
US Oil Output Has Peaked. But Don't Expect a Rapid Decline.
The chain-smoking protagonist of Landman, the American television drama series about the Texas oil industry, puts it better than anyone else: 'You want oil to live above 60, but below 90,' says the fictional Tommy Norris. 'Seventy-eight dollars a barrel, that's about perfect.'
In real life, prices that are far below that 'perfect' level. Earlier this month, West Texas Intermediate, the industry benchmark, changed hands below $60 a barrel, touching a four-year low of $55. Although prices have recovered in recent days, the impact is starting to be felt in Texas and beyond: Shale companies are trimming spending, announcing they will reduce the number of drilling rigs and fracking crews they employ.
The US accounts for two in 10 barrels of oil pumped worldwide, so what happens there has an outsize impact.
At current prices, US shale oil output has probably peaked. Just don't expect a rapid decline like the downturns of 2015 and 2020; the most likely trajectory is an undulating plateau. Whatever the shape, it will be crucial for the global market. The OPEC+ cartel is boosting output faster than expected, and demand growth is slowing due to the trade war. That leaves shale as a key adjusting lever.
'We had expected that US production overall would peak between 2027 and 2030,' Vicki Hollub, chief executive officer of top shale producer Occidental Petroleum Corp., told investors last week. 'It's looking like that peak could come sooner.' Others echoed her words.
The 'current prices' caveat is crucial. With shale, small price shifts matter a lot: The difference between booming production and declining output is measured in a fistful of dollars, perhaps as little as $10 to $20 a barrel. At $50, many companies are staring at financial calamity and production is in free-fall; $55 is survivable; $60 isn't great, but money still flows and output holds; at $65, everyone is back to more drilling; and at $70, the industry is printing money and output is soaring.
Oil prices translate into production. The link is the reinvestment ratio: how much money shale companies devote to drilling new wells versus paying their shareholders and creditors. That percentage changes constantly. In the past, shale companies reacted to low oil prices by raising the reinvesting ratio, devoting significantly more cash to drilling. But right now, these businesses are under pressure from investors to pay them.
As such, the current price weakness may translate into output weakness quicker than what was the case during previous downturns, in 2020-2021 and 2014-2016.
For now, signs of the slowdown are everywhere: The number of active oil drilling rigs now stands at 474, the second lowest since late 2021, according to data from Baker Hughes Co., a top energy services business. But in shale, drilling isn't the most important barometer. Far more important is the proportion of so-called frac crews, the specialized teams that perform hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on the wells: injecting water, sand and chemicals underground to free oil from the hard-to-crack shale rock. In the Permian, the key shale region straddling Texas and New Mexico, the number of frac crews dropped to a four-year low of 105, according to Primary Vision Inc., a firm that tracks industry trends. Back in 2023, when oil was close to $100 a barrel, more than 160 crews were working in the Permian.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
13 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Inflation to Tick Higher as Tariffs Reach Consumers
By and Craig Stirling Save Subscribe to Economics Daily for the latest news and analysis. US consumers probably saw slightly faster inflation in May, notably for merchandise, as companies gradually pass along higher import duties.

Travel Weekly
21 minutes ago
- Travel Weekly
Are you booking or designing travel?
Richard Turen Looking back, I know that I would never have opened up a travel consultancy had I not worked the supplier side for quite a while. And I certainly would not dare write about our industry had I not walked both sides of the street. They are very different, even though they might be in the same neighborhood. I worked for one of the largest cruise lines, starting out on the West Coast. I visited travel agencies four days a week. I was a director of sales, and my job was to drum up business. But my reality was that our ships were starring in a little TV series called "The Love Boat" then, and they were sold out much of the time. I might have been a lousy salesperson, but no one knew it, and I was promoted to be vice president of the East Coast and the Midwest. Now I was responsible for 26 states; lots of agencies to visit. So starting on the West Coast and then taking on the East Coast and the Midwest, I was in and out of more agencies than I could count. During every visit, I was looking forward to discovering dozens of new business models. It would all be so stimulating. But it usually wasn't! There were precious few unique business models, and innovation was rare. Everything was sold on some sort of airline-owned CRM system. Airline sales made up just over 70% of a typical agency's sales. It was always the same scene. Two chairs in front of a desk with the client facing the back of the computer. And so it was for about four decades. Technology improved, and we noticed our clients searching online instead of seeking out a storefront. We were no longer booking robots; that could be done online. We started evolving into advisors. ASTA, an organization I feel has always had the collective backs of the membership it represents, caught on and went so far as to change its organization's name, with that last "A" now standing for "advisors" rather than "agents." We are now advisors -- sort of important to the families we serve. I see us as financial advisors, except our role is less about showing our clients how to grow their money and more about advising them on ways to dispense with some of it. Which leads me to an April article by Julie Bogen in the Washington Post. She explores the growth of the trend for agents to describe themselves as online travel "designers" who concentrate on creating truly personalized itineraries, travel troubleshooting and providing luxury perks. The article explains how contemporary consumers want to hire a "designer" instead of an "agent." The concept of a travel "agent" is now dated. Several successful designers are profiled in the piece, including one who created an itinerary with perks she felt would meet the needs of four prominent influencers. Sure enough, they liked the presentation, and it started being circulated on Instagram. Of course, a true travel designer has to be an FIT specialist, and some of you will surely feel that FITs are unusually time-consuming and less profitable than booking brochure programs. A travel office where every journey is custom-designed to meet the guest's profile may be fashionable, trendy, hip and always personalized, but I can't help but wonder what a travel design firm would need to charge guests in order to be profitable. I actually like the "designer" designation. I also like "travel architect" and "dream creator." It is possible that, at our best, we listen and then design what is best suited for the client instead of trying to sell them a program without taking into account their unique profile. But will we have to start spending more on our business attire if we start describing ourselves as designers? Will we need to be a bit more flamboyant? If we "flamboyantize" our industry in the months to come, I'm just not sure that my blue blazer will survive.

Wall Street Journal
28 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Tesla, Cleveland-Cliffs, Dollar General and More Stocks That Defined the Week
U.S. steelmakers rallied on President Trump's recent move to double steel and aluminum tariffs to 50%. Cleveland-Cliffs shares surged 23% on Monday, while Steel Dynamics and Nucor shares each gained 10%. Meantime, bargain chains are bucking the trend of falling retail demand, thanks to an influx of higher-income customers looking for deals. Dollar General shares soared 16% Tuesday. And as a fierce feud between President Trump and Elon Musk ramped up on Thursday. Tesla shares fell 14% Thursday, losing about $152.4 billion in market value, the company's biggest one-day slide on record. Read more about this week's biggest stock moves and the news that drove them: