Energy and the 2016 Presidential Primaries

With another round of important primary elections taking place this week, I am sadly tardy in taking a high-level look at the energy positions of the candidates. The winnowing that has already taken place simplifies the task, even as it raises the stakes: A further contraction of the field after the voting in Florida, Illinois, North Carolina and Ohio could eliminate whole approaches to national energy policy.

The divide on energy between the Republican and Democratic fields also seems wider than in recent years. In 2008, when oil prices were approaching an all-time high, Republicans placed more emphasis on resource access--"drill baby, drill"--but both major party nominees supported cap-and-trade to address climate change. After recent remarks by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders, this November's election is shaping up as a binary choice between the continuation of the energy revolution that has saved the US hundreds of billions of dollars, and the elevation of environmental concerns as the main criteria for future energy decisions.

I'll take a closer look at the energy positions of the remaining Democratic candidates in a future post. For now I want to focus on the Republican field, because the first round of winner-take-all primaries looks like a make-or-break moment for the two candidates with the most detailed published positions on energy:

• Kasich - On his campaign website the Ohio governor argues for increasing US energy supplies from all sources, including efficiency and conservation.  He endorses North American energy independence, but also sees the need for innovation in clean energy technology. He would rein in regulation, including the Clean Power Plan, to "balance environmental stewardship with job creation." And while he has supported the development of Ohio's Utica shale, putting the state in the top rank of natural gas producers for the first time in decades, he has also led an effort to increase state taxes on oil and gas production. The appeal of Governor Kasich's positions to moderates is understandable, although no one would mistake them for a 2016 Democrat's energy platform.
• Rubio - The Florida senator's energy proposals are even more detailed, with more of a legislative focus than Governor Kasich's. Their tone is simultaneously positive and adversarial: Senator Rubio has an upbeat vision for the role energy can play for the US, and much of it is presented on his website in counterpoint to the actions and priorities of an administration he clearly believes has largely been mistaken on energy. There's a "wonkish" flavor to much of the content, such as his argument for education reform to fill the jobs energy development can help create. Although a reference to support for the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership might be a red flag in a year dominated by populist sentiment, most of the ideas here fall solidly within the mainstream of recent conservative thought on energy.

Each of the other two remaining Republicans represents a more significant departure from their party's recent approach to energy, at least at the presidential level:

• Cruz - Senator Cruz appears to take a more overtly libertarian stance on energy and what he calls the Great American Energy Renaissance. He wouldn't just lighten federal regulation of energy, as his rivals advocate; he would take on the government's ability to regulate. For example, in addition to opposing the Clean Power Plan, he co-sponsored legislation that would make it much harder for the EPA and administration to use the federal Clean Air Act to devise other ways to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. Consistent with his plan to abolish the IRS, he would also eliminate the Department of Energy. He supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy, but on a level playing field. Ethanol, for example, after his phase-out of the Renewable Portfolio Standard, would have to find its way into the energy mix without a federal mandate or subsidies.  
• Trump - From my quick perusal of it, the Trump website lacks the kind of specifics on energy that are found on the other candidates' sites. We are left to piece together Mr. Trump's positions on energy based on his answers to specific questions or issues, elsewhere. You can find a number of quotes from those on Google. If there's a unifying principle to his views on energy, he seems to be as deal-focused as on other topics, and less allergic to using the power of government than his opponents.  For example, he supported the Keystone XL pipeline but apparently thought we could get a better deal from Canada and the project developer. If Dilbert creator Scott Adams is correct in his analysis of Donald Trump as a Master Persuader, the details of his views on any issue like this matter less in an election than how he frames them.  

The energy context of the 2016 election could not be more different than that of four or eight years ago. A global oil glut and natural gas priced low enough to edge out coal for the top spot in US power generation are giving candidates a rare luxury. They can address energy without the pressure of angry consumers demanding immediate answers. However, even if the election will not be decided based on energy, it remains a major pillar of the economy. How candidates view energy can shed important light on the consistency of their other positions. I expect to return to this point in the weeks ahead.

OPEC's War on US Producers

The comments of Saudi Arabia's oil minister at the annual CERAWeek conference in Houston this week provided some sobering insights into the strategy that the Kingdom, along with other members of OPEC, has been pursuing for the last year and a half. Perhaps the ongoing oil price collapse is not just the result of market forces, but of a conscious decision to attempt to force certain non-OPEC producers out of the market.

Notwithstanding Mr. Al-Naimi's assertion that, "We have not declared war on shale or on production from any given country or company," the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and OPEC in late 2014 and subsequently have had that effect. When he talks about expensive oil, the producers of which must "find a way to lower their costs, borrow cash or liquidate," it's fairly obvious what he is referring to: non-OPEC oil, especially US shale production, as well as conventional production in places like the North Sea, which now faces extinction. If these statements and the actions that go with them had been made in another industry, such as steel, semiconductors or cars, they would likely be labeled as anti-competitive and predatory.

We tend to think of the OPEC cartel as a group of producers that periodically cuts back output to push up the price of oil. As I've explained previously, that reputation was largely established in a few episodes in which OPEC was able to create consensus among its diverse member countries to reduce output quotas and have them adhere to the cuts, more or less.

However, cartels and monopolies have another mode of operation: flooding the market with cheap product to drive out competitors. It may be only coincidental, but shortly after OPEC concluded in November 2014 that it was abandoning its long-established strategy of cutting production to support prices, Saudi Arabia appears to have increased its output by roughly 1 million barrels per day, as shown in a recent chart in the Financial Times. This added to a glut that has rendered a large fraction of non-OPEC oil production uneconomic, as evidenced by the fourth-quarter losses reported by many publicly traded oil companies.

That matters not just to the shareholders--of which I am one--and employees of these companies, but to the global economy and anyone who uses energy, anywhere. OPEC cannot produce more than around 37% of the oil the world uses every day. The proportion that non-OPEC producers can supply will start shrinking within a few years, as natural decline rates take hold and the effects of the $380 billion in cuts to future exploration and production projects that these companies have been forced to make propagate through the system.

Cutting through the jargon, that means that because oil companies can't invest enough today, future oil production will be less than required, and prices cannot be sustained at today's low level indefinitely without a corresponding collapse in demand. Nor could biofuels and electric vehicles, which made up 0.7% of US new-car sales last year, ramp up quickly enough to fill the looming gap.

Consider what's at stake, in terms of the financial, employment and energy security gains the US has made since 2007, when shale energy was just emerging. That year, the US trade deficit in goods and services stood at over $700 billion. Energy accounted for 40% of it (see chart below), the result of relentless growth in US oil imports since the mid-1980s. Rising US petroleum consumption and falling production added to the pressure on oil markets in the early 2000s as China's growth surged. By the time oil prices spiked to nearly $150 per barrel in 2008, oil and imported petroleum products made up almost two-thirds of the US trade deficit.

Today, oil's share of a somewhat smaller trade imbalance is just over 10%. Since 2008 the US bill for net oil imports--after subtracting exports of refined products and, more recently, crude oil--has been cut by $300 billion per year. That measures only the direct displacement of millions of barrels per day of imported oil by US shale, or "tight oil" and the downward pressure on global petroleum prices exerted by that displacement. It misses the trade benefit from improved US competitiveness due to cheaper energy inputs, especially natural gas.

Compared with 2007, higher US natural gas production, a portion of which is linked to oil production, is saving American businesses and consumers around $100 billion per year, despite consumption increasing by about 20%--in the process replacing  more than a fifth of coal-fired power generation and reducing CO2 emissions. $25 billion of those savings come from lower natural gas imports, which were also on an upward trend before shale hit its stride.

 

The employment impact of the shale revolution has also been significant, particularly in the crucial period following the financial crisis and recession. From 2007 to the end of 2012, US oil and gas employment grew by 162,000 jobs, ignoring the "multiplier effect." The latter impact is evident at the state level, where US states with active shale development appear to have lost fewer jobs and added more than a million new jobs from 2008-14, while "non-shale" states struggled to get back to pre-recession employment. That effect was also visible at the county level in states like Pennsylvania, where counties with drilling gained more jobs than those without, and Ohio, where "shale counties" reduced unemployment at a faster pace than the average for the state, or the US as a whole.

 

If the shale revolution had never gotten off the ground, US oil production would be almost 5 million barrels per day lower today, and these improvements in our trade deficit and unemployment would not have happened. The price of oil would assuredly not be in the low $30s, but much likelier at $100 or more, extending the situation that prevailed from 2011's "Arab Spring" until late 2014. If OPEC succeeds in bankrupting a large part of the US shale industry, we might not revert to the energy situation of the mid-2000s overnight, but some of the most positive trends of the last few years would turn sharply negative.

 

Now, in fairness, I'm not suggesting that this situation can be explained as simply as the kind of old-fashioned price war that used to crop up periodically between gas stations on opposite corners of an intersection. The motivations of the key players are too opaque, and cause-and-effect certainly includes geopolitical considerations in the Middle East, along with the ripple effects of the shale technology revolution. It might even be possible, as some suggest, that OPEC has simply lost control of the oil market amidst increased complexity.  

 

However, to the extent that the "decimation" of the US oil and gas exploration and production sector now underway is the result of a deliberate strategy by OPEC or some of its members, that is not something that the US should treat with indifference.

This is an issue that should be receiving much more attention at the highest levels of government. The reasons it hasn't may include consumers' understandable enjoyment of the lowest gasoline prices in a decade, along with the belief in some quarters that oil is "yesterday's energy." We will eventually learn whether these views were shortsighted or premature.

An Ill-conceived Tax Idea

Yesterday we learned that President Obama's final budget proposal includes a plan to raise money for transportation projects and other uses by imposing a per-barrel tax on US oil companies. Here are a few quick thoughts on this ill-conceived idea:

• As I understand it, the tax would be imposed on oil companies, exempting only those volumes exported from the US. The US oil industry is currently in its deepest slump since at least the 1980s. Having broken OPEC's control of prices and delivered massive savings to US consumers and businesses, it is now enduring OPEC's response: a global price war that has driven the price of oil below replacement cost levels. This is evidenced by the recent full-year losses posted by the "upstream" oil-production units of even the largest oil companies: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips, particularly in their US operations. The President has wanted to tax oil companies since his first day in office, but his timing here would only exacerbate these losses, putting what had been one of the healthiest parts of the US labor market under even more pressure.
• This tax would also increase OPEC's market leverage, providing a double hit on the cost of fuel for American consumers: We would pay more immediately, when the tax was imposed and companies passed on as much of it as they could, and then even more later when OPEC raised prices as competing US production became uneconomical.
• Focusing the tax on the raw material, crude oil, rather than on the products that actually go into transportation, as the current gasoline and diesel taxes do, is guaranteed to produce distortions and unintended consequences. For starters, exempting exports--a sop to global competitiveness?--would give producers a perverse incentive to send US oil overseas instead of refining it in the US. It would also shift consumption toward more expensive fuels like corn ethanol, which provides no net emissions benefits but has been shown to affect global food prices.
• Singling out oil, which is not the highest-emitting fossil fuel and for which we still lack scalable alternatives, will put all parts of the US economy that rely on oil as an input at a competitive disadvantage, globally, and undermine what had become a significant US edge in global markets. Petrochemicals, in particular, would be adversely affected. The President's staff is well aware that the distribution of lifecycle emissions from oil, and the structure of the industry and markets, make policies focused on consumption far more effective than those aimed at production. This is why his administration's first act in implementing the expanded interpretation of the Clean Air Act to greenhouse gases was to tighten vehicle fuel economy standards. Taxing the upstream industry does nothing for global emissions but makes US producers less competitive, ensuring a return to rising oil imports and deteriorating energy security.

As widely reported, the Congress will not enact a budget containing this provision. It is hard to gauge whether this proposal represents a serious attempt to inject new thinking into the debate on funding transportation upgrades, or is simply one last shot across the bow of the administration's least favorite industry before leaving office in 349 days. It's not unusual for the wheels to come off as a presidency winds down, and this particularly flaky and futile idea might just be an indicator of that.

Disclosure: My portfolio includes investments in one or more of the companies mentioned above.

2015: A Turning Point for Energy?

• 2015 was certainly an eventful year in energy, with plummeting oil prices and a widely anticipated global climate conference in December. It's less clear that it was a turning point. 

When I sifted through the major energy developments of 2015, I was surprised by the number of references I found to last year as a turning point, whether for the oil industry, the response to climate change, coal-fired electricity generation, or renewable energy. To this list I am tempted to add the decision to allow unrestricted exports of US crude oil for the first time in 40 years.

Major turning points are best identified with the passage of time. With so many legitimate candidates it might seem a bit deflating to note, as the chart below reflects, that the growth pattern for US energy supplies in 2015 looks a lot like the one for 2014. Despite low prices, oil and gas output posted solid gains, at least through October, while wind and solar power contributed modestly, when compared on an energy-equivalent basis.

There are sound reasons to think that next year's graph may look quite different, starting with oil. The petroleum industry is still in turmoil from its turning point in late 2014, when OPEC declined to cut its output quota to restore the global oil market to balance. In North America and much of the world, drilling and investment in new projects are down sharply, and US oil production is retreating from the 44-year peak it reached in April. The subsequent decline would have been even more pronounced without the contribution of new deepwater platforms  in the Gulf of Mexico that were planned long before oil prices fell.

However, anyone identifying 2015 as the start of a global shift away from oil, rather than another cyclical low point, must contend with some contrary statistics. Global oil demand appears to have increased by around 2%--equivalent to the output of Nigeria--in response to a 70% drop in oil prices. And despite a lot of media attention, electric vehicles--the leading contender to replace the internal-combustion cars that are the main users of refined oil--have yet to catch on with mainstream consumers.

Based on data from Hybridcars.com, US sales of battery-electric vehicles (EVs) grew slightly faster than the 6% pace of the entire US car market in 2015 but still accounted for less than 0.5% of all new cars. In fact, the combined US market share of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and battery EVs fell by 18%, compared to 2014, to below 3%. This is a respectable start for vehicle electrification, but it's not much different from the beachhead that hybrids alone occupied in 2009.

Although we might look back on this situation in a few years as a turning point, I believe that will depend on the condition of OPEC and the global oil industry, as well as the level of global oil consumption, when supply and demand come back into balance and today's high oil inventories are drawn down.

At the launch of API's latest State of American Energy report earlier this month I had the opportunity to ask Jack Gerard, the President and CEO of API, how he thought the current situation might change the oil and gas industry, and whether it would push it even farther towards shale development, including outside the US. His response focused on ensuring that policies will allow US producers to compete globally and build on the advantages of US resources, capital markets and rule of law to increase their share of the market.

As for US natural gas production, rising per-well productivity and growth in the Utica shale and Permian Basin offset less drilling in general and output declines in the Marcellus shale and elsewhere.  The continued expansion of gas is remarkable, considering that natural gas futures prices (front month) averaged just $ 2.63 per million BTUs for the year and dipped below $2 in December. The LNG exports set to begin this month look very timely.

Renewable energy, mainly in the form of wind and solar power, continues to grow rapidly as its costs decline. US renewables got an unexpected boost in December when the US Congress extended the two main federal tax credits for wind, solar and other technologies, including retroactively reinstating the lapsed wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).  Renewables should also benefit from the implementation of the EPA's Clean Power Plan, and from the effect of the Paris climate agreement on the investment climate for these technologies.

We may not know for years whether the Paris Agreement was truly a turning point for climate change, as many have suggested. Another prescriptive agreement with legally binding targets, along the lines of the Kyoto Protocol, was never in the cards. However, the Paris text is replete with tentative verbs, along the lines of, "requests, invites, recognizes, aims, takes note, encourages, welcomes, etc. "  It remains up to the participating countries whether and how they fulfill their voluntary Intended Nationally Determined Contributions and financial commitments.

The Paris Agreement could turn out to be the necessary framework for firm steps by both developed and developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to climatic changes that are already "baked in", or it might shortly be overtaken by other events, as previous climate change measures were in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The current financial problems of the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases--arguably the most important signatory to the Paris Agreement--are not a positive signal.

With so many uncertainties in play, we should consider all of these potential turning points as signposts of changes that depend on other interconnected factors, if they are to lead to a future that breaks with the status quo. There are enough of them to make for a very interesting 2016, even if this wasn't also a US presidential election year.

 

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.

Cheapest Gasoline Ever?

Last week the Energy Information Administration  (EIA) reported that the $2.43 per gallon average US retail price for regular gasoline in 2015 was the lowest since 2009. A quick look at the EIA's handy page for comparing nominal and real fuel prices over time shows that last year's average, when adjusted for inflation, was actually the cheapest since 2004. A recent article suggested that current prices are lower than those in the mid-1960s, in the heyday of the American love affair with driving. I've lost the link, but that factoid checks out, too. However, even this understates the bargain currently on offer at the gas pump.

The price of gasoline is still one of the most visible prices in the US, prominently displayed on gas station signage and roadside billboards across the country. However, it only captures one aspect of how much motorists really pay, just as measuring fuel economy in miles per gallon misses the economic impact of driving. A few years ago I ran across a metric that combines these factors into a simple gauge of driving cost: miles per dollar, or mp$.

The chart below incorporates EIA data on inflation-adjusted fuel cost and data from the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA) on actual fleet corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) performance for each model year of passenger cars--not SUVs or light trucks--to display average mp$ for the last four decades.

Taking last week's average price of $2.03 for unleaded regular and using 36.4 mpg for the 2013 model year (the latest on NHTSA's site), today's fuel cost of driving is cheaper than at any time since 1978--and maybe ever. The 18 miles per dollar I calculated just beats the previous peak of mp$ in the late 1990s, when fuel economy was around 28 mpg and gas prices averaged barely over $1, due to the effects of the Asian Economic Crisis. By comparison, the $0.31 per gallon that motorists paid in 1965 was downright expensive, after adjusting for inflation and factoring in the low-to-mid-teens fuel economy of cars of the day.

Miles per dollar is also handy for comparing driving cost on gasoline to the cost of operating vehicles that use other fuels or electricity. When I first looked at miles per dollar in 2008, electric vehicles were significantly cheaper, per mile driven, than cars running on gasoline or diesel, even hybrid cars like the Prius. That gap still exists, but it has narrowed. At an US average residential electricity price of $0.126/kilowatt-hour last year, a Nissan Leaf or Chevrolet Volt would get around 26 mp$. However, in New England and other parts of the country with significantly higher-than-average electricity prices, the miles of driving that an EV can deliver per dollar of energy used could be less than that for gasoline in some locations.

A few caveats are in order. Based on data from the Transportation Research Institute at the University of Michigan, new-car fuel economy has slipped 0.8 mpg since oil prices started falling in the summer of 2014. And in any case, new cars are typically more efficient than the entire US car fleet, which includes older vehicles and substantial numbers of SUVs and light trucks. The Consumer Price Index is also an imperfect tool for comparing prices over long periods of time, because the Bureau of Labor Statistics periodically changes the components of the "basket" of goods and services that go into calculating the CPI.

None of those issues seems big enough to alter the basic conclusion that the gasoline cost of driving is exceptionally, perhaps historically cheap at the moment. If oil prices stay "lower for longer", as some experts expect,  changing the make-up--and thus the emissions--of the US car fleet is likely to be an uphill battle.

Has OPEC Lost Control of the Price of Oil?

• The shale revolution effectively sidelined OPEC's control over global oil prices, but the consequences of a year of low prices are shifting power back to the cartel.

In the aftermath of another inconclusive meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, oil prices have been testing their lows from the 2008-9 financial crisis,  For all the attention and speculation devoted to OPEC-watching whenever they meet, the question we should be asking about OPEC is whether the current situation shares enough of the elements that defined those periods in the past when the cartel's actual market control lived up to its reputation.

That reputation was established during the twin oil crises of the 1970s. US oil production peaked in late 1970, and to the extent there was then a global oil market, the key influence in setting its supply--and thus prices--passed from the Texas Railroad Commission to OPEC, which had been around since 1960.  From 1972 to 1980, the nominal price of a barrel of oil imported from the Persian Gulf increased roughly ten-fold, with disastrous effects on the global economy.

Just a few years later, however, oil prices collapsed.  OPEC's control was undermined by new non-OPEC production from places like the North Sea and Alaskan North Slope and a remarkable 10% contraction in global oil demand. The turning point came in 1985. Saudi Arabia, which had successively cut its output from 10 million barrels per day (MBD) in 1981 to just 3.6 MBD, introduced  "netback pricing" as a way to protect and recover market share.

That move helped set up nearly 20 years of moderate oil prices, during which OPEC's most successful intervention came in response to the Asian Economic Crisis of the late 1990s, when together with Mexico, Norway, Oman and Russia, it sharply curtailed production to pull the oil market out of a tailspin.

The proponents of today's "lower for longer" view of oil prices may see compelling parallels in the circumstances of the mid-1980s, compared to today's. Production from new sources, mainly US "tight oil" from shale, has created another global oil surplus. In the 1980s nuclear power and coal were pushing oil out of its established role in power generation. Now, renewables and electricity are beginning to erode oil's share of transportation energy, while the slowdown of China's economic growth and concerns about CO2 emissions raise doubts about the future growth of oil demand.

However, these similarities break down on some fundamental points. First, the production profile of shale wells is radically different from that of large, conventional onshore oil fields or offshore platforms. Once drilled, the latter produce at substantial rates for decades, while tight oil wells may deliver two-thirds of their lifetime output in just the first three years of operation. Sustaining shale production requires continuous drilling. In fact, new non-shale projects similar to the ones that underpinned oil-price stability from 1986-2003 make up the bulk of the $200 billion of industry investment that has reportedly been cancelled in response to the current price slump.

Another major difference relates to spare capacity. During most of the 1980s and '90s, OPEC maintained significant spare oil production capacity, much of it in Saudi Arabia. That wasn't necessarily by choice, but it was what enabled OPEC to absorb the loss of around 3.5 MBD from Kuwait and Iraq in 1990-91 while continuing to meet the needs of a growing global market. The virtual disappearance of that spare capacity was a key trigger of the oil price spike of 2004-8. (See chart below.)  A little-discussed consequence of OPEC's current strategy to maintain, and in the case of Saudi Arabia to increase output has been a decline in OPEC's effective spare capacity, to just over 2 MBD, compared to 3.5 MBD in the spring of 2014.

As a result, global spare oil production capacity is essentially shifting from Saudi Arabia, which historically was willing to tap it to alleviate market disruptions, to Iran, Iraq and US shale. The responsiveness of all of these is subject to large uncertainties. Iran's production capacity has atrophied under sanctions, and it isn't clear how quickly it can ramp back up once sanctions are fully lifted. Iraq's capacity and output have increased rapidly, but key portions are threatened by ISIS.

Meanwhile, US tight oil production is falling, although numerous wells have been drilled but not completed, presumably enabling them to be brought online quickly, later--perhaps mimicking spare capacity. How that would work in practice remains to be seen. One uncertainty that was recently resolved was whether such oil could be exported from the US. As part of its recent budget compromise, Congress voted to lift the 1970s-vintage oil export restrictions. Even with US oil exports as a potential stabilizing factor, a world of lower or more uncertain spare capacity is likely be a world of higher and more volatile oil prices.

Oil prices were largely unshackled from OPEC's influence last year, after Saudi Arabia engineered a new OPEC strategy aimed at maximizing market share. However, with oil demand continuing to grow and millions of barrels per day of future non-OPEC production having been canceled--and unlikely to be reinstated any time soon--and with OPEC's spare capacity approaching its low levels of the mid-2000s, the potential price leverage of a cut in OPEC's output quota is arguably greater than it has been in some time.

 

In 2016 we will see whether OPEC finally pulls that trigger, or instead chooses to remain on a "lower for longer" path that raises big questions about the long-term aims of its biggest producers.

 

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation

A Grand Compromise on Energy?

The idea of  a Congressional "grand compromise" on energy has been debated for years. A decade ago, such an agreement might have opened up access for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in exchange for "cap and trade" or some other comprehensive national greenhouse gas emissions policy. By comparison, the deal apparently included in the 2016 spending and tax bill is small beer but still worthwhile: In exchange for lifting the outdated restrictions on exporting US crude oil, Congress will respectively revive and extend tax credits for wind and solar power.

Anticipation about the prospect of US oil exports seemed higher last year, when production was growing rapidly and threatening to outgrow the capacity of US oil refineries to handle the volumes of high-quality "tight oil" flowing from shale deposits. Just this week Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, citing a study by the Energy Information Administration, suggested that allowing such exports might now be nearly inconsequential in most respects.

Although little additional oil may flow in the short term, given the current global surplus, it's worth recalling that the gap between domestic and international oil prices hasn't always been as narrow as it is today. The discount for West Texas Intermediate relative to UK Brent crude has averaged around $4 per barrel this year, but within the last three years it has been as wide as $15-20. Oil traders will tell you that average differentials between markets are essentially irrelevant. What counts is the windows when those gaps widen, during which  a lot of cargoes can move in short periods.

No matter how much or little US oil is ultimately exported, and how much additional production the lifting of the export ban will actually stimulate, the bigger impact on the global oil market is likely to be psychological. Having to find new outlets for oil shipped from West Africa, for example, because US refiners are processing more US crude and importing less from elsewhere is one thing; having to compete directly with cargoes of US oil is going to be quite another. That's where US consumers will benefit in the long run, from lower global oil prices that translate into lower prices at the gas pump.

Finally, if OPEC can choose to cease acting like a cartel--at least for the moment--and treat crude oil as a normal market, then it's timely for the US to follow suit and end an oil export ban that originated in the same 1970s oil crisis that put OPEC on the map.

How about the other side of this deal? What do we get for retroactively reinstating the expired wind production tax credit (PTC), along with extending the 30% solar tax credit that would have expired at the end of next year?

We'll certainly get more wind farms, along with some stability for an industry that has been whipsawed by past expirations and last-minute extensions of a tax credit that has been a major driver of new installations throughout its 20+ year history. Wind energy accounted for 4.4% of US grid electricity in the 12 months through September, up from a little over 1% in 2008.

However, this tax credit isn't cheap . The 4,800 Megawatts of new wind turbines installed in 2014 will receive a total of nearly $2.5 billion in subsidies--equivalent to around $19 per barrel--during the 10 years in which they will be eligible for the PTC, and 2015's additions are on track to beat that. The PTC is also the policy that enables wind power producers in places like Texas to sell electricity at prices below zero--still pocketing the 2.3¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax credit--distorting wholesale electricity markets and capacity planning.

As for solar power, it's not obvious that the tax credit extension was necessary at all, in light of the rapid decline in the cost of solar photovoltaic energy (PV). In any case, because the tax credit for solar is calculated as a percentage of installed cost, rather than a fixed subsidy per kWh of output like for wind, the technology's progress has provided an inherent phaseout of the dollar benefit. Solar's rapid growth seems likely to continue, with or without the tax credit.

The big missed opportunity from a clean energy and climate perspective is that these tax credit extensions channel billions of dollars to technologies that, at least in the case of wind, are essentially mature and widely regarded as inadequate to support a large-scale, long-term transition to low-emission energy. I would have preferred to see these federal dollars targeted to help incubate new energy technologies, along the lines of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition announced by Bill Gates and other high-tech leaders at the Paris climate conference.

The current deal, embedded within a $1.6 trillion "omnibus" spending bill, must still pass the Congress and be signed by the President. It won't please everyone, but it is at least consistent with the "all of the above" approach that has been our de facto energy strategy, at least since 2012. It also serves as a reminder that despite the commitments at Paris to reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, renewable energy will of necessity coexist with oil and gas for many years to come.

Shrinking the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

• Selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of the Congressional budget compromise raises serious questions about the SPR's future role.
• Shrinking the SPR without first bringing its coverage into line with 21st century needs risks strengthening OPEC's hand. 

Last month's Congressional budget compromise included plans to sell 58 million barrels of oil from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, beginning in 2018. That decision raises serious questions. The world has changed enormously since the SPR was established in the 1970s, but the realignment of such an asset for the 21st century deserves a full strategic review and debate. Leaping ahead to treat the SPR like an ATM  seems unwise on multiple grounds.

My initial reaction was that the sale would result in the US government effectively buying high and selling low. However, using the last-in, first-out (LIFO) accounting common in the oil industry, the SPR release during the 2011 Libyan revolution should have removed any barrels purchased as prices surged past $100 per barrel (bbl) to over $140, prior to the financial crisis. The oil now slated to be sold in 2018-25 was likely injected between December 2003 and June 2005, when West Texas Intermediate crude oil averaged around $44/bbl. The Treasury should at least break even on these sales, allowing us to dispense with judging the trading acumen of the Congress and focus on the strategic aspects of this decision.

It is also true that the combination of revived US oil production and lower domestic petroleum demand effectively doubled the notional import protection that the SPR provides. That has made policy makers comfortable enough with the coverage the reserve provides to consider shrinking it. Yet as Energy Secretary Moniz  and a growing body of experts have concluded, the SPR's present configuration is inadequate to deal with whole categories of plausible oil-supply disruptions.

Today's SPR consists entirely of crude oil stored in caverns near the major refining centers of the Gulf Coast, to which it is connected via pipelines. However, while crude oil imports into the Gulf Coast have fallen dramatically, the long-term decline of oil production in Alaska and California has forced West Coast refiners to import 1-1.5 million bbl/day of oil, including more than half of California's crude supply, much of it from OPEC producers. In the event of an interruption of those deliveries, and under current oil-export restrictions, getting SPR oil from Texas and Louisiana to L.A. and San Francisco would pose enormous logistical challenges.

We have also learned that natural disasters such as hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012 affect refinery operations, as well as oil deliveries.  A crude oil SPR is of little value if its contents can't be processed into the fuels that consumers and industry actually use.  The newer Northeast heating oil and gasoline reserves were intended to address that limitation, though on a much smaller scale.

It is thus fair to say that the SPR established in the Ford Administration and filled by the next five US presidents to a level now equivalent to 137 days of US crude oil imports is not diverse enough in its composition or locations, and too big for our current needs. If we could count on a continuation of cheap, abundant oil for the next two decades, selling off some SPR inventory wouldn't create problems. However, the purpose of such a reserve is to mitigate the risks of uncertain and inherently unpredictable future conditions and events. That should be factored into any decision to shrink it.

We don't have to look far to find reasons to suspect that oil prices might someday be higher and more volatile--perhaps as soon as the 2018-25 legislated sales period--or to worry that oil supplies from the Middle East might become less secure. Consider the consequences of the oil price collapse that began over a year ago. Low oil prices have indeed put pressure on the highly flexible US shale sector, where production is now expected to drop by around 500,000 bbl/day by next year. The impact on large-scale, long-lead-time capital investments in places like Canada, the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico has been even more profound. Over $200 billion of new projects and exploration activity have been deferred or canceled. Unlike shale, most of these projects could not be revived quickly if prices rebounded.

As production from existing fields declines without replacement, the current global oil surplus will dissipate, bringing the market back into balance. However, that balance is likely to be more precarious than before, since last fall's strategic shift by OPEC to protect its market share instead of managing prices entails the depletion of OPEC's "spare capacity." That means that in a future crisis, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC producers will have little flexibility to increase production to make up for lost output elsewhere.

Barring an unforeseen reduction in global  oil demand, the scenario that is beginning to take shape fits the  pattern of risks that the SPR was originally intended to address. It includes the prospect of rising US oil imports, increasing reliance on OPEC, and the threat posed by ISIS in the world's oil "breadbasket".  In that light it is hard to justify reducing the size of the SPR without a clear plan for making the remaining volume more effective at shoring up future vulnerabilities in US energy security.

In their haste to reach a deal, Congressional negotiators may also have overlooked some SPR-related alternatives that could generate revenue without draining inventories. These might include allowing other countries to buy into the reserve by means of "special drawing rights," or simply selling long-dated call options backed by the SPR, to be settled in the future by delivery or cash, at the government's discretion.

Taken together, there are ample reasons for the next Congress and administration to revisit the SPR sales provisions of the 2016 budget deal, before they go into effect.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation

The Keystone Rejection and the Shift Back toward OPEC

Although the International Energy Agency's latest warning of future energy security risks doesn't mention the Keystone XL pipeline, it provides important context for assessing President Obama's decision turning down that project's application. The IEA's newly issued global energy forecast indicates that if oil prices remain low until the end of the decade, it "would trigger energy-security concerns by heightening reliance on a small number of low-cost producers," a polite way of referring to OPEC. The Keystone verdict could help reinforce that shift.

I've devoted a lot of posts to different aspects of the Keystone issue. In a post last year on the State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, I pointed out the pipeline's relatively modest potential to affect climate change, with a range of incremental greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) equating to 0.02-0.4% of total US emissions. Even if the full lifecycle emissions of the oil sands crude it would have transported were included, they would still not have exceed around 0.3% of global CO2-equivalent emissions. For these and other reasons, I have consistently concluded that the decision would be made on political, rather than technical grounds, consistent with the symbolism the project has taken on with environmental activists during this administration.

Whether the Keystone rejection is attributable mainly to domestic political considerations or to positioning in advance of next month's Paris climate conference is a minor distinction. As the editors of the Washington Post put it, the distortion and politicization of the issue "was a national embarrassment, reflecting poorly on the United States’ capability to treat parties equitably under law and regulation." If the IEA's assessment of the trends underlying today's low oil prices is correct, we may come to regret last Friday's ruling for other reasons, too.

Recall that last year's oil-price collapse had two principal triggers: surging US oil production from shale deposits in Texas, North Dakota and several other states, and a decision by OPEC to forgo its historic role as balancers of the global oil market and instead to produce full out. The latter explains why oil remains below $50 per barrel, even though US shale output is now retreating.

Yet while shale production is expected to rebound once prices start to recover--whenever that might occur--the same cannot necessarily be said for conventional non-OPEC production from places like the North Sea and other high-cost, mature regions. Oil companies have canceled or deferred over $200 billion in exploration and production projects, while existing oil fields accounting for more than 10 times the output of US shale will continue to decline at rates of perhaps 5-10% per year.

The combination of all these factors sets the stage for a future oil market very different from what we've experienced in the past few decades. If OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia assume the role of baseload, rather than swing producers, the price of oil will be set by the last, most expensive barrels to be supplied. That would constitute a much more normal market than one that has been dominated by OPEC production quotas, but it would also lack the margin of 3-5 million barrels per day of "spare capacity" that OPEC has typically held in reserve. That is a recipe for increased risk and volatility ahead.

If this comes to pass, the result might not be an exact re-run of the oil crises of the 1970s. The global economy is much less reliant on oil than it was four decades ago, especially for electricity generation, which as the IEA points out will increasingly come from renewable sources. However, oil will remain indispensable for transportation for many years. In a global oil market again dominated by OPEC, additional pipeline-based supplies from a reliable neighbor like Canada would be highly desirable, and the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which the Congress just voted to shrink in order to raise a couple of billion dollars of revenue, could become a lot more valuable.

The decision to reject TransCanada's application for the Keystone XL pipeline was ostensibly made on long-term considerations related to climate change, but it reflects a short-sighted view of energy markets. In that light, the President's conclusion that Keystone "would not serve the national interests of the United States" seems very likely to be revisited by a future US president.

VW Scandal Puts Diesel's Future at Risk

• If the VW scandal sours consumers on diesel cars, the potential winners and losers extend well beyond the auto industry.
• European refineries look especially vulnerable to such a shift, while US refiners, along with manufacturers of electric vehicles, stand to gain.

Whether or not Volkswagen's diesel deception proves to be "worse than Enron," as a Yale business school dean commented, it is more than just the business scandal du jour. Its repercussions could affect other carmakers, especially those headquartered in Europe. And if it triggered a large-scale shift by consumers away from diesel passenger cars, that would have major consequences for the global oil refining industry, oil and gas producers, and sales of electric and other low-emission cars.

The scale of the problem ensures that it will not blow over quickly. Nearly 500,000 VW diesel cars in the US were equipped with software to circumvent federal and state emissions testing, and the company has indicated that 11 million vehicles are affected, worldwide. Even if Volkswagen's retrofit plan passes muster with regulators in the US, Europe and Asia, the resulting recall could take years to complete.

It's also still unclear whether VW's diesel models are unique in polluting significantly more under real-world conditions than in laboratory testing. Regulators in Europe appear to suspect the problem is more widespread. Other companies use similar emission-control technologies--from the same vendors--to control the NOx and particulates from smaller cars equipped with diesel engines. The French government announced plans to subject 100 diesel cars chosen at random from consumers and rental fleets to more realistic testing.

VW faces investigations and lawsuits in multiple countries. While those are underway, the claims of every carmaker selling "clean diesels" and the reputation of a technology that European governments have bet on as a crucial tool for reducing CO2 emissions and oil imports are likely to be under a cloud. How consumers react to all this will determine the future, not only of diesel cars, but of the future global mix of transportation fuels and vehicle types.

Start with oil refining. As long ago as the early 1990s, when I traded petroleum products in London, the European shift to diesel was creating a regional surplus of motor gasoline and a growing deficit of diesel fuel, or "gasoil" as it is often called outside North America. Initially, trade was the solution: The US was importing increasing volumes of gasoline to meet growing demand and had diesel to spare. The fuel imbalances of the US and EU were well-matched, in the short-to-medium term.

As this shift continued, the wholesale prices of diesel and gasoline in the global market adjusted, affecting refinery margins on both sides of the Atlantic. Marginal facilities in Europe shut down, while others invested in the hardware to increase their yield of diesel and reduce gasoline production. US refiners also invested in diesel-making equipment.

The aftermath of the financial crisis and recession increased the pressure on Europe's refiners, as did the rapid growth of "light tight oil" production in the US. Europe's biggest export market for gasoline dried up as fuels demand slowed and US refineries reinvented themselves as major exporters of gasoline.

Diesel cars still make up less than 1% of US new car sales but have accounted for around 50% of European sales for some time. If governments and consumers were now to lose their confidence in diesels and shift back toward gasoline, it would wrong-foot Europe's refineries and leave them with some big, underperforming investments in diesel hardware.  A persistent slowdown in diesel demand would alter corporate plans and strategies as refinery profits shifted. In the meantime, US refineries stand to benefit from a bigger outlet for their steadily rising gasoline output.   

If consumers did retreat from diesel passenger cars--trucks are unlikely to be affected--the shift back to gasoline is likely to be less than gallon-for-gallon, because competing technology hasn't stood still since 2007, when the US Congress enacted stricter fuel economy standards and the Environmental Protection Agency's tougher tailpipe NOx standard went into effect. New gasoline cars are closing the efficiency gap with diesels, thanks to direct injection, hybridization and other strategies. At the same time, the number of new electric vehicle (EV) models is growing rapidly, their cost is coming down, and infrastructure for EV charging is sprouting all over.

EVs still accounted for less than 1% of the US car market last year, but the combined sales of the Chevrolet Volt, Nissan Leaf, Tesla Model S and over a dozen other plug-in hybrid and battery-electric models nearly matched those of the standard Prius hybrid "liftback". EVs are still not cheap, despite generous government incentives that mainly benefit high-income taxpayers. Most still come with a dose of "range anxiety", but they are greatly improved and getting better with each new model year.

Even in Europe, where EVs haven't sold very well outside Norway, a big shift away from diesel would surely help EVs gain market share. If European consumers bought 9 gasoline cars and one EV for every 10 new diesels they avoided, European refiners would soon see not just a shift, but a net drop in total fuel sales. Nor would refineries be the only part of the petroleum value chain to be affected. Global oil demand would grow more slowly as well, bringing "peak demand" that much closer.

For now, this scenario is hypothetical. VW may yet solve its technical problem, bringing the 11 million affected vehicles into compliance with minimal impact on performing and fuel economy. Meanwhile, regulators could find that most other carmakers have been in compliance all along, particularly those selling cars that use the urea-based Selective Catalytic Reduction NOx technology; the rest might only need a few tweaks.

​In that case, the scandal might eventually die down without putting small diesel cars into the grave, as a mock obituary in the Financial Times suggested. Carmakers would have a hard time increasing diesel's penetration of markets like the US, but loyal diesel customers around the world might conclude that these cars still provide them the best combination of value, convenience and drivability. Having driven a number of diesels as rentals and at auto shows, I wouldn't dismiss that possibility too lightly. The jury is likely to be out for a while.

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation

What the Congressional Hearing on VW Missed

I made time in my schedule to watch yesterday's Congressional hearing on the VW scandal on C-SPAN. It left me with very much the same sense tweeted by Amy Harder of the Wall Street Journal, though perhaps for different reasons:

Similarly to the Deepwater Horizon hearing, some of the Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee used the occasion to demonstrate that their outrage over this event equaled or exceeded that of their constituents back home. This is par for the course. But just as when confronted with the highly technical issues of a well blowout in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico, the committee's members would also have benefited from more technical advice prior to and during the hearing.

In particular, I thought they missed key opportunities to follow up on answers given by the CEO of Volskwagen's US subsidiary, Michael Horn. One example followed Mr. Horn's response to a question about the timeline for attempting to fix the company's non-complying diesel cars from model years 2009-2015.

He explained that the affected models included three generations of engine and emissions treatment technology. The oldest, which he described as "Gen-1" would be the hardest to fix and was clearly not amenable to merely updating the engine management software to remove the "defeat device" code. However, he also indicated that the newest generation might be fixed in exactly that way. That's because they already incorporate the Selective Catalytic Reduction and urea technology used in bigger, more expensive models. The question left hanging in the air but never asked was why VW would have abandoned the exhaust-gas-recirculation (EGR) technology that had been matched to the 2-liter diesel engine since 2009, if it was convinced the cheaper technology was doing the job.

Several members of the committee pointed out to both Mr. Horn and Christopher Grundler, the EPA official responsible for emissions compliance, that although the EPA had indicated these cars were safe to drive and would not be pulled off the road, they would be emitting unacceptable levels of NOx until they were recalled and repaired.  Mr. Horn had already indicated that might take up to two years, which seemed quite realistic.

Despite Mr. Grundler's expertise, everyone seemed to treat these emissions as an unalterable circumstance, ignoring the fact that NOx is a traded commodity in the US. In fact, the markets for NOx and SOx emissions credits--overseen by the EPA--have been so effective that they provided the intellectual spark for the whole idea of CO2 cap-and-trade. In light of that, I was surprised that no one suggested that VW, either voluntarily or at the direction of the EPA, should immediately purchase NOx credits equivalent to the excess emissions of the affected cars until they have been brought into compliance.

Of course that wouldn't be a perfect substitute for tailpipe compliance. Unlike CO2, NOx acts locally, rather than globally. However, as I understand it the NOx markets function regionally, and I would be surprised if there wasn't a reasonable overlap between the geographic concentrations of VW diesel car sales and the focus of the NOx markets in the Northeast, Midwest and California. Buying large blocks of  NOx credits would push  up the price for these instruments and prompt more emissions reductions from power plants and other participants in these markets, leaving the air cleaner.

I am sure many of those watching the hearings shook their heads when Mr. Horn expressed his belief that the responsibility for circumventing the cars' emission controls likely rested with a few software engineers, rather than a corporate decision. Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) channeled a lot of frustration when he rejected that idea on the basis that if VW had found software to fix diesel emissions it would have rushed to patent the idea. I'm less certain of that in this age of widespread technology outsourcing. For VW's diesels, much of the key hardware came from vendors, and I would expect the same to be true for software. I was hoping someone would ask whether the "defeat device" software itself had been sourced from a vendor.

Either way, it was clear that Mr. Horn was struggling with the disconnect between his own beliefs about the situation and the facts that had emerged. I experienced something similar when my former employer, Texaco Inc., was embroiled in a scandal over diversity in the 1990s. The newspaper accounts I read of blatant discrimination in closed-door meetings were at odds with everything I knew about a company for which I had worked for two decades. Mr. Horn expressed similar feelings, but I doubt they provided much consolation to those whom VW's actions have harmed.

In that vein, there was a lot of speculation about damages and remedies at yesterday's hearing.  It was clear that most of the committee shared the view of one member, who advised VW to be "aggressively compliant" in responding to its customers and dealers. However, suggestions that the company offer "loaners" to all 500,000 affected customers seemed detached from reality, as did the notion that VW should voluntarily refund the full purchase price of these cars. A quick calculation puts the price tag on that idea in the $10-20 billion range, before paying any of the fines and penalties that seem inevitable in this case. I don't know what compensation I'd want if I had bought a diesel VW, instead of a gasoline model, but I don't think I'd be counting on getting my purchase price back.

Yesterday's hearing had its share of posturing, but on balance I thought it contributed to our understanding of the scandal and the next steps in the process. The panel treated Mr. Horn with remarkable civility, under the circumstances. That is likely attributable to his having been among the first to admit that the company had "screwed up." Perhaps his most telling remark yesterday was that they would have to figure out how to manage a company of 600,000 people differently, after this. "This company has to bloody learn," was how he put it. I imagine we'll be hearing a lot more in the weeks and months ahead about exactly what those lessons are, and how much they will cost.

How Shale Reduced US Energy Risks from Hurricanes

• The Gulf of Mexico will be a key region for energy supplies for years to come, but shale development has boosted output elsewhere to such an extent that the US is much less vulnerable than a decade ago to shortages resulting from hurricanes.

Just in time for the 10-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina last month, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported on the reduced vulnerability of US energy supplies to Atlantic hurricanes, as a result of the energy shifts of the last decade. As the Houston Chronicle noted, this illustrates another benefit of the revolution in shale oil and gas. However, with oil still below $50 per barrel, it is also worth considering how durable these particular effects might be if low oil prices were to persist much longer.

Following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which made landfall on the Gulf Coast within a few weeks of each other in 2005, I recall some lively  discussions concerning the concentration of US energy assets in the region, and what that meant for US energy security. There was talk of new inland refineries, and even proposed legislation to promote them. With the exception of one small refinery in North Dakota, which came online earlier this year, most of that talk led nowhere. The synergies of the Gulf Coast refining and petrochemical complex were and still are overwhelming.

From the perspective of diversifying US crude oil and natural gas supplies, the situation looked equally daunting in 2005, excluding higher imports of both--an outcome that already seemed unavoidable. The country's main onshore oil fields, including the Alaska North Slope, were in decline. In 2004 their combined output averaged less than 4 million barrels per day for the first time since the 1940s. The deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico were where the majority of accessible, unexploited US oil and gas was expected to be found.

With hindsight it now seems clear that in 2005 the first large-scale application of hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") and horizontal drilling to shale in the Barnett gas field near Dallas, TX was pointing to an entirely different set of possibilities.  The Barnett had just passed a major milestone: one billion cubic feet per day of production. However, other than visionary entrepreneurs like George Mitchell, few energy experts then foresaw how rapidly shale could scale up elsewhere.

Fast-forward to 2015, and the country has experienced a profound geographical diversification of its energy sources. As the following key chart from the EIA's analysis shows, since 2003 the offshore Gulf of Mexico's share of US production has fallen by 40% for crude oil and by nearly 80% for natural gas.

The divergence in those figures may seem surprising. "Tight" oil from deposits North Dakota, onshore Texas and the mountain West supplemented deepwater production that post-Deepwater Horizon has recovered to roughly the level of 2004, bringing total US oil output close to an all-time record earlier this year.  Meanwhile, rising shale gas output in Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania  more than compensated for  the steady, long-term decline of Gulf of Mexico gas production. The extent of the shift in US gas sources has even raised questions about the viability of the benchmark Henry Hub (Louisiana) trading point for the main gas-futures contract. 

In fact, when we look beyond oil and gas to factor in the growth of renewable energy and the recent decline in coal consumption in the power sector, since 2004 the equivalent energy dependence of the US on the Gulf of Mexico--including imports--has fallen from 7% to roughly 4%, in terms of total energy consumption.

If oil prices had remained where they were a year ago, above $90 per barrel, there would be little doubt that this trend would continue. However, the latest short-term forecast from the EIA suggests that US onshore oil production will fall by about 6%, due to reduced shale drilling, while Gulf of Mexico production ticks up about the same percentage, as more projects that were begun under higher oil prices come onstream. This is generally consistent with the outlook of the International Energy Agency. By itself that could cause a small increase in Gulf of Mexico dependence.

As for gas, EIA projects that US onshore natural gas production will continue to grow, though at a slower rate than recently, while offshore gas continues its decline, reinforcing the shift away from the Gulf. The technology and techniques for developing onshore shale gas continue to improve, even with low natural gas prices, while the identified gas resources of the eastern Gulf of Mexico remain off-limits.

The relative importance of the large refining centers on the Gulf Coast may be evolving, too, for different reasons. US refined product exports have grown substantially since the financial crisis, with most of them sourced from the Gulf Coast. To the extent such shipments could be delayed in an emergency or swapped for product sourced abroad to be delivered to their original destinations, that effectively creates a buffer against storm-related disruptions in domestic deliveries.

The abundance of natural resources and the legacy of decades of infrastructure investment guarantee that the US Gulf Coast will remain a key region for US energy supplies. However, the technology for tapping resources elsewhere has greatly reduced the chances for a repeat of the events of 2005, when a pair of hurricanes set the stage for the highest natural gas prices in US history. Low oil prices might slow down further reductions in the relative energy contribution of the Gulf, but a significant reversal of this trend looks unlikely under either low or high oil prices.

 

A different version of this posting was previously published on the website of Pacific Energy Development Corporation.