The energy space is in a great deal of turmoil and distortion right now. Opposing forces in oil, gas, coal, solar and wind are fighting for regulatory relief, tariffs, customers and profits, all the while fearing government intervention ahead thanks to climate change worries.

What are we to infer since BNP Paribas has said it will no longer fund shale or oil-sands companies? This is another sign from Europe that green ideologies are affecting commerce more strongly than in the U.S.

Here, investors seem to be telling E&P companies to make money, not necessarily grow production. If this attitude becomes a groundswell, there could be fewer dollars flowing to the E&P space where energy supplies are made.

Although natural gas has made steady inroads in power generation thanks to abundant shale supplies, U.S. Energy Sec. Rick Perry essentially is asking that coal and nuclear power plants be incentivized to provide reliable power, thereby upending the open market and tipping the playing field—an unexpected choice for a former Texas governor who championed free enterprise and benefited from the Lone Star shale boom.

Recently, IHS Markit, the University of Texas Energy institute, the Texas Public Utility Commission and many other groups have conducted studies to try to figure out what is going on, and what should happen to ensure reliable and low-cost energy. Should the government continue to subsidize renewables? Should it intervene to make sure coal-fired and nuclear power plants survive, even though they are not economic, as Perry has proposed? Wind, solar and natural gas are taking more market share from these. That is good for the environment, but does it threaten to create power shortages or higher prices?

We have always supported oil and natural gas, but we firmly believe in the “all of the above” supply scenario favored by the last three U.S. presidents. This strategy makes sense for American consumers, the country’s military security and economic vitality. The all-of-the-above approach is a necessity, no matter how much shale oil and gas we can produce.

And that picture looks increasingly bright. The Energy Information Administration recently said we can produce an average 9.25 million barrels a day (MMbbl/d) this year, rising to 9.84 MMbbl/d next year. These projections change month to month as EIA fine-tunes its analysis, but the long-term trend is never downward. Neither is the chart on global oil demand. The U.S. has now exported crude to 26 countries, a remarkable sign of progress.

Meanwhile, politics once again make strange bedfellows when it comes to energy security. To that end, the reaction to Perry’s proposal has been widespread. The American Petroleum Institute, American Wind Association, Solar Energy Industries Association and many other groups have rejected Perry’s proposed rulemaking.

“We emphasize the unification of these unconventional allies raises the profile of the issue and introduces a wide breadth of stakeholders against the proposed rule,” said a report from FBR & Co.

Each sector of the energy supply chain should compete on a level playing field, in an open market, without federal government subsidies. Let energy producers, midstream companies, utilities and consumers respond to price signals that are affected by supply and demand. When one supply source is down and out, the others can be increased. If coal is too expensive to produce economically, or the coal trains don’t run on time, then switch to natural gas. If a nuclear power plant has to go down for repairs or is decommissioned, call on more natural gas for electricity generation.

Let government, industry and academia collaborate on energy-related R&D. After all, the federal government helped fund shale pioneer George Mitchell’s experiments in the Barnett Shale. Before that, the Gas Technology Institute helped fund research that led to drilling in coal beds for methane gas.

But Perry has asked the FERC to come up with a way to pay coal-fired and nuclear power plants for contributing to grid reliability, giving them incentives to operate 24/7. Perry wants to ensure baseload power generators that operate in wholesale markets fully recover their costs. The blame is squarely on low-priced natural gas supply.

In Texas, power prices are so low that 13 coal-fired plants out of 15 are losing money and cannot cover their costs, according to Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. “New coal retirements announced by Luminant Energy (the Big Brown and Sandow plants in Texas) mean ERCOT [the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the Texas grid] will soon lose significant coal generation capacity,” said a report from the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.

“At the same time, wind capacity is expected to increase by nearly 4,000 megawatts by 2018, meaning wind capacity will soon exceed coal capacity in Texas.”

It appears that market forces are marching through Texas, and in every other state. Let them continue.

We hope you’ll join us at DUG Eagle Ford in San Antonio on Nov. 16 and 17.

Comments