“This thing they're calling an oil glut is a real misnomer,” said the voice at the end of the line in late November.

It was Harold Hamm calling, the chairman and CEO of Continental Resources, one of the biggest producers in the Bakken. And, he was irked.“Recently, we had a road show excursion in New York, and everybody at this time of year is doing forecasts, trying to determine what the price of oil is going to be. People were saying, Gosh, there's going to be a glut.say no.”

Tell me more.

Hamm said he thinks it will take another 10 years before we have a glut. For one thing, at one time we imported about 60% of our daily needs.“We're down to importing about 37% now … so we have a ways to go."

Unlike the gas glut, which Hamm acknowledges, oil is a different matter, and he ticked off several reasons why. First, gas is relatively easier to find and produce than crude.“Natural gas is simply ubiquitous; if you look around the nation, there are a whole lot more gas plays than oil plays.And second, the oil molecule is three times the size of gas, so it's harder to produce.”

Another difference is that exporting natural gas takes a huge investment in the liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, while oil is easily shipped by water.

“I just don't see a glut; and we won't be energy independent for another 10 years or so.”

Hamm is for exports.

That brings up the big debate for this year: what to do with domestic oil production that will steadily increase until 2020 or 2025—take your pick of the pundits.The International Energy Agency said that around 2020, OPEC will probably overtake us again as “the dominant source of oil supply growth,” according to its annual World Energy Outlook released last fall.

In this age of political correctness and nuanced spin, you can label increased oil supply any way you want, depending on your point of view. Glut? That implies lower prices at the wellhead.Many sell-side analysts report that this is their clients' No. 1 worry, an attitude that can take the fizz out of the oily stocks that outperformed last year.

Or, bounty? Increased supply can create expanded economic opportunities such as more jobs, and crude oil exports—now one of the most loaded topics on Capitol Hill and in the blogosphere.

Early in January, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) kicked off the debate when she issued a white paper explaining why we must end the crude oil export ban, calling it “antiquated … and applied unevenly.” She urged the Obama administration to take action on energy trade, since Congress itself is so slow to act.

Current rules are a hodgepodge dating from the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973.Crude can be exported to Canada and from Alaska to Asia, but nowhere else. Refined products such as gasoline and diesel can be exported anywhere. Natural gas liquids and condensate have different rules and country restrictions. Rusty Braziel of RBN Energy, speaking recently at a conference at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, D.C., asked, “Why did Congress base its rulemaking on all these different molecular compositions, when it's all oil and gas?”

This is one more reason why US Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz recently said our oil export policies need to be revisited.And at press time, President Obama called for a new Quadrennial Energy Review, with the first one to be delivered in 2015.

Naturally, most oil producers and oil-focused think tanks encourage crude exports, thinking that will raise oil prices or, at least, stabilize them in the face of more production. In Cowen and Co.'s annual survey of projected spending, some 466 companies said they based their 2014 budgets on an average of $91.60 oil, the highest average price assumption since the survey was created in 1982 by Cowen analyst James Crandell. Less than 30% of them said their spending would fall if oil declines to $75 or $80 a barrel (at $70, many more would cut activity; at $85, none would do so).

Refiners are not so sure. Exports of light, sweet crude would narrow the gap between the price of West Texas Intermediate and Brent crudes, thus reducing US refinery margins.

What's more interesting is that several reputable newspapers such as The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune and The Financial Times have called for crude exports to be allowed. Count us in that column.

Two quick reminders this month: Be sure to join us at our second annual DUG Midcontinent Conference in Tulsa, March 3 and 4, for updates and opportunities. Second, please go to our website to nominate companies, executives and deals for the annual Oil and Gas Investor Excellence Awards. We're looking for your opinions on the CEO of the Year for 2013, the Best Financing, Best Corporate Citizen and more.Or, you can e-mail me directly at lhaines@hartenergy.com.

Comments