Texas Ponders Oil Cuts
Yesterday the Texas Rail Road Commission (RRC) began their public hearings via Zoom on a request from some oil companies that they limit oil production (“proration”) to avoid unnecessary waste (see Navigating the Collapsing Oil Market). On the surface, it seems a pretty straightforward question. The pandemic has crushed oil demand, which is estimated to be down 30% globally. At the same time, OPEC+ has collapsed into acrimony because of a dispute between Saudi Arabia and Russia.
The Saudis responded by increasing production into an already oversupplied market. Oil storage is at a premium, and is expected to run out within months. To a U.S. oilman, this looks like a thinly veiled effort to bankrupt the U.S. energy business, permanently lowering our supply and allowing others to profit later from resulting higher prices.
So Scott Sheffield, CEO of Pioneer Resources (PXD) testified before the RRC about the substantial energy job losses that will occur without action by the RRC. Matt Gallagher from Parsley Energy (PE) echoed Sheffield’s comments. They argued that without the regulator imposing production limits on Texas oil production, the industry will suffer widespread bankruptcies and a permanent drop in employment.
They were followed by Lee Tillman, CEO of Marathon Oil, and it suddenly became more complicated. Tillman noted that naturally a company that only produces crude oil in the Permian in west Texas will favor pro-rationing. But Marathon produces in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and North Dakota. Production will be cut, but some of Marathon’s most profitable wells are in the Eagle Ford, in south Texas. They might not choose to cut any Texas production. The message was clear – if the RRC imposes pro-rationing, in Marathon’s case it could result in more Texans losing their jobs than needed.
Diamondback’s CFO Kaes Van’t Hof went a step further, saying that they’d respond to prorationing by laying down all rigs, punishing oil service companies. He pointed out that they had signed long-term contracts for the oil they produce, and had hedged their future production. Diamondback was once a small company too, which didn’t stop them from running their business responsibly (subtle dig at Pioneer and Parsley).
So the view from the moral high ground is different, depending on which part of it you’re standing on. RRC member Ryan Sitton, a proponent of prorationing, tried to build the case on avoidance of waste which allows the RRC to limit production. It’s a dubious theory – if crude oil is being produced and sold to a consumer, how does one objectively define that as wasted even if the price is ruinously low? And the RRC has long permitted flaring of unwanted “associated” natural gas that is produced with oil (Texas Reconsiders Flaring), even though this is waste by any definition.
It’s also not clear whether other oil-producing states will follow the lead of Texas if the RRC does choose prorationing. Under U.S. law, companies are not allowed to co-operate in limiting production, and the Federal government cannot impose limits other than on Federal land or offshore. So the question falls to the states.
Tillman argued in favor of the free market being allowed to work, noting that production will drop anyway, as it should given collapsing demand. But when asked if he supported U.S. efforts to control market forces via organized production cuts with Saudi Arabia and Russia, he defended this as a geopolitical issue correctly solved with diplomacy.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that U.S. oil producers want the free market to work until it no longer works for them, at which point they demand government intervention.
Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be able to pump oil at their desired level if low prices bankrupt U.S. producers, while sheltering under U.S. military protection. Trump probably pointed that out, and a group of nine U.S. senators definitely did. Playing the military card is just another form of the free market, no less important than securing pipeline capacity for future oil production.
It’s easy to see why cartels are so unstable.
It’s hard to see why a pipeline company would want the government to step in and compel them to make space for the less responsible companies that hadn’t already secured take-away capacity for their oil. The American energy industry may emerge stronger, by letting the markets and the bankruptcy process move the acreage from the weakest hands to the strongest.
The information provided is for informational purposes only and investors should determine for themselves whether a particular service, security or product is suitable for their investment needs. The information contained herein is not complete, may not be current, is subject to change, and is subject to, and qualified in its entirety by, the more complete disclosures, risk factors and other terms that are contained in the disclosure, prospectus, and offering. Certain information herein has been obtained from third party sources and, although believed to be reliable, has not been independently verified and its accuracy or completeness cannot be guaranteed. No representation is made with respect to the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of this information. Nothing provided on this site constitutes tax advice. Individuals should seek the advice of their own tax advisor for specific information regarding tax consequences of investments. Investments in securities entail risk and are not suitable for all investors. This site is not a recommendation nor an offer to sell (or solicitation of an offer to buy) securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction.
References to indexes and benchmarks are hypothetical illustrations of aggregate returns and do not reflect the performance of any actual investment. Investors cannot invest in an index and do not reflect the deduction of the advisor’s fees or other trading expenses. There can be no assurance that current investments will be profitable. Actual realized returns will depend on, among other factors, the value of assets and market conditions at the time of disposition, any related transaction costs, and the timing of the purchase. Indexes and benchmarks may not directly correlate or only partially relate to portfolios managed by SL Advisors as they have different underlying investments and may use different strategies or have different objectives than portfolios managed by SL Advisors (e.g. The Alerian index is a group MLP securities in the oil and gas industries. Portfolios may not include the same investments that are included in the Alerian Index. The S & P Index does not directly relate to investment strategies managed by SL Advisers.)
This site may contain forward-looking statements relating to the objectives, opportunities, and the future performance of the U.S. market generally. Forward-looking statements may be identified by the use of such words as; “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “planned,” “estimated,” “potential” and other similar terms. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, estimates with respect to financial condition, results of operations, and success or lack of success of any particular investment strategy. All are subject to various factors, including, but not limited to general and local economic conditions, changing levels of competition within certain industries and markets, changes in interest rates, changes in legislation or regulation, and other economic, competitive, governmental, regulatory and technological factors affecting a portfolio’s operations that could cause actual results to differ materially from projected results. Such statements are forward-looking in nature and involves a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, and accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. Prospective investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements or examples. None of SL Advisors LLC or any of its affiliates or principals nor any other individual or entity assumes any obligation to update any forward-looking statements as a result of new information, subsequent events or any other circumstances. All statements made herein speak only as of the date that they were made. r
Certain hyperlinks or referenced websites on the Site, if any, are for your convenience and forward you to third parties’ websites, which generally are recognized by their top level domain name. Any descriptions of, references to, or links to other products, publications or services does not constitute an endorsement, authorization, sponsorship by or affiliation with SL Advisors LLC with respect to any linked site or its sponsor, unless expressly stated by SL Advisors LLC. Any such information, products or sites have not necessarily been reviewed by SL Advisors LLC and are provided or maintained by third parties over whom SL Advisors LLC exercise no control. SL Advisors LLC expressly disclaim any responsibility for the content, the accuracy of the information, and/or quality of products or services provided by or advertised on these third-party sites.
All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.
Past performance of the American Energy Independence Index is not indicative of future returns.
Flaring is a waste, and has a cost to society which is not reflected in the economics. One partial but logical solution to this would be to charge a fee for flaring permits commensurate with some of the costs to society. Alternately a set amount of flaring permits could be decided upon with them being autioned to the highest bidder.