Oil Pricing Is Going Crazy

Gas pump displaying prices

Oil prices are going crazy, and the current price of ~$105/barrel doesn’t even account for all the additional costs incurred along the way.

Additional costs were once only a few dollars per barrel, but they have risen to over $40 in some cases. This has been caused by the Russian sanctions and Iranian attacks in the Persian Gulf, which have forced sea-to-sea transfers, increased tanker costs, and jacked up insurance costs.

Oil markets are continuing to become more regionalized, and the now-widening price differences could eventually turn into supply disruptions if we don’t get this shit-storm sorted out soon.

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. And today we are going to chat a little bit about how oil is priced, because it makes a big difference in where we are with the world starting to spin apart. Normally everything from the production at the wellhead to the transport to maybe initial processing to getting on a boat is all kind of lumped into the price. And so in the cases of the Persian Gulf, that’s coming out to about $105 a barrel, recording this on the 18th of October, but that’s not necessarily the price that you pay. That’s the price that you pay when you pick it up. But if you have to pick it up through some sort of convoluted system, that’s a surcharge. You can have surcharge, insurance costs. And then of course you have to get it to your end destination. Usually all of that combined is minor is only 2 or $3 a barrel. But that’s not the situation we’re in right now. We’ve got a couple of major things going on. 

First of all, because of the existence of the shadow fleet in Russia, crude is no longer transported by its shortest possible route by pipeline from, say, the western Siberian fields to Europe. Instead, it’s loaded onto tankers and the black and the Baltic Sea. It goes around Europe. Sometimes it goes around Africa. It certainly goes around Southeast Asia in order to reach India and China. That adds a journey that’s roughly the distance of sailing all the way around the planet. That’s a surcharge. In addition, because you need more tankers to take the same amount of crude to their destination because you’ve got this long route, all of a sudden tanker rates start going up. And then, of course, the second big thing is what’s going on in the Persian Gulf, with the Iranians hitting tankers going to and from the Persian Gulf and occasionally hitting infrastructure elsewhere in the region. That means that the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Kuwaitis, the Qataris are all loading up crude on their own tankers, turning off their transponders, sailing dark into the Arabian Sea and then doing a sea-to-sea transfer to other tankers, which means even more tankers are used, and they’re doing so in a way that causes insurance rates to shoot up. So basically what we’re looking at is on a global basis, most of this long haul transport has added at least $25 a barrel to the price of crude that you don’t see in the daily metrics, but the people on the receiving end have to pay it. In India and especially China and Japan, in many cases, especially if you’re talking Persian Gulf crude that has now surpassed $40 a barrel. I mean, simply doing that little shuttle out of the Persian Gulf into the sea-to-sea transfer, typically it’s 20 to 25, and that assumes that nobody is shot at that week, and everyone’s been shot at at every week for the last 30 weeks. 

Anyway. If you’re lucky enough to be in an area where this isn’t relevant, like, say, West Texas, you’re selling crude on the international market for about $100 and your transport costs are minimal. Sometimes it gets a little bit too safe. So, for example, West Canadian Select out of Alberta is selling for only $75 because it’s just piped to the mid-continent part of the United States. So you can have countries that are not anywhere near the danger that do profit, like, say, the United States, and that don’t profit from the change in circumstances like Canada. 

Anyway, I could do a thousand videos on how all gets weird when you start messing with things, but the bottom line is, we’ve seen a severe break in the security environment that allows the market to function, and even without the Ukraine war getting any worse. And you know, shocker, it’s getting worse. We’re looking at these price differences widen massively. And by the time we get to the end of the year, unless something is resolved politically, we’re going to be looking at outright breaks in supply lines.

The Great Oil Split Has Begun

An exploding vintage oil can

Global oil markets are beginning to fragment, and with each added layer, the likelihood of returning to a global unitary price for crude gets further away. But this oil split isn’t hitting everyone the same…

As tanker shortages and security risks make long-distance crude shipping increasingly expensive, regions like Europe and Northeast Asia will be forced to pay whatever they must since they have limited alternatives. However, North America will likely benefit from a surplus of cheaper energy since the crude can’t make it anywhere else.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a drippy, foggy Colorado. And today we’re gonna talk about the oil markets. Specifically, we are seeing ever widening spreads between the prices of different crude grades. Specifically, you’re looking at things like Canadian crudes all of a sudden trading at a significant discount to everything else. You’re also seeing similar things like that in smaller, crude grades that come out of places like Africa, whether it’s North or sub-Saharan. And the problem is transport. You see, under normal circumstances, when you have a wide spread between prices in one continent versus another. Tankers show up to take the crude from places where it’s cheaper to deliver to places where it’s more expensive. And that ensures a certain degree of balance in the market and keeps global energy prices more or less unitary. That is now ending with huge implications for the sector. 

So we’ve got three big things going on. First of all, of course, is the Iran war and what’s going on in Persian Gulf. In order to get crude out of the Persian Gulf and not get hit by Iranian attacks with the Saudis and the Emirates and the Kuwaitis and the Qataris and the Iraqis are doing is using their own internally owned tankers to load up, turning the transponders off, sailing out of the Gulf, dark, and then doing a ship to ship transfer on the other side. What this means is it basically almost doubles the amount of time that it takes to get a tanker from the point of supply to the point of demand, because you have to do a transfer along the way, which means you need twice as many tankers to service the same route. And with the Iranians now expanding their attacks to areas that are not necessarily in the Strait of Hormuz, they’re going to have to go further in order to do the ship to ship transfer, which is going to require even more tanker days in order to compensate. And that’s before you consider what’s going on in the Red Sea with the Houthis, which is generally a somewhat similar problem. So, number one, it’s hard to get the crude out in this environment. And number two, getting it out requires an additional 10 to 15 to maybe even $20 a barrel in order to compensate for this last step. And all of that is absorbed with more risk and especially more tankers. 

The second one, of course, is the Ukraine war. The Russians under sanctions that used to send most of their crude to Europe by pipe that has now stopped, which means they have to load up in places like the Baltic and the Black Sea with tankers, and then ship them around Africa or through Suez all the way to East Asia or South Asia, basically required a huge number of tankers to handle something that used to not even be done by tankers as well. And that is driving up the split. 

And then third, because the shadow fleet exists and now it’s probably one fifth of all tankers out there. People haven’t been investing in new tankers because there’s a huge volume. But all of these issues are now kind of coming to a head. 

The biggest one, of course, is in the Russian space. The Ukrainians have now demonstrated a capacity to hit tankers and ports and critical nodes, like pumping stations, with such alacrity that we’re seeing the Russian crude, the Urals blend, basically disappear from the market. That opens up a problem because all of a sudden, with that crude gone, those tankers have to do something else. Or more likely the Ukrainians are now starting to damage them and remove them from the fleet completely. You remove the tankers and then all of a sudden it’s not an issue of high versus low prices, it’s can you get a tanker or not? And the Persian Gulf, with the Iranians now going further abroad, similar sort of problem, but with more legality. And if you want to start building a tanker today, you’re not going to get it before the end of the year after next. 

So what we’re seeing is long haul shipping not disappearing, becoming so expensive that these spreads are getting wider and wider and wider. It doesn’t affect everyone equally, and it really depends upon what your destination market happens to be. So if you’re, say, in Africa and you’re trying to just get your crude to Europe, that’s not a big haul. If you’re trying to get from Venezuela or Colombia to the United States, same thing. So you’re not seeing the spreads open up with those crude grades as much as you are, say, with Canadian Select, which all of a sudden only can be shipped by pipe to the United States. And this has got to be frustrating. They spent a decade trying to get a pipeline to the Pacific. It’s finally open, and all of a sudden the tanker rakes means it’s not viable to ship the stuff to Asia. Some of it has to go anyway. So, for example, if you’re Persian Gulf crude going to Northeast Asia, I mean, the Northeast Asians don’t have any other alternatives really, so they have to pay whatever they have to pay. 

What we’re seeing is the early stages of some very, very hard splits in the markets, with the United States basically trading in a situation where it’s either domestically supplied. The Canadian crude has nowhere to go, so it’s sold at a big discount in the United States. The Venezuelan and the Colombian crude has nowhere else to go. So it’s being sold at a slight discount to the United States. And then the Eastern hemisphere just kind of implodes, because if you can’t get the crude from supply to demand, and if you don’t have an alternative for that crude, which for most products there just isn’t one, then you’ve got to pay whatever you have to pay. So the long term forecast here is something I’ve been talking about for the better part of the last decade, with the United States basically having a functional ceiling on its energy prices of around $70 because all of its fields are viable at that level. And globally, you probably have a double the North American price in places like Europe and triple or more in places like Northeast Asia, because there just aren’t any alternatives, whether it was war that was destroying the production sites or now disruptions in the tanker market that is getting us there, it really doesn’t matter because all of this is going to happen more or less at the same time. 

Remember that the Iranians have demonstrated they can shut down the Persian Gulf energy complex very easily, and the Ukrainians are demonstrating that they can shut down the shadow fleet in the Russian energy complex a little bit more difficult, but well on its way. So we’re looking already conservatively at over half of the world’s globally traded crude vanishing. At the same time, we have a tanker crisis. We’re only at the beginning of this, and this is going to be the norm for the bulk of the next 20 years.

How Diesel Could Shape the Ukraine War

Photo of diesel nozzles at a gas station | Licensed by Envato Elements

A U.S. diesel ban could have reverberating consequences for the Russian energy sector, following the sustained attacks by Ukraine. Russia is now relying on places like Kazakhstan, Belarus, and India to supplement its fuel supplies.

The Russians rely on diesel to transport damn near everything, so shortages will directly impact their military capabilities. Should the U.S. move forward with removing its diesel from the global market, the Russians won’t have long to come up with a solution.

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Toronto, specifically Queen’s Harbor. Anyhow, I wanted to put my $0.02 on a discussion that’s been happening for the last few days, and that’s a diesel export ban here in the United States. Now, we’ve already done a core video. We’ll link to it here about the economics of that and why it would work or not. But there’s another consideration, because the country that used to be the world’s largest exporter of diesel fuel, Russia, is now an importer because of all the damage the Ukrainians have been inflicting upon the Russian refining complex. It’s part of the reason why Donald Trump at the moment doesn’t like Ukraine. He goes back and forth. Anyway, they have been forced to import diesel from Kazakhstan, Belarus and India, which, while they are exporters, are not huge exporters. Right now, the shortage in Russia is probably in excess of about 1.5 million barrels a day of oil equivalent, and that number has probably gone up in the last two weeks, because the Ukrainians really have been doubling down on the attacks. Diesel is a big deal in the United States because we transport everything by truck, but the Russians aren’t too far behind. Primary transport in Russia is really two ways rail or truck. And the further away you get from Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the more likely you are to move from an electric train to a diesel train, and the more like you are to move to truck, because the road network is basically local, clustered around population centers. In addition, most jets, whether they’re civilian or military, use a similar cut from the refining stack. So while we might not have an official shortage of jet fuel, something to consider in the Russian context. But more importantly, most of the military hardware that the Russians are using in the Ukraine war, especially tanks and the supply trucks are going to be using diesel as well. 

Remember that since March, we have a new type of drone category that the Ukrainians are using memory drones, where basically the drone gets over an area, looks around it, looks into a decision tree that you’ve loaded into it, maybe some silhouettes, maybe a map and picks its own targets, which means that anything within about two, maybe even 300km of the front is getting hit by these drones all the time. And as you take out the fuel trucks, you basically snarl every aspect of the Russian attack. So anything that the Russians have been doing now has been done with low amounts of fuel, and with the United States possibly about to remove the last remaining large supply and the global standards, that leaves the Russians completely high and dry. 

I’m not suggesting that this is the point where the war turns. There’s just too many moving parts. But if we actually go a six month period or more where the Russians don’t have enough fuel to keep their system operational from a military point of view, then we really have entered a new phase in this conflict.

The Attack on Saudi’s Petroline Came From Iraq

Miniature Industrial Oil Tanks on Saudi Arabian Flag | Licensed by Envato Elements

The attack that shut down Saudi Arabia’s East-West oil pipeline (aka the Petroline) has been traced to Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.

So, the prospect of defending Saudi energy infrastructure is nothing more than a pipe dream at this point. And given the very limited interaction between Iran and the U.S., I wouldn’t expect things to improve for the Saudis anytime soon.

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from the Denver airport. Just a quick update on something that’s been going on for the last couple of weeks. If you remember last month. No. Earlier this month…busy month. The Iranian forces launched drones and struck the east west pipeline. That’s the bypass pipeline that the Saudis use, so they don’t have to use the Persian Gulf in the Strait of Hormuz. And that maximum capacity can handle 7.5 million barrels per day. Anyway, shut it down. Hit a pumping station, and it took almost three weeks to get it back online. We’ve now confirmed that the attack didn’t originate from Iran or even from Yemen, but instead from Iraq. So Iranian backed militias in Iraq are the ones who launched it from the Maysan province. Baghdad authorities confirmed that overnight, last night. And what this basically means is that there’s absolutely no way that the Saudis can protect any of their energy infrastructure, because if you’ve got attacks that can come from the South or the north or the east, that means you have to defend everything from every direction. And no one could do that. There’s also no way that you can really prevent Iraq from being used as a launch pad, as long as the political system in Iraq doesn’t settle. Remember that the United States tried to make this settle with 100,000 troops over 15 years and failed more or less completely. And all you need to do is to have a garage that can store these things with a little launcher that you can put together in a couple of hours with some basic welding skills. And that assumes that the Iranians don’t smuggle in more advanced drones. 

So if you were hoping for some return to pre-war normal when it comes to Saudi exports, you can pretty much kiss that goodbye now. It’s just a matter of time until that’s all gone. And that’s not limited to Saudi Arabia. The only other possible option is a political deal that re-regulates how oil moves and transport moves in this region that, at a minimum, requires a deal between the United States and Iran. And with the exception of a little side meeting that Secretary of State Rubio had with the Iranians when they were in town in New York for the UN General Assembly meeting last week. There have been no talks at all directly between the Americans and the Iranians and nearly three months. 

So we are yet to reach step one of ending the conflict. And if you’re in Saudi Arabia, or depending on Saudi crude, that’s probably the worst of all outcomes.

How To Ban Diesel Exports

Large Red Tanker Ship Docks at an Oil Terminal

A ban on American crude or diesel exports isn’t going to improve energy security; if anything, it will reduce domestic production. The problem lies in geography.

Most U.S. production and refining is concentrated in places like Texas and Louisiana, which are quite far from the demand centers in California and the Northeast. So for crude, export bans would oversaturate producing regions and discourage drilling. For diesel, the bans are futile without expanding infrastructure and changing the transport systems.

Export bans only make sense if paired with major changes to accompany them.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. And today I wanted to talk about something that has been in the news a lot of late, and that is bans on exports of energy products from the United States. There’s two topics here, one that’s old and one that’s new. The old one is about exporting crude in general, and the newer one is about diesel specifically. So let’s start with the older topic, then move to the newer. 

So here’s the problem. The United States is a physically large country, while places like Canada and China and Russia are larger, most of those countries are completely uninhabitable. Whereas the United States has a relatively broad population distribution across its entire territory. So a lot of internal American economic issues, especially when it comes to energy, are based on distribution. The mechanics of how we move things from A to B determines what our economic policy should be. And then whenever we deviate from that, we generate problems for ourselves. So start with oil. Obviously the bigger players are Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, a little bit of Alabama, a bunch out of North Dakota, some out of Colorado, little bit out of California, and then places like Ohio and the Appalachians, Pennsylvania. And that’s great because we’ve got people in all of those places. But our densest population footprints in places like the American Northeast or Florida or the bulk of California, are not proximate to where the energy is produced. So you need to pipe it, the crude, from wherever it’s produced to a refinery. In places like the American Gulf Coast, you get these natural concentrations because Texas is all one political unit. So they can build pipelines without too much of a problem. They don’t have to go to federal authorities for permits or anything like that for the most part. And so you get these huge concentrations of crude in places that may have people, but aren’t necessarily enough people to consume the crude. So Texas, for example, produces more than enough crude for not just Texas, but the entire American West Coast, which doesn’t have a lot. 

So when you start talking about a crude export ban, what you’re saying is we’re going to create these massive pools of oversaturation in certain markets. And when you do that, without the infrastructure in place to ship the crude easily to where the people live, then all you’ve done is really disincentivize the crude producers from producing. So if you were to do a crude oil export ban tomorrow and have no mitigating policies, you would see crude production in places like North Dakota and Texas fall off a cliff very, very quickly because they produce far more crude than they can use locally. We also don’t have enough refining capacity in the country as a whole to process everything that we produce. So the only way to then square the market is to reduce supply. And that means the United States goes from exporting somewhere between 20 and 25 million barrels a day, to probably something closer to 10 to 15 million barrels a day over a couple of years. 

And it would happen that fast, because the vast majority of American oil production these days comes from the shale fields, and most shale wells generate somewhere around 70% of their total output over the 25 year lifespan in the first 12 months. So it would happen very, very quick, and the result would be less energy security rather than more. 

Something similar happens with refining and diesel fuel. Again, there are some dense concentrations of refineries where we turn crude oil into fuels that we use with, again, the Texas-Louisiana section being the densest. We’ve got secondary centers that are roughly matched to demand in places like the Midwest. But when you look at California and especially the American Northeast and certainly Florida, there’s just nothing. And the United States decided a century ago, more than a century ago, to favor truck transport over train and especially ship. Even though they’re much more efficient, especially for the American geography, which means we have a large built in demand for diesel fuel. Even though our geography argues that we should be doing other things. Anyway, this all combines. So if we were to have a diesel ban tomorrow, again, you would have a catastrophic change in prices in Texas and Louisiana, where diesel prices would go through the floor because of oversaturation. And the only way to fix that is to reduce diesel runs. And all of a sudden, the United States has less diesel than it had before. 

Now, of course, the Trump administration, being the Trump administration, is now openly discussing how to make this happen, the diesel ban, specifically. The energy secretary, Chris Wright, is against it because he knows energy economics. And the Interior secretary, Doug Burger, is against it because it used to be the governor of North Dakota, one of the states that would be oversaturated. So he understands what’s going on. But every time that those two have tried to inject a little bit of economic rationality and reasonable forecasting into the white House, they’ve been slapped down and they will be on this situation to. Now does that mean that an oil export ban or a diesel ban are just uniformly bad ideas? No, no, no, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying if you think you can do a once and done policy and then move on, that is stupid because that will guarantee that the problem gets worse. And we reduce not just global supplies, but American supplies of these things. 

What you have to do is pair a ban, if that’s what you want to call it, with other things. So, for example, on the crude oil front, most of the crude that is produced by the US shale fields is super light and super sweet. It’s not viscous at all. It has very few contaminants. And that is not what the American Refining complex is designed for, because going back to the 1970s, we became convinced that the world had run out of this sort of light, sweet, crude. And so we started retooling our refineries to work on ever dirtier, ever thicker crude. Shale revolution came along in the mid 2000s, changed the math for the United States. But the refineries have been slow to shift because they’re the most advanced refineries in the world. And they spent 100s of billions of dollars getting ready for the world that then ultimately for the United States didn’t happen. So what happens is the United States exports the light, sweet stuff and imports heavy, dirty stuff. So if you want an oil export ban to mean something without damaging American energy security, you have to force the refineries to change what they do to use local crude. And if you do that, then all of a sudden we have the flow through that we need for fuels, and then it’s a distribution problem. 

If you want to look at the diesel situation, it’s somewhat similar. If we get these dense concentrations of supersaturation, the only way to fix that is to improve distribution. And that means product pipelines. Right now, we really only have one, the Colonial Pipeline that takes refined fuels from the Gulf Coast up to the American Northeast. And that’s it. Everything else is shipped by rail or more likely, truck. So what you have to do is build a nationwide distribution system, or maybe even mandate the creation of refineries in places where there aren’t concentrations of them. Or here’s a crazy idea maybe ship it by water and amend the interstate commerce act or the Jones Act so it’s easier to move stuff around the continental United States. 

Bans by themselves sound good. Because it means that the stuff will be trapped here, but it’s trapped in the wrong places. It’s still a distribution problem, and a distribution problem means you have to address the distribution system. And unless and until you do that, the conversation is just in the wrong place.

The Diesel Shortage Hits America

Hand shown pumping diesel fuel with a Shell logo on nozzle

With Ukrainian attacks limiting Russian refining capacity and the Persian Gulf conflict restricting exports through Hormuz and the Red Sea, a diesel shortage is imminent.

While the U.S. should be able to weather this storm without issue, the poorly connected domestic distribution system will be a major source of problems. Unless the U.S. can move away from its heavy reliance on diesel trucks for shipping, the next 18 months will be full of shortages and rising transportation costs.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a drizzly Colorado today. We’re going to talk about diesel and what is almost certainly going to be diesel shortages in the United States, which is going to reverberate through the entire American economy for months. 

Okay. So on the front end, the approximate causes are two fold. Number one, we’ve got the Ukrainians basically taking out Russian refining capacity. Russia used to be the world’s largest exporter of diesel. And now it is a net importer pulling from the United States, India, South Korea, lots of places. That is not going to change anytime soon. Even if the Ukrainians were to stop attacking, the Russians no longer have the capacity to repair all of this infrastructure in a short period of time. And so they will probably be net importers at least through the remainder of the year, probably through the remainder of next year. And that assumes that Ukrainians stop attacking, which is highly unlikely. Number two, of course, is the Persian Gulf conflict. We now have the Saudis basically largely removed from oil markets. We’re probably near the very end of their ability to use pre-positioned crude on the Red sea to export that direction, because the pipeline has been taken offline. It’s a bypass pipeline that used to bring crude from the eastern part of the country, where the oil fields are to the western part of the country. That is not dependent on Hormuz, but it’s been bombed. So who knows how long that’s going to be offline, and it can always be bombed again. In addition, the Strait of Hormuz remains mostly closed. At the best, in the last three months, we’ve seen maybe 20 ships go through a day, down from what used to be about 150. And as of Wednesday, only three ships came through. So the ability of the Iranians to shut that on and off is pretty, pretty strict. And that means we’re looking at roughly 20 million barrels of crude that can’t get out. And that’s going to hit energy at every level, including diesel. 

Anyway in the United States, we’ve got a couple of things going on. First of all, it’s bringing this to my attention. So there have been a lot of social media posts in places like California and Texas of gas stations saying that they’re just out of diesel. I wouldn’t worry too much about that at the moment. Having weekly outages here and there. Throughout the country is a normal thing. And the number of outages is not of a number that suggests that it breaks from the norm. The problem is price, because now we’ve got this pressure in the international system, and every time somebody exports a cargo of diesel from anywhere in the world, everybody is trying to buy it. So that is putting upward pressure, even on domestic prices here in the United States, even though we are diesel exporters. But there’s also a regional breakdown issue. The Californians, for example, have closed most of the refineries. So the only way that they have to get diesel in is by ship. And that’s typically a Jones Act certified shipped from Texas. So in the United States, we’ve got this incredibly stupid law on the books that dates back to the 1920s, called the Jones Act, or the Interstate Commerce Act, which says that any cargo that is going to be transported between any two American ports has to be on a boat that is built in America, owned by an American, captained by an American, and crewed by Americans. And as a result, the cost of maritime transport in the United States is increased by a factor of five compared to the world average. Which is just idiotic. Anyway. So we’ve got that restriction. There’s only a limited number of Jones Act vessels, and they have to take the stuff all the way from the Gulf Coast, through Panama, on up to California. So the entire West Coast, California specific is facing what is about to be just astronomically high diesel prices. It’s not much better on the East Coast. They do have something called the Colonial Pipeline that goes from the Gulf Coast, Texas/Louisiana area and sends fuel directly into the American northeast. But the volume isn’t sufficient for the needs. So they also use Jones Act. Go further down the Atlantic coast into places like South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. You’re talking purely Jones Act or truck. Trucks use diesel, so you’re using the thing you’re running out of in order to ship the thing that you’re running out of to places that can’t make it themselves. In the middle, you’ve got the Rocky Mountains, the Mountain West and the Midwest, who for the most part produce most of the diesel that they need. And we’re not seeing any shortages there. And then, of course, the place with the surplus is the Gulf Coast, Texas, Louisiana. And that’s where most U.S. exports come from as well. The problem is these various regions are not linked together very well. There aren’t a lot of pieces of infrastructure like colonial, and so most of the stuff has to be shipped by truck or by train, both of which use diesel. 

All of that combined means regional shortages are pretty much guaranteed. And that’s before you get to the real problem. Because of the Jones Act, the United States a century ago made the unconscious decision to move away from water transport and even rail transport to truck transport. Now, trucks have certain advantages. They can go to places where you couldn’t run a rail line because it’s too steep, important in the mountain west, but they cost a lot more and trucks use diesel. So by ton mile, the majority of U.S. cargo is shipped by truck. You see the problem here? 

Nearly unique in the world, the United States has the best maritime transport system possible, but has instead opted for the most expensive transport system possible. Shipping things by water costs less than one tenth of shipping them by truck. And so we should be using our water network to the fullest extent, which would also minimize our diesel demand. Instead, we’ve done the opposite. And now with shortages on a global basis, guaranteed even in the United States, which is a net exporter, even in the United States, which is the largest net exporter of refined product, we’re going to be facing problems in our transport system, which will affect every single thing that has to be moved throughout the entire country for at least the next 18 months.

The Venezuela Oil Deal Is Just the Start

A chevron Gas sign against a dark night

The recent series of U.S.-Venezuela oil deals is not quite as significant as it was made out to be.

The main highlights are Chevron’s investment and the U.S. putting its stamp of approval on NABEP. While NABEP lacks much of what it takes to expand production, U.S. backing gives the company credibility to attract outside investment.

This is just the beginning of a long road to recovery, but it’s better than nothing.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. Today we’re going to look at something that happened while I was away at Yosemite. The oil deals between the United States and Venezuela. There’s been a lot of hyperbolic conversation about them. The reality is much more muted. 

We’ve got three things. First of all, Chevron, which is an American company that never left Venezuela, has announced a series of investments with the aim of increasing output by 300,000 barrels over the next five years. This is probably the upper level of what Chevron can do. Not that Chevron’s not capable, but that the crude in Venezuela, as a rule, is very difficult to work with. You basically have three regions, one in the East that has some more conventional crude, one in the west around Maracaibo that’s heavy crude. And then down in the south in a place called the Orinoco Belt, where it’s super heavy, crude and is actually a physical solid at room temperature, and it has to be heated up and mixed with other liquids in order to be able to put into a pipeline. Anyway, Chevron has operations throughout the area. They’re basically taking the fields that they already have, putting in some more money and trying to increase recovery rates. So really not doing anything new. So 300,000, that’s about all you’re going to get. 

The second one is Americas Hunt Oil, which is taking over two small fields in the east of the country…that are small. And if they do really well, you know, maybe they’ll get 100,000 barrels out of that over ten years. Again, not very interesting. Remember, this is a country that at the height was producing 4 million barrels a day back in the 1980s and 1990s. And then Chavez and Maduro, it just…..until it fell into under a million barrels a day, where it is now. 

The third one. The third deal is the one that’s getting really interesting with a company called NABEP and NABEP is the successor that has been renamed a few times, for a firm that started operating back in the 20 tens that at the time was called Petrozamora, run by a guy by the name of Alejandro Betancourt López. This guy is somebody who is tightly affiliated with the Russian government. And when the United States put sanctions on the Chavez-Maduro regime, the Russians basically came in to do what they could. But Russian technology sucks in the type of fields that Venezuela has. So Betancourt was able to basically bring in a few people from outside the Russian sphere and actually operate a few fields. But then when you get to 2020, if you remember back to 2020, you know, Covid year, it was kind of rough in Venezuela as well because they had elections and it looked for a hot minute like this guy from the outside was going to take over. He never did. But Betancourt sided with him, and it came to light that he had also been embezzling a lot of money from the Venezuelan state oil company, and so he got kicked out of the country. And Petrozamora (fell apart) until it was only producing like 100,000, maybe even 50,000 barrels a day. Well, fast forward to calendar year 2023. And a woman by the name of Rodriguez, who is now the acting president of Venezuela, brought him back in because the oil sector in Venezuela had just tanked in the intervening three years and started bringing the company back. I think it produces about 200,000 barrels a day right now. Anyway, this new deal with the United States is with the successor to Petrozamora, with Betancourt personally. They’ve renamed the company NABEP, and they’re basically taking all of the Russian concessions and all of the Chinese concessions and giving them to this new company. Now, this new company does not have the staffing, much less the expertise and the volume and the drilling rigs that are necessary to operate all these fields. You probably need about 90 rigs to really make it all work. They’ve got two. In addition, the United States has taken a theoretical not not actual theoretical share in NABEP and has theoretically the ability to assign people to their board. And theoretically, if the U.S. Defense Department specifically wants to take the crude that NABEP produces, it gets rights of first refusal, the first 20% they get at a huge discount, basically production cost and the other 80% they can get at market costs. But all of this is in theory. Unless and until someone else comes in and provides the funding and the staffing and the equipment, NABEP really isn’t going to go anywhere. The point of this deal, however, is for the U.S. government to put a stamp of approval on this one firm so that others who are willing to take more risk can come in, invest in the firm, and then maybe turn it into something that can turn Venezuela’s oil fortunes around. It’s a necessary first step. I don’t begrudge the U.S. administration or the acting Venezuelan government for that. But there’s no money here. There’s no skill transfer here. There’s no equipment coming in at yet. The Chevron deal really is at the moment, the only one that matters at all. And that’s 300,000 barrels over five years. Not a big deal. 

But if if if if if if all of those things happen, then you are talking about the very, very beginning of a renaissance in Venezuela. You still have to change the laws, because right now foreign ownership is an issue. You still have to change the reparations route, because right now it’s not clear how the money gets to the investors. But at the very minimum, we now have at least one entity operating in Venezuela that actually has the right to develop fields, that isn’t the state. That is a step in the right direction. But let’s not get too crazy. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

The End of U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Photo of a pumping station at sunset

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) was created in the 70s as a safeguard against major disruptions in oil imports. Well, those 700 million barrels were never used for its intended purpose.

As the U.S. became one of the world’s largest producers and exporters, the SPR was retasked. It’s been used a few dozen times by various presidents to influence oil prices and stabilize markets. But it was never made for that. The geologic makeup of the SPR caverns means that each time a drawdown occurs, the structures are weakened.

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. Today I wanted to talk about the American Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There’s been a lot of reports in the news that it’s nearing the end of its life, and it’s starting to break down, and there is some concern there. But let me explain why it was created the way it was, and how that’s inappropriate for the way we’ve actually used it. 

So it started back in the 1970s in the aftermath of the first Arab oil embargo. Congress legislated the creation of the reserve to hold 700 million barrels of crude, which, you know, we use about 20 million barrels a day. So that’s a couple of months of import cover, even in the worst case scenario. The thing is, over the course of the 80s and the 90s, when we saw our demand going up and our ability to produce go down, it became even more important. 

So we eventually filled it up pretty close to the max. But then we got into the 2000, we had the shale oil revolution, and by the time we got into the 2010s, the United States was a significant net exporter, and today we’re the world’s largest exporter of refined product. So how does the SPR fit into that? Well, not great. And part of it is geologic of all things. 

See, unlike most countries’ oil reserves which are held on the surface in tanks, which is corrosive to the tanks and the equipment and the crude starts to separate unless you stir it. So there’s a high maintenance cost. We don’t do it that way in the United States, down on the Gulf Coast, we have a unique geological feature, nearly unique, called salt domes, where you just have these massive salt caverns down below and salt and oil don’t mix. So it’s a really great barrier for keeping oil contained. So what we do is we drill down into the salt dome and we inject water, and that water dissolves some of the salt and makes the cavern bigger. Then we put another pipe in there, and we pump in the crude. And oil is lighter than water. So it rises to the top of the salt dome. And all you have to do in order to regulate the level of the oil is to pump in water, which pushes some crude out or pump in more crude, which pushes the water out because your pipes are there at different levels, tapping different things. 

Anyway, it’s a really clever thing and the maintenance cost is next to zero, but it has been a half century. And equipment does wear down, and especially since we’re not using it the way it was designed. You see, we designed it for big drawdowns in cases of a global and especially a national emergency, when we knew we were going to need hundreds of millions of barrels because we assumed that the Middle East was going to go offline and we were the world’s largest oil importer. 

Well, we never really used the system in that way. And every time you do a drawdown, big or small, you basically are putting more water into the cavern, which is dissolving more salt, which is overall weakening the overall system. So these caverns were only designed to be used five times total for big drawdowns. We’ve never really had a giant drawdown of that scale. What we’ve had are three dozen little drawdowns, which keeps putting water in and out, in and out and dissolving more and more salt. And we’ve now reached the point where the salt gnomes are starting to show signs of damage. And if we did a rapid drawdown again today, we’d probably have several of them break. So we’re at the end of the lifespan of the SPR and without significant re-engineering, which I’m not even sure is possible since so many of the pieces are geologic rather than mechanical. 

We’re probably going to be seeing the end of the reserve in the not too distant future unless we find new salt domes, establish a new system, or do what everybody else does and does those expensive above ground tanks. So we really are losing that tool. Now, this is not a disaster. Again, the United States is the world’s largest exporter of refined product and now the second largest exporter of raw crude. It’s not like this is something that we’ve needed, but it gives you an idea of where the break is, because this was designed for a national emergency for a country that was a major importer. Instead, in those three dozen drawdowns. Presidents not just Trump, also Biden, also Obama, Also W, use them to regulate oil markets and to try to influence prices. And that’s why there’s been 37 discrete drawdowns rather than the big five that the system was designed for. So we’ve gotten to the same place repeated usage is functionally ending the salt domes useful life span. But now we have a situation where we have to get all that crude out of there and put it on the market or store it some other way, because we’re simply not going to be able to maintain it in its current form. 

So either we have a new multibillion dollar project authorized by Congress to establish an entirely new reserve, or the United States has to do something else in order to regulate markets. That’s not something the United States government, historically speaking, has been a very good at. I think if you look back on the history of these 37 disbursements, you can argue that they didn’t do a good job of it either. But this tool is just about done.

Global Shipping Comes Under Attack

Cargo ship with containers

While oil is still moving through the Strait of Hormuz, flows remain a fraction of pre-war levels.

Some tankers have made it through by using tactics similar to the shadow fleet, obscuring their movements to avoid detection. Once the tankers clear the Strait, they conduct sea-to-sea transfers under American protection. But this strategy is extremely expensive, and the U.S. cannot sustain it indefinitely.

More importantly, it demonstrates how difficult it is for even the world’s most powerful navy to protect critical maritime chokepoints from relatively small-scale disruptions.

Transcript

Hey everybody, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from the Denver International Airport. Before I get on a plane, I just wanted to give people an idea of what was going on at the Strait of Hormuz, because there’s been a lot of confusion lately. Statements from the administration, from the Iranian government. It’s kind of a mess. Short version is that some crude is getting out. The Trump administration says it’s 9 million barrels a day. The Iranians say it’s something closer to zero. The truth is undoubtedly someplace in between. I don’t have a number for you. Independent Western consultants that track traffic say it’s probably in the 3 to 5 million barrels a day range, which is, you know, better than nothing. But this is down from 20 million barrels a day, 22 million barrels a day at the start of the war. And even if you include all the bypass pipes running at full capacity, we’re still somewhere between 4 and 10 million barrels per day short, based on whoever’s numbers you’re using. Still more than enough for an energy crisis. Anyway. A few things. 

Number one, what’s happening is that the United States is providing overwatch for tankers that are going through, if they originate in countries on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf. So that’s Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates. Second, what’s going on is kind of an echo of what the Russians and the Iranians did with the shadow fleet. So the shadow fleet is a bunch of tankers, thousands at this point, that run with the transponders off. Their ownership is obscured through shell companies, and you never know where they’re going to be. And oftentimes they will do sea-to-sea transfers to mix their crude with somebody else’s crude, to obscure where it came from in order to evade sanctions. Well, what we’re seeing in the Persian Gulf is that local state companies, whether it’s Kuwait or Saudi or the others, are using their own tankers to load up their own crude and then sailing with the transponders off under American Watch through the southern approaches to the Strait of Hormuz, as far from Iran as they can get. And then when they get on to the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden, they will then do a sea to sea transfer to a buyer, which is India, China, whoever else. So basically, the United States is encouraging, kind of an echo of the shadow fleet happening in the Persian Gulf. And so far that has succeeded in getting some crude out. Again, the specific numbers are in question by everyone. Third. This is not something the United States can sustain indefinitely. The cost to the United States is in probably the dozens of millions of dollars a day, because we’re basically having a carrier anchored task force basically just parked in an area. And as long as it is there, it can’t do anything else. And since it’s not involved in combat, at least at the moment, this is a really high cost, low utility approach for using American military power. The Trump administration says that, you know, only do this into Iran completely capitulates. But if Iran was going to completely capitulate, it probably would have done so in the four decades before now, at some point. So if you want Persian Gulf crude to get out, you basically need a force of this size all the time. Which brings us to the next point. 

There are eight major transit chokepoints in the world, like the Strait of Hormuz, like the Bab-al-Mandab, like Malacca, like Panama. No country has the ability to defend all of them at the same time. The U.S. can probably manage 2 or 3, but that would consume all of its deployable assets, meaning that the world’s largest and history’s largest expeditionary power would be locked down to a couple of footprints, which would be strategically, incredibly stupid. So I wouldn’t count on that happening. In addition, the United States can’t do this very well. So, for example, Hormuz is a problem, but the United States is not making any effort to keep the Bab-al-Mandab open, even though the Yemenis are now launching attacks on shipping there. And we even have Somali pirates back in the action. What we discovered with the Somali pirates over the last 20 years is if the United States anchors an international force to patrol the area and everybody joins, including China, then the Somali pirates basically go away. But the amount of territory here is extreme. You’re talking about a territory roughly the size of Texas, and the US Navy just doesn’t have that kind of capability. And so even though it’s just at the next checkpoint over in Hormuz, we’re now starting to see piracy again. This is going to be our new normal. 

No country, including the United States, no coalition of countries can keep the seas safe any longer. So it’s just a question of when and how and where it breaks down first. I do want to hold one other little bit of information out there, however, before I sign off. And that’s that keep in mind, while protecting sea lanes, patrolling them, convoying ships is very, very hard and very, very expensive and very, very naval ship heavy. Interrupting those flows is very easy. And so, yes, the United States lacks the ability to patrol the world’s oceans and to keep the checkpoint safe, but it perfectly, perfectly, easily can disrupt all of them at the same time, should it so choose. It’s basically an echo of what we’re seeing with drone warfare. Defense is really hard, but if you just want to stick it to someone, you can do that in an afternoon.

The Shadow Fleet Is Sinking

a ship sinking in the ocean

The first of Russia and Iran’s aging shadow fleet is sinking. The tanker is carrying ~1 million barrels of crude bound for India, but that oil is already leaking into the water off the Omani coast.

Beyond the environmental disaster, the next question is that of insurance. Since the shadow fleet is “covered” by Russia’s state-backed insurance system, whether they pay out or not will determine just how much longer the decrepit shadow fleet can operate.

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the peak of Sheridan. But today we’re going to talk about the Russian and Iranian shadow fleets and a ship that is in the process of sinking off the Omani coast in the Middle East. If you remember, we’ve got sanctions on Iran, we’ve got sanctions on Russia. And so both countries have turned to what are called shadow fleets, unregistered vessels that are old and were destined to be scrapped, that take out insurance from the Russian government. And the first one of them is now actually sinking. And we’re honestly pretty lucky here. It’s been four years since the Ukraine war got going, and in that time you would expect more of these things to go down. But it wasn’t until recently that Ukraine just started to openly attack the shadow fleet in the Black Sea, and so far they haven’t actually tried to sink anything. Now we’ve got one that is on its own, that is taking Russian crude to India. It is now sinking. Its the Caroline Bezengi, I believe is the name. Carries about a million barrels a day or carries about a million barrels. And it is now sinking off the coast of Oman, already in oil spill, it’s about 400km², and we’re already seeing oil starting to make landfall on some of the Omani islands. 

It’s in the last 48 hours, it’s condition has deteriorated significantly and it is very clearly taking on water. I can’t tell you when it’s going to sink, but there’s really no hope that it’s going to make it to its destination at this point. And so we’re talking about an ecological disaster that is at least three times as bad as what happened with the Exxon Valdez. 

It’s an open question whether anyone will let this thing dock because it’s just going to leak in port then. But at least one of the compartments is damaged to the point that the ship going down. Anyway, a couple of things to keep in mind moving forward. Number one, since this is the first real incident with a shadow fleet vessel, we don’t know how the insurance system is going to work. Normally, if you had a fleet of vessels in this sort of condition and one of them then sunk on its own without getting shot at, you would see an explosion in insurance rates that would probably lead to the decommissioning of every ship of its class. That’s not going to happen this time, because these are ships that should have been decommissioned already. So it’s an open question how Russian insurance is going to pay out because the state created the insurance policy specifically to evade what everybody else normally does on the high seas. And it will be interesting to see if the Russian government actually pays out to cover the environmental solution that will be required for example, for the Omanis. The second thing to watch is the degree to which the Russians do or do not act, will shape what the Ukrainians do and do not do. 

Because if the Russians do not honor their own insurance policy at all, then it’s up to the Ukrainians to probably sink a couple directly. And when that happens, no one’s going to allow these ships anywhere near any of their ports. So we’ve been talking about since the early part of this year how countries are getting more and more aggressive with the shadow fleet. Now we’re seeing the decrepit nature of the vessels probably being their own worst enemy. And as the shadow fleet gets retired, we’re looking at another couple million barrels a day just disappearing. It’s really hard to get a grip on Russian exports right now because the Ukrainians are attacking so much energy infrastructure. But at its peak it was about 5 million barrels a day of raw crude, plus another 2 million barrels a day from Iran. 

We’re looking at losing all of that as this year draws on. So, you know, exciting times. Take care.