Connect with us

Oil & Energy

How Oil Industry Fared Under Last Nine US Presidents

Published

on

With the 2020 Presidential Election looming, and with many claims and counterclaims about a president’s impact on the oil industry, I thought it might be of interest to review the history of U.S. oil production and consumption over the past 50 years. Here are the highlights from each president’s term in office.
Richard Nixon was inaugurated as the 37th president on January 20, 1969. When President Nixon took office, U.S. oil production was nearing a peak after over 100 years of increasing production. Imports made up 10% of U.S. consumption. In 1970, U.S. oil production reached 9.6 million barrels per day (BPD) and began a long, steady decline.
Richard Nixon began his second term on January 20, 1973. U.S. oil production had declined to 9.2 million BPD while consumption had increased by 3 million BPD from the first year of Nixon’s first term. As a result, oil imports would more than double during Nixon’s presidency, and American citizens would learn the danger of the dependence on imports with the OPEC oil embargo of 1973.
Gerald Ford was inaugurated as the 38th president on August 9, 1974 after Nixon resigned in disgrace. During President Ford’s term in office, domestic oil production continued to decline. U.S. oil consumption and imports continued to grow, and both were at all-time highs during Ford’s last year in office.
Jimmy Carter was inaugurated as the 39th president on January 20, 1977. Recent trends in consumption, production, and imports all reversed themselves during President Carter’s term. Consumption fell by 2%, U.S. production increased by 6%, and imports, after initially rising to record highs during his first year in office, were a fraction of a percentage lower at the end of his term than during Ford’s last year in office. Factors beyond Carter’s control, such as the Iranian Revolution and the Iran–Iraq War, heavily influenced the oil markets.
Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th president on January 20, 1981. Oil consumption continued to decline during most of President Reagan’s first term, and oil production crept back to levels that had not been seen in a decade. Oil imports fell by 35% during his first term.
Ronald Reagan began his second term on January 21, 1985. The trends from his first term all reversed themselves, as consumption rose 10%, domestic production fell by 8%, and oil imports increased by 49%.
George H. W. Bush was inaugurated as the 41st president on January 20, 1989. Consumption fell slightly during his term, but domestic production fell even more, down 12%. Imports increased by 19%, back above 6 million BPD for the first time since the 1970s.
Bill Clinton was inaugurated as the 42nd president on January 20, 1993. During his first term, consumption increased by another 7%, domestic production fell by 10%, and imports increased by another 23%, exceeding 7 million bpd for the first time in U.S. history.
Bill Clinton began his second term on January 20, 1997. His second term trends were almost identical to those of his first term. Consumption rose by another 8%, domestic production fell by another 10%, and imports increased by an additional 21%. Consumption and oil imports were at all-time highs, and production had fallen 40% from the 1970 production peak.
George W. Bush was inaugurated as the 43rd president on January 20, 2001. During his first term, consumption climbed above 20 million BPD for the first time in the nation’s history. Imports also reached new highs, above 10 million BPD. Domestic production continued to fall.
George W. Bush began his second term on January 20, 2005. During Bush’s second term, consumption began to decline as the nation entered a recession and oil prices reached record highs. Imports fell back to below 10 million BPD. The decline in domestic production continued, albeit at a slower rate of decline than during his first term. This marked the first trickle of oil production from hydraulic fracturing, which would make a major impact during the terms of the next two presidents. During Bush’s last year in office, the level of imports reached just over 50% of U.S. consumption.
Barack Obama was inaugurated as the 44th president on January 20, 2009. The economic sluggishness initially continued, but the impact of hydraulic fracturing began to be felt in President Obama’s first year in office. In a reversal of the long decline that began in 1970, crude oil production would rise all four years of Obama’s first term.
President Obama began his second term on January 21, 2013. The fracking boom caused oil production to accelerate until 2015. But then overproduction led OPEC to initiate a price war that ultimately crashed prices and production. Production began to decline in 2015, but 2016, the last year of Obama’s second term, was the first year of his presidency that annual oil production declined.
Between 2009 and 2015 oil production had increased by 4.4 million BPD. This was the fastest increase in oil production in U.S. history, and marked the largest increase in oil production during a single term of any president. If natural gas liquids (NGLs) are included, the gains during Obama’s first seven years were 6 million BPD. U.S. net imports of finished products like gasoline turned into net exports during Obama’s second term, and next imports of finished products plus crude oil fell by over 6 million BPD.
Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president on January 20, 2017. Oil production had declined during President Obama’s last year in office as the average annual price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) fell to $43.34/bbl. But in 2017 that rose to $50.79/bbl, and then to $65.20/bbl in 2018. Oil production followed prices higher. During the first three years of President Trump’s first term, annual U.S. oil production gained 3.4 million BPD. Net imports of crude oil and finished products turned into net exports in late 2019. U.S. oil production eclipsed the previous 1970 peak (although if you include NGLs, that peak was eclipsed in 2013).
But then the Covid-19 pandemic crushed oil demand. Now, less than a month before the election, U.S. oil production is at 10.5 million BPD, a significant decline from the 12.2 million BPD of 2019.
The net impact of the past 50 years of U.S. Presidents was a long, slow decline of oil production that was only reversed when the hydraulic fracturing revolution began.
U.S. oil production didn’t fall under Bush and rise under Obama based on the policies of these presidents. Production behaved according to policies that had been put in place years earlier, and in accordance with the behavior of oil prices in previous years. Jimmy Carter experienced a rise in oil production because the Alaska Pipeline, approved by Nixon, was completed while Carter was in office. Obama and Trump experienced a rise in oil production following years of climbing oil prices, which led to a fracking boom.
Presidents publicly fretted for decades about the loss of energy independence for the U.S. They tried many different approaches to solving this problem, from serious intervention in the energy markets to letting the free market solve the problem. Many billions of dollars were spent on programs with the intent of eliminating dependence on foreign oil.
Yet in 1969, Americans depended on oil imports for 10% of their consumption, and in 2008 that number had risen to over 50% of consumption. That trend was only reversed when fracking caused U.S. oil production to surge.
Thus, a president may have some impact on U.S. oil production, but it is mostly a factor of influences well beyond their control.
Culled from Oil Price International, London.

Continue Reading

Oil & Energy

TotalEnergies, Conoil Sign Deal To Boost Oil Production

Published

on

TotalEnergies has signed agreements with Conoil Producing Limited under which to acquire from Conoil a 50 per cent interest in Oil Processing Licence (OPL) 257, a deep-water offshore oil block in Nigeria.
The deal entails Conoil also acquiring a 40 per cent participating interest held by TotalEnergies in Oil Minining Lease (OML) 136, both located offshore Nigeria.
Upon completion of this transaction, TotalEnergies’ interest in OPL257 would be increased from 40 per cent to 90 per cent, while Conoil will retain a 10% interest in this block.
Covering an area of around 370 square kilometres, OPL 257 is located 150 kilometers offshore from the coast of Nigeria. “This block is adjacent to PPL 261, where TotalEnergies (24%) and its partners discovered in 2005 the Egina South field, which extends into OPL257.
Senior Vice-President Africa, Exploration & Production at TotalEnergies, Mike Sangster, said “An appraisal well of Egina South is planned to be drilled in 2026 on OPL257 side, and the field is expected to be developed as a tie-back to the Egina FPSO, located approximately 30 km away.
“This transaction, built on our longstanding partnership with Conoil, will enable TotalEnergies to proceed with the appraisal of the Egina South discovery, an attractive tie-back opportunity for Egina FPSO.
“This fits perfectly with our strategy to leverage existing production facilities to profitably develop additional resources and to focus on our operated gas and offshore oil assets in Nigeria”.
Continue Reading

Oil & Energy

“COP30: FG, Brazil Partner On Carbon Emissions Reduction

Published

on

The Federal Government and Brazil have deepened collaboration on climate action, focusing on sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and the reduction of black carbon emissions.
The partnership is anchored in South-South cooperation through the Brazil-Nigeria Strategic Dialogue Mechanism, which facilitates the exchange of ideas, technology, and policy alignment within the global climate framework, particularly the Paris Agreement.
The Executive Secretary, Amazon Interstates Consortium, Marcello Brito, made the disclosure during an interview with newsmen, in Abuja, on the sidelines of the 2025 COP30 United Nations Climate Change Conference, held in Belem, Brazil.
Brito emphasized that both nations are committed to global efforts aimed at curbing black carbon emissions, a critical component of climate mitigation strategies.
“Nigeria and Brazil are collaborating on climate change remedies primarily through the Green Imperative Project (GIP) for sustainable agriculture, and by working together on renewable energy transition and climate finance mobilisation,” Brito said.
“These efforts are part of a broader strategic partnership aimed at fostering sustainable development and inclusive growth between the two Global South nations,” Brito added.
TheTide gathered that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced an ambitious plan to mobilize up to $3 billion annually in climate finance, through its National Carbon Market Framework and Climate Change Fund, positioning itself as a leader in nature-positive investment across the Global South.
Represented by the Vice President, Senator Kashim Shettima, Tinubu made the announcement during a high-level thematic session of the conference titled ‘Climate and Nature: Forests and Oceans’
Tinubu stressed that Nigeria’s climate strategy is rooted in restoring balance between nature, development, and economic resilience.
Hosted in the heart of the Amazon, on November 10—21, the 30th COP30 conference brought together the international community to discuss key climate issues, focusing on implementing the Paris Agreement, reviewing nationally determined contributions (NDCs), and advancing goals for energy transition, climate finance, forest conservation, and adaptation.
Continue Reading

Oil & Energy

DisCo Debts, Major Barrier To New Grid Projects In Nigeria ……. Stakeholders 

Published

on

Energy industry leaders and lenders have raised concerns that the high-risk legacy debts of Distribution Companies (DisCos) and unclear regulatory frameworks are significant barriers to the financing and development of new grid-connected power projects in Nigeria.
The consensus among financiers and power sector executives is that addressing legacy DisCo debt, improving contractual transparency, and streamlining regulatory frameworks are critical to unlocking private investment in Nigeria’s power infrastructure.
Speaking in the context of new grid-connected power plants, during panel sessions at the just concluded Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) Power Conference, Senior Vice President at Stanbic IBTC Infrastructure Fund, Jumoke Ayo-Famisa, explained the cautious approach lenders take when evaluating embedded or grid-scale power projects.
Ayo-Famisa who emphasized the critical importance of clarity around off-takers and contract structures said “If someone approaches us today with an embedded power project, the first question is always: Who is the off-taker? Who are you signing the contract with?” . “In Lagos State, for example, there is Eko Electricity and Excel Distribution Company Limited. Knowing this is important,” she said.
She highlighted the nuances in contract types, whether the developer is responsible just for generation or for the full chain, including distribution and collection.
“Collection is very important because you would be wondering, ‘is the cash going to be commingled with whatever is happening at the major DISCO level, is it ring-fenced, what is the cash flow waterfall,” she stated.
Ayo-Famisa pointed out that the major stumbling block remains the “high leverage in the books of the legacy DisCos.” Incoming project financiers want to be confident that their cash flows won’t be exposed to the financial risks of these indebted entities. This makes clarity on contractual relationships and cash flow mechanisms a top priority.
Noting that tariff clarity also remains a challenge, Ayo-Famisa said “Some states have come out to clearly say that there is no subsidy; some are saying they are exploring solutions for the lower income segments. So, the clarity would be on who is responsible for the tariff, is this sponsored?, Can they change tariffs?, In terms of if their cost rises, they can pass it on, or they have to wait for the regulator.
“Unlike, what you find in the willing seller-willing buyer, where they negotiate and agree on their prices. Now they are going into grid, there is Band A, Band B, if my power goes into, say, Ikeja Electric, or I have a contract with them, “am I commingled with whatever is happening across their multiple bands?”
Also speaking, Group Managing Director and CEO of West Power & Gas Limited, Wola Joseph Condotti, stressed the dual-edged nature of decentralization in the power sector.
“Of course, decentralization brings us closer to the people as the jurisdiction is now clear. You also know that your tariff would be reflective of the type of people living in that environment. You cannot take the Lagos tariff to Zamfara, and this is what has been happening before now in the power sector. So, decentralization brings about a more customized solution to issues you find on the ground.
“Some of the issues I see are those that bother on capacity. It was a centrally run system that had 11 DISCOs. Of the 11 DISCOs, I think there are 3 or 4 of us today that are surviving or alive, if I may put it that way. If you go to electricity generation companies, they are doing much better,” she said.
Condotti highlighted regulatory overlaps as another complication, especially when power generation or distribution crosses state lines.
She said, “Investors would definitely have a problem. Say if you have a plant in Ogun State supplying power to another state, say Lagos State; you are automatically regulated by NERC. But the truth is that the state regulator of Ogun State and Lagos State wants you to comply with certain regulatory standards.”
With the growing demand for reliable electricity and an urgent need for infrastructure expansion, the ability to navigate these complex financial and regulatory landscapes would determine the pace at which new grid-connected power projects can be developed.
Continue Reading

Trending