Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Feb 6, 2017 with 4 responses

Can U.S. Shale Oil Offset OPEC Production Cuts?

Tags:

In an earlier article - Why OPEC’s Announced Cuts Are A Really Big Deal - I addressed some of the skepticism around the recent production cuts enacted by OPEC. Today I want to consider in more depth the notion that U.S. oil producers might swiftly negate the impact of these production cuts.

To review, in November OPEC announced that it would enact 1.2 million barrels per day (bpd) of production cuts on January 1st. OPEC also announced that certain major non-OPEC members – most notably Russia – would cooperate with the production cuts, pushing the total amount of targeted cuts to 1.8 million bpd.

Some analysts cite two factors that could render OPEC’s cuts ineffective. The first is simply that OPEC members will cheat, as they have historically done. Certainly some members may overproduce their quotas, but OPEC is going to monitor global crude inventories. Those inventories had already begun to come down from record highs prior to the OPEC announcement, partly in response to declining U.S. shale oil production.

Further, a new Reuters survey has determined that OPEC’s compliance with the cuts in January was 82%. Tanker-tracker Petro-Logistics has estimated that crude oil shipments from OPEC countries were down by 900,000 bpd in January. So, early indications are that even if some cheating does occur, substantial cuts have taken place.

But the second factor cited by skeptics is beyond OPEC’s control, and that is that U.S. shale oil producers will simply ramp up production as oil prices rise, negating the OPEC cuts. That’s a reasonable concern, so let’s delve a bit deeper.

At the height of the shale boom, U.S. producers were adding more than a million bpd of oil production each year. At that growth rate, the production cuts could indeed be offset in a couple of years. But a look at the relationship between the number of oil rigs drilling for oil and oil production at first glance implies that a rapid turnaround is unlikely:

U.S. oil rig count and oil production.


Between about 2000 and 2008, U.S. oil rigs doubled from around 200 to 400, but oil production hardly responded (though that was before the spread of modern shale drilling technology.) The rig count plunged in 2008 along with oil prices, but once oil rallied the rig count began a steep climb. Production did eventually respond, but there was a lag of more than a year between the start of the rig rush and a meaningful increase in oil production.

However, if you look at the last six months of the above graph, you will notice that the rig count began to climb again after bottoming last May. Meanwhile, oil production, which had been steadily falling since about mid-2015 reversed course and began to climb in October 2016.

This rapid turnaround is likely a result of a backlog of drilled but uncompleted wells (DUCs), which can be brought online faster than a new well can be planned, drilled, and completed. Data from the Energy Information Administration shows an uptick in completions over the past year in the four oil-dominant regions of the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, and Permian Basin, where the DUC inventory in December stood at 4,509 wells. This uptick in completions helps explain why recent oil production responded more quickly than during the previous rig surge that began in 2009.

Considering this data, how soon might the U.S. manage to offset 1.8 million bpd of production cuts? If the impressive production gains since early October could be maintained, it would amount to ~1.5 million bpd over the course of a year. It’s going to be very important in coming months to see if these fast gains were a short-term response to $50 oil, or if they are sustainable.

My opinion is that the DUCs that are being completed with oil prices at $50/bbl will be among those with the highest production rates. After all, higher production rates are what enables a well to be economic to produce at lower prices. Thus it is likely that the most promising wells are being completed first, and that completion of additional DUCs is unlikely in my view to maintain that production growth for an extended period of time.

However, if by mid-year U.S. producers have added another half million bpd, OPEC may once again find themselves facing the difficult decision of responding with another round of production cuts.

Link to Original Article: Can U.S. Shale Oil Offset OPEC Production Cuts?

Follow Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, or at Forbes.

  1. By Steve Doebler on February 11, 2017 at 1:54 pm

    Love the article and graph. I would also keep in mind that although most shale wells reach peak production within 30 days of completion, they continue to produce lesser amounts of oil for the next 18 – 24 months. This would suggest that all the wells drilled near the peak rig count (January 2015) would be losing their production ……. right around now.

    [link]      
  2. By Ike_Kiefer on March 27, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    The answer to the title question is “yes, absolutely yes.” OPEC was foolish to constrict production when the world is in glut and producers are fighting a global battle for market share.

    In the USA, advanced technology and pre-existing infrastructure and vast productive formations accessible via privately-held mineral rights have reduced the cost barriers and response time thresholds of marginal production to new lows. U.S. oil producers are more elastic in their ability to respond to minute price fluctuations than any others in the world. Shell just announced that it can produce from new wells in the Permian for $20/bbl ( http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Shells-New-Permian-Play-Profitable-At-20-A-Barrel.html ). Every tight oil play currently in production in the USA now has wells that can produce with break-even below $50/bbl.

    The global oil production sector is likewise in a real glut of capacity and it is only going to increase as fracking and pre-salt deepwater technology proliferate internationally. The UK passed the milestone of beginning the first fracking wells in W. Europe last week (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/23/uk-starts-drilling-first-fracking-wells/ ).

    I have submitted a guest post to this site that shows why I believe history and evidence falsify the supply-side scarcity premise of the Hubbert Peak Oil theory, and why oil production is limited by demand-side economic development of the market. Hopefully, it will appear soon.

    [link]      
    • By Forrest Butter on March 28, 2017 at 6:51 am

      I do see strange graphs with little explanation of fuel supply demand change. Increasing demand for some years out, but at some point in near future 2-12 years an inversion. Why? Is it expected popularity and cost effectiveness of battery technology? Hydrogen production surge per some technology advance. Natural gas use within transportation? Biofuel production? Maybe the onslaught of ever higher engine efficiency, hybrid technology, improving aerodynamics, improving transportation systems, smaller and lighter vehicles? It looks to me all of this will and is happening and the impact will occur just a few years out. Fuel supply will, at best, just maintain current production levels and most will decrease. GW science and concerns may play into this, even XOM talking of preferring carbon tax system. One concern is Millennial generation hatred of fossil fuel, traditional cars, and the typical household use of the stuff even though they grew up utilizing the energy. They have “better” ideas and choose tiny houses, bicycling, and Uber. I do notice they still like air transportation and are not willing to give up that luxury.

      The battery car and autonomous technology is well positioned to chop off the apex of future fuel use. This technology will lighten up the traditional vehicle as technology and computation power will be the primary driver of passenger safety. Also, the vehicle utilization will be surge and cost plummet. So, much so that Ford, for example, is reclassifying their business service. It looks like the fuel cell, biofuel, and natural gas will all close in on traditional high torque diesel fuel supply per air quality concerns, health, and that the traditional diesel engine is becoming more of a problem to control emissions. This is true even within aircraft and military. So, most believe fossil fuels will go nowhere and will most always be present within society needs, but may follow the path of coal power to loose it’s strangle hold upon critical need. Most citizens don’t or won’t allow that to happen, again. This should impact warfare, extreme wealth concentration, and easy terrorism funding. Basically, all good stuff!

      [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!