment and high stock dividends, and consolidation like the Exxon-Pioneer hookup is not a coincidence.
The energy sector’s big stock move in 2021 and 2022 was mostly a recovery from a disastrous decade for Big Oil, when tens of billions of cash flow were lost on unprofitable fracking wells, and of a consolidation that was good for company profits, dividends and shareholder returns.
The foundation of the 2010s oil business was cracking when Covid broke it, said Rob Thummel, senior portfolio manager at Tortoise Ecofin in Kansas City, Mo. Monthly production topped out at 13 million barrels per day in November 2019 and hit 9.9 million by February 2021.
“Capital discipline in the U.S. industry hasn’t gone away, and oil is at $85 to $90 a barrel,” he said.
So, what brought Big Oil back, and what’s next?
Here are seven important factors that played into U.S. oil’s recent history and will influence its future.
Why the shale drilling bust ended
Oil broke gradually and then suddenly. The S&P 500 Energy Index lost 40% of its value between 2014 and 2019. But the pandemic drove the fast part of the bust, in part by leading Wall Street to insist on further cuts in capital spending, Thummel said.
Loading chart…
What brought it back was renewed demand and higher prices.
Recessions end, and oil demand has slowly rebounded after the 2020 downturn and lingering supply-chain shock. And rising prices for WTI crude – which careened during Covid to less than $15 a barrel, shot back to $120 in 2022, and is now near $90 – can make previously-unprofitable plays work, he said.
The U.S. production rebound is more concentrated
Big Oil isn’t back all over America: Production is still down sharply in Oklahoma and North Dakota. It hasn’t changed much in Alaska, where production is in a long-term tailspin. And offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico recovered to 2 million barrels a day, but hasn’t grown.
Instead, the surge is concentrated in the Permian Basin region of Texas and New Mexico, where production costs are among the lowest in the country, said Alexandre Ramos-Peon, head of shale well research at Rystad Energy. Oil from the Permian Basin costs an average of $42 a barrel to produce, he said, with North Dakota in the high $50s to $60.
North Dakota is also hampered by weaker access to pipelines than the Permian Basin, where many producers can use pipelines that lie entirely within Texas, skirting federal regulation of interstate pipelines. That’s only one example of a relaxed regulatory environment in Texas, compared to places like climate-conscious Colorado, the nation’s No. 4 oil producer, where output is still down 3 million barrels per month, said Jay Hatfield, CEO of Infrastructure Capital Advisors in New York.
“There’s this place called Texas that doesn’t really know what energy regulation is,” he said.
Where oil companies have been spending their money
U.S. oil companies cut capital spending to $106.6 billion last year from $199.7 billion in 2014, according to Statista, contributing to the decline in oil production and arguably delaying the recovery. And they put that money to work paying higher dividends and doing stock buybacks, Thummel said.
According to Energy Department data, oil and gas companies paid out about $75 billion per quarter in the last year. The share of oil-company operating cash flow going to shareholders rose to half of operating cash flow from about 20% in 2019, the department says.
The link between Exxon-Pioneer deal and peak barrels
Offsetting the decline in capital spending is higher productivity per well — while all of the U.S. oil production is back, the closely watched Baker-Hughes rig count is barely half of 2018 levels. The average production per rig of new wells just topped 1,000 barrels a day, up from 668 four years ago, according to the Energy Department. So the industry didn’t have to add a ton of new wells or drill in as many new places to recover fully.
On CNBC last week, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods said the company did the merger because it thinks its technology and scale can raise the productivity of Pioneer’s fields.
“Their [Pioneer’s] capabilities, bringing in their Tier 1 acreage, our technology, our development approach, frankly, brings higher recovery at lower cost,” Woods said.
That suggests more mergers to come as rivals like Chevron also make plays to boost their presence in U.S. shale, especially in the Permian Basin, Hatfield said. Chevron already has made several shale-related acquisitions in recent years, including $7.6 billion for PDC Energy this year and $5 billion for Noble Energy in 2020. Independent producers are under more pressure than more-stable super-majors to pay very high dividends to justify the risk of oil-price fluctuations, which will mean tighter constraints on their ability to keep up in technology and scaling of operations, he said.
U.S. crude, energy security and Big Oil economics
As a result of the rebound in crude, is American repatriating its oil? A little, says Hatfield. Permian shale right now is much cheaper to produce than offshore oil, comes with much less political risk than offshore drilling in much of the developing world, and takes much less time to make a profit than offshore wells. That’s leading companies like Exxon to bet more heavily on Permian shale than offshore drilling, he said.
“The super-majors are taking capital out of offshore,” Hatfield said. “They are reducing overseas development because it is more risky.”
The biggest part of the equation is that time equals risk, Ramos-Peon said. Global oil producers aren’t squeamish about investing in parts of the world where governments change, but the years-long investment cycles in offshore drilling make the much shorter turnarounds in Texas appealing to companies like ExxonMobil, which is one of the industry’s biggest offshore players.
“In the Permian, you get your capital back in a little over a year,” Hatfield said. “The return on investment is much faster and much higher because the wells begin to produce so quickly.”
What oil’s recent trading and Israel-Hamas mean for gas prices
Gas prices tend to move in tandem with the price of crude oil, which has dropped to about $88 per barrel from $94 in September, driving a 20-cent per gallon drop in the nationwide average price for regular. But the influence of OPEC, whose coordinated production cuts in June have driven prices up 35 cents, often offsets what domestic producers do, Ramos-Peon said. And right now there is the added uncertainty of whether the Israel-Hamas war will result in a slash in production from Iran, whose government supports the Hamas rebels who launched bloody attacks into Israel, he said.
“I believe crude prices will stay around the current level in the short term, and in the long term should trend down,” he said. “If there are sanctions against Iran, that will be bad for consumers.”
Short-term shale plays, oil consumption and climate change
What’s good for oil companies in the short-term doesn’t change the longer-term trajectory of the oil market or carbon reduction.
Meeting climate goals has more to do with long-term shifts in energy use than with short-term production targets, Ramos-Peon said. Rystad expects U.S. production to rise to 13.6 million barrels per day next year and 13.9 million in 2025, he said. After that, forecasts get more difficult because so much can change, but by late this decade oil consumption should peak before beginning to ebb, he said.
Even as more cars go electric, demand from older cars and uses of oil in chemicals will keep the oil business very large, Ramos-Peon said. And the risk that the business will erode will make drillers focus on shale more than offshore drilling, Hatfield said
“In the context of not knowing for sure, why wouldn’t you want a return on your investment in three years rather than 30?” he said.
Short-term, the biggest threat to the rosy scenario is that oil-industry cash flows are falling sharply from a peak last year. The Energy Department says its survey of 139 producers, foreign and domestic, shows a 36% drop in second-quarter operating cash flows from 2022. Profits are narrowing for the first time in two years, the department said.
Then again, the price of crude has risen $16 a barrel since the end of the second quarter. And in the oil business, price rules everything.
Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.
It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.
Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.
The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.
Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:
- You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
- You lose the adaptive air suspension
- No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
- Textile seats instead of vegan leather
- Fewer speakers
- No rear screen for the backseat
- No power outlets in the bed
The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.
But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.
Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:
When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.
Tesla describes the product:
Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.
For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.
Electrek’s Take
I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.
Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.
I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.
It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.
It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.
After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.
Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.
Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.
The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.
Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.
Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.
That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.
Why carbon prices matter
The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.
Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.
Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.
For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.
But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.
Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth
Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”
Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.
The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.
While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said:
While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.
One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.
And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.
Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).
The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.
Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway