Saturday, March 14, 2026

ECOCIDE

How Venezuela’s Oil Industry Killed Lake Maracaibo

  • Decades of extensive and largely unregulated oil operations, starting with the Barroso 2 discovery in 1922, have covered Lake Maracaibo with leaking infrastructure, creating a devastating and worsening environmental disaster.

  • The ecological damage was accelerated by President Hugo Chavez's "drill at all costs" mentality and further intensified after stricter US sanctions in 2019 made it impossible for the national oil company PDVSA to fund crucial maintenance and infrastructure refits.

  • Today, Lake Maracaibo is heavily polluted by constant leaks from tens of thousands of abandoned and active, corroded wells and pipelines, leading to toxic algal blooms, killing marine life, and requiring an estimated $3 billion for a minimal, non-guaranteed clean-up.


Venezuela’s Lake Maracaibo, South America’s largest and oldest waterbody, is at risk. The lake is situated in the heart of the Maracaibo Basin, one of the continent’s richest oil-producing regions. After the Zumaque 1 wildcat well found black gold on Lake Maracaibo’s eastern shore, Venezuela’s oil industry rapidly expanded, covering the ancient waterbody with persistently leaking pipelines, storage tanks, and derricks. This triggered a devastating environmental disaster, which could worsen after the United States intervened in Venezuela with the White House ruthlessly seeking to exploit the country’s copious oil reserves.

It was the May 1922 Barroso 2 discovery, also on Lake Maracaibo’s eastern shore, which confirmed the presence of vast quantities of petroleum after suffering a blowout with oil geysering 130 feet (40 meters) into the sky. The blowout was so forceful it took Shell’s oilfield workers nearly two weeks to install a valve and bring the well under control. This marked a turning point for Venezuela’s oil industry by proving that the Maracaibo Basin possessed the considerable volumes of crude oil needed to attract foreign investment.

By the late 1920s, Standard Oil, Shell, and Gulf Petroleum were investing tens of millions of dollars to develop what turned out to be Venezuela’s tremendous oil potential, with Lake Maracaibo becoming ground zero for a flourishing boom. Production after 24 years hit the one million barrel per day mark in 1946 and doubled to two million barrels daily during 1955. By 1960, when Venezuela became a founding member of the OPEC oil cartel, the country was pumping over 2.8 million barrels per day, with most of that petroleum lifted in and around Lake Maracaibo.

The tremendous income generated by rapidly rising oil exports funded a groundbreaking public works program that lifted Venezuela out of poverty, creating a thriving capitalist democracy. Indeed, by the mid-1960s, Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, had emerged as a vibrant cosmopolitan city described as the jewel of South America. In 1962, a global engineering landmark, the General Rafael Urdaneta Bridge, which crosses Lake Maracaibo, was inaugurated by then-President Romulo Betancourt. On completion, the structure, which connects the city of Maracaibo to the rest of Venezuela, was the world’s longest pre-stressed concrete bridge. 

This piece of infrastructure proved crucial to the development of Venezuela’s oil industry, facilitating the expansion of petroleum-producing operations in and around Lake Maracaibo. Soaring oil wealth prompted Caracas to double down on drilling and oil production, with production expanding at a steady clip to hit an annual all-time high of 3.75 million barrels per day during 1970. This intensive industry activity, which was mostly unregulated, caused tremendous environmental damage to Lake Maracaibo, long considered ground zero for Venezuela’s oil industry.

By the 1970s, after more than 50 years of oil industry operations, the ancient water body was heavily polluted. This created the foundation for the ongoing ecological degradation that now endangers Lake Maracaibo and the waterbody’s very existence. The dangers facing the lake rapidly intensified over the years, with President Hugo Chavez’s 1999 Bolivarian revolution marking a turning point that pushed Lake Maracaibo to destruction. You see, Chavez adopted a drill at all costs mentality as he rapidly expanded economically crucial oil production, regardless of the environmental fallout, to grow fiscal revenues and boost government spending. 

In January 2003, NASA satellite images show an ailing Lake Maracaibo covered in multiple oil slicks. By then, pipelines, storage tanks, and wellheads were leaking an estimated 1,000 barrels per day into Lake Maracaibo. The extensive ecological damage only accelerated as Venezuela’s economy declined and ever stricter U.S. sanctions bit deeper. You see, by 2013, when President Nicolas Maduro assumed office after Chavez’s death, Venezuela’s oil industry was in a deep decline. Even significantly higher prices, with Brent peaking at over $106 per barrel during August 2013, did little to slow the deterioration of the hydrocarbon sector.

After U.S. President Donald Trump ratcheted up sanctions in early 2019, as part of his campaign to topple the Maduro regime, the disintegration of Venezuela’s oil industry accelerated. You see, those measures cut Caracas off from global energy and capital markets, making it impossible for the national oil company PDVSA to raise the capital required to conduct routine infrastructure maintenance and refits. This created a vicious cycle where rapidly corroding infrastructure accelerated production declines, placing ever greater financial pressure on PDVSA and Caracas.

After seven decades of oil industry operations, Lake Maracaibo and its surroundings contain tens of thousands of facilities associated with an economically crucial sector. It is estimated that there are at least 15,000 wells drilled into the bottom of the lake, with many now inactive and abandoned. It is feared that scores of those abandoned wells were never properly capped, leaving them constantly seeping oil into the lake. There is at least 15,500 miles or 25,000 kilometers of pipelines running beneath and around Lake Maracaibo. Many of those structures, including pumping stations, are heavily corroded and leaking, with quite a few now deserted and no longer in use. 

As facilities rapidly decayed and resources for crucial maintenance became scarcer, the frequency and size of oil spills grew. Although PDVSA discontinued reporting such incidents in 2016, Caracas-based think tank the Observatory of Political Ecology of Venezuela documented 86 oil spills that occurred during 2022, a substantial increase over the 73 spills identified for 2021. It was Zulia state, home to Lake Maracaibo, where 31 spills occurred, one of which was reported during June 2022, stretching more than 9 miles or 15 kilometers across the waterbody.

NASA photos from October 2021 show the lake covered in oil slicks and toxic algal blooms. These are asphyxiating Lake Maracaibo, killing what little marine life remains. For decades, local farmers and fishermen regularly reported weekly spills in and around Lake Maracaibo. Fishermen claim the waterbody and its shores are constantly covered in a sheen of oil due to the constant leaks from the more than 10,000 corroded petroleum facilities scattered across the lake and its shores. They also regularly complain of catches where the fish are covered in an oily sludge. This is devastating Lake Maracaibo and nearby communities, especially impacting those people whose livelihoods are dependent on the lake. 

Nearly all facilities in Venezuela’s oil heartland, even those still in operation, are severely corroded and leak oil every time they operate. As a result, whenever PDVSA ratchets up production, as occurred after President Biden eased sanctions in October 2023, the volume of accidents and spills spirals higher. Residents living near the operational sites dotted around Lake Maracaibo claim the frequency of infrastructure breaking down and the number of oil spills spikes whenever PDVSA ramps up operational activities.

There are fears that, as foreign capital surges into Venezuela’s petroleum sector after President Trump’s call for energy companies to invest in the country, the volume of spills and other environmentally damaging emissions will soar. By some accounts, it will take at least $100 billion, possibly as much as $200 billion, invested over a decade to rebuild Venezuela’s badly corroded energy infrastructure. This is a deterrent for foreign energy companies who will likely, at least for the immediate future, focus their spending on immediately profitable oil-producing activities rather than spending considerable capital on longer-term projects.

For these reasons, oil companies will forgo refitting and rebuilding Venezuela’s dilapidated petroleum infrastructure. Instead, drillers will focus on ramping up profitable oil-producing operations with the potential to generate a rapid return on their capital. This, along with boosting Venezuela’s petroleum output, will lead to further spills and environmental degradation in and around Lake Maracaibo. This could very well destroy any hope of remedying existing ecological issues and cleaning up the water body. It is estimated it will cost more than $3 billion to undertake a minimal clean-up of Lake Maracaibo, with fears that the ecological damage is now irreversible.

By Matthew Smith for Oilprice.com 

WAIT, WHAT?!

Tesla Wins License to Supply Electricity Across the UK

  • Tesla Energy Ventures received an electricity supply licence from Ofgem after a seven-month regulatory review, allowing it to sell power across England, Scotland, and Wales.

  • The company is expected to launch a service similar to its Texas-based Tesla Electric, integrating EV charging, home batteries, and solar generation.

  • Despite Tesla’s existing base of EV and Powerwall customers in the UK, analysts say the highly regulated and low-margin retail energy market will be difficult to penetrate.

Tesla has been granted approval to supply electricity to homes and businesses across the UK, opening the door for the electric vehicle giant to enter the country’s retail energy market.

Energy regulator Ofgem confirmed on Thursday that Tesla Energy Ventures Limited, a subsidiary of Musk’s company, has been granted an electricity supply licence by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority under the Electricity Act 1989.

The licence allows the company to supply electricity to both domestic and non-domestic customers in England, Scotland and Wales.

Ofgem said the approval followed a seven-month application and assessment process that ran from July 2025 to March 2026.

The licence formally took effect on Wednesday evening, after Tesla was informed of the decision and the instrument was entered into Ofgem’s electronic public register.

As a licensed supplier, Tesla Energy Ventures has to comply with the sector’s standard licence conditions.

These include requirements covering consumer protection, fair treatment of customers, financial responsibility, billing transparency and operational capability.

Ofgem said it will monitor the company’s compliance and can use enforcement powers under the electricity act if necessary, including issuing direction or fines.

Tesla eyes UK household energy

The approval clears a key regulatory hurdle for Tesla as Musk pushes to expand the company’s energy business alongside its EVs.

Tesla Energy Ventures, the company’s Manchester-based energy subsidiary, first applied for the licence last summer.

The application was signed by Andrew Payne, who leads Tesla’s energy business in Europe.

The business is expected to launch an electricity supply service in Britain similar to Tesla Electric, the power offering Musk’s company introduced in Texas in 2022.

This service allows customers to power homes, charge electric vehicles and sell surplus solar energy back to the grid using Tesla’s energy.

Tesla already sells home batteries known as powerwalls, solar technology and electric vehicle chargers in the UK, meaning it already has a base of customers using its energy products.

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown at the time, had said: “Although its EV sales have dipped sharply this year, Tesla still boasts significant car ownership in the UK and has sold thousands of home storage batteries here,” she said.

“This could mean Tesla Electric has access to a willing customer base, especially if it follows the model of its business in Texas which allows owners of its EVs to charge their cars cheaply and pays them for feeding surplus electricity back to the grid.”

Adam Bell, former head of energy at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and now director of policy at consultancy Stonehaven, said the sector remains heavily regulated and competitive.

“Tesla is entering a heavily regulated market in which margins have been squeezed to the narrowest possible extent and in which it faces competitors who have already invested in novel tariff offers,” he said.

“Even with access to an ecosystem of Tesla EV and Powerwall owners, it will find making headway challenging.”

The company has only applied for an electricity licence rather than a dual-fuel licence, meaning it will not initially supply gas alongside electricity, which is a common bundle offered by many UK suppliers.

Tesla already has a foothold in Britain’s energy system. In 2020, a separate company, Tesla Motors Limited, was granted a licence to generate electricity in Great Britain, although that licence was not part of the regulator’s assessment of the supply application.

By CityAM

Big Tech's Push to Make Electricity Cheaper

  • Google, Tesla, and other firms have launched Utilize to promote more efficient use of the U.S. power grid.

  • The coalition argues that better grid utilization could lower consumer electricity costs and ease pressure from AI-driven data center demand.

  • Critics say efficiency alone is not enough and warn Big Tech must still help pay for broader grid expansion and infrastructure upgrades.

A new coalition of tech firms, including Google and Tesla, is banding together to address the growing issue of energy affordability in the United States. The AI boom is pushing energy grids around the country to the max, and skyrocketing energy demand from the data centers that power large language models is causing energy prices to soar. Until now, consumers have had to pay the price for Big Tech’s AI ambitions, but the coalition – called Utilize – is pledging to lower energy prices across the board by optimizing grid utilization.

"We recognize that there's a need to prioritize affordability and do so in a way that really empowers states to make the best decisions," Ian Magruder, Utilize's executive director, was quoted in an Axios report this week. 

The coalition boldly claims that by utilizing the grid more efficiently, consumers in the United States can save over $100 billion over the next decade. The group argues that the grid is designed to accommodate peak-demand hours that occur just a handful of times per year, and that the rest of the time, all of that capacity is sitting unused, and therefore wasted. In fact, a study from Stanford University found that transmission lines in the U.S. were using just 52% of their transmission capacity even at peak hours. Most of the time, they were running at around 30% capacity. This results in consumers paying more per kilowatt-hour than is strictly necessary. 


“Battery storage and distributed energy resources are already demonstrating how smarter use of the grid can improve affordability,” says Colby Hastings, Senior Director of Residential Energy at Tesla.

Improving grid utilization would be beneficial for Big Tech in multiple ways. It would ease the pressure of finding sufficient new energy sources to allow the energy-hungry AI sector to continue its rapid buildout and lessen the need for expensive and slow grid expansions. “Unlocking idle grid capacity would let companies like Google connect new loads faster without waiting years for new transmission lines and generation to be built,” reports Electrek. 

It would also be beneficial for consumers. “We’ve spent decades building grid infrastructure for peak demand that occurs a handful of hours per year, and consumers pay for all of it year-round,” the Electrek report goes on to say. “If distributed resources like battery storage and virtual power plants can shave those peaks and fill those valleys, the math on electricity costs changes significantly.”

As constituents and policymakers become increasingly discontented with AI’s impact on rising energy prices, calls for Big Tech to provide the funding for grid expansion have been growing louder. While Donald Trump has been encouraging Big Tech to supply its own energy, critics argue that this will result in the development of a ‘shadow grid’ where oversight is slim to none. Trump “essentially envisions a bespoke new power system built in parallel to the existing one,” argues a recent op-ed from the energy editor of non-partisan news outlet Semafor.

Experts argue that the cost of expanding the grid is, in fact, the real issue here. Focusing on energy supply, rather than grid investment, may be allowing Big Tech to once again shirk the full cost of its operations. “Most of today’s cost pressure is coming from transmission, distribution, and system readiness, not energy supply,” Brandon Owens, a grid expert and founder of advisory platform AIxEnergy, was quoted by Politico last week. “Those costs remain even if a data center self-supplies generation.”

The goals of Utilize, too, could water down or disguise the urgency of expanding and updating the nation’s stressed grids. While increasing the efficiency of grid use is a worthwhile goal, it should not come at the expense of ensuring that Big Tech contributes its fair share to national energy production and infrastructure.

That being said, Utilize could substantially benefit the U.S. energy sector and consumers by rallying influential figures around an important and solvable issue. “This is one of the more interesting energy coalitions we’ve seen launch in a while,” writes Electrek. “The reason is simple: it aligns the economic interests of very different companies around a problem that’s genuinely fixable.”

By Haley Zaremba for Oilprice.com

Trump’s Alaska Energy Revival Hits a Wall as Auction Draws Zero Bids

  • Trump reopened Alaska to fossil fuel exploration as part of his pro-oil energy agenda.

  • A recent Cook Inlet offshore lease sale drew no bids despite the administration’s push.

  • The weak response highlights economic and environmental obstacles to new Alaska drilling.

Since coming into power in January 2025, United States President Trump has pursued an energy policy centred around fossil fuels. As part of his plan to expand U.S. oil and gas production, Trump has made it easier to attain licences to dig for fossil fuels on federal land and has reopened several regions to exploration. One such region is Alaska, where new exploration had previously been restricted due to environmental concerns. However, during the recent sale of oil and gas leases in Alaska, there was little interest in the region, suggesting that Trump may not be able to reinvigorate all areas of the U.S. fossil fuel market. 

In January last year, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential”. Trump pointed out the vast, largely untapped energy resources that Alaska owns, suggesting that exploiting the resources could be key to driving down energy prices, reducing import dependence, and creating jobs.

The Trump administration’s aim was to “reverse the punitive restrictions implemented by the previous administration that specifically target resource development on both State and Federal lands in Alaska.” The executive order stated plans to lift the halt on fossil fuel exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and prioritise the development of Alaska’s LNG potential.


Last summer, President Trump called for at least four lease sales within the refuge, over a 10-year period. Then, in October, the Trump administration finalised plans to open the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas companies looking to conduct exploration projects. This was made possible after, in March last year, a federal judge said the Biden administration did not have the authority to cancel the leases. U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the October plan, which would allow for lease sales within the refuge’s 1.5 million-acre coastal plain, an area which is deemed sacred by the Indigenous Gwich’in.

Environmentalists have widely criticised the Trump administration for disregarding the ecological importance of the region, which they say could be destroyed by launching new oil and gas activities. Drilling in the Arctic and Alaska is viewed as a high-risk undertaking, which is likely to involve decades of work and billions of dollars of investment, at a time when the future of oil and gas demand is uncertain.

The senior manager of The Wilderness Society in Alaska, Meda DeWitt, said that Trump “is placing corporate interests above the lives, cultures and spiritual responsibilities of the people whose survival depends on the Porcupine caribou herd, the freedom to live from this land and the health of the Arctic Refuge.”

Despite the ongoing criticism over the opening of oil and gas licenses in the region, this March, the Trump administration held the first of six offshore oil and gas auctions it has planned for Alaska between now and 2032, covering more than 1 million acres. However, the auction did not receive any interest, with no bids made for new offshore oil and gas exploration opportunities in Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

“At this time, no bids have been received,” the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) stated on its website. “In accordance with OBBBA, we will continue to hold leasing opportunities for Cook Inlet so that industry has a regular, predictable federal leasing schedule that ensures we achieve President Trump's American Energy Dominance Agenda."

Matthew Giacona, the acting director of BOEM, released a public statement following the failed auction stating, “Even when a sale receives no bids, maintaining a transparent, congressionally mandated schedule keeps Cook Inlet opportunities available for future investment, strengthens national readiness and supports Alaska’s role in meeting America’s energy needs.”

Meanwhile, Cooper Freeman, the Alaska director of the environmental group the Centre for Biological Diversity, said, “This is a huge embarrassment for Trump’s Alaska fossil fuel fantasy.”

In addition to environmental concerns, energy experts cite the dwindling resources in the basin as a reason for the lack of interest. In addition, retrieving gas has become more difficult and expensive, which has deterred companies from investing. The investor response seems somewhat ironic after all the work the Trump administration has put into reopening Alaska for development, given that the Biden administration has previously highlighted a lack of interest from the industry in 2022, a statement that Republicans in Congress at the time criticised widely.

However, the Republican Senator of Alaska, Dan Sullivan, blames “years of regulatory uncertainty, outside environmental activism, and outright hostility to resource development under the Biden administration,” for the lack of interest. The next auction in the Cook Inlet is scheduled for March 2027.

Despite strong criticism of the Biden administration’s move to protect environmentally important parts of Alaska by restricting oil and gas exploration, the Trump administration has so far garnered no interest in the region since opening it up for new activities. Environmentalists will likely see the lack of interest in the recent Cook Inlet auction as a win, although it is still uncertain whether future auctions could attract investors.

By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com

TotalEnergies Restarts Libya’s Mabruk Oil Field After Decade-Long Halt

TotalEnergies has restarted production at Libya’s Mabruk oil field after more than a decade of inactivity, restoring output from an onshore asset that had been offline since 2015 following security disruptions.

The French energy major said the field, in which it holds a 37.5% stake, resumed operations on February 28 after the completion of a new production unit capable of processing up to 25,000 barrels per day. Construction on the facility began in May 2024, allowing the project to reach start-up in less than two years.

Located roughly 130 kilometers south of Sirte within concession C17, Mabruk is one of several upstream assets operated in Libya by international partners alongside the state-owned National Oil Corporation (NOC). The field’s restart marks the latest step in the gradual recovery of Libya’s oil sector, which has faced years of instability, intermittent shutdowns, and infrastructure damage since the country’s civil conflict intensified in the mid-2010s.

For TotalEnergies, the project reinforces a long-standing presence in Libya, where the company has operated since 1956. The restart also aligns with the company’s strategy to expand upstream production through relatively low-cost projects tied to existing infrastructure.

The company said the development supports its broader goal of increasing hydrocarbon production by around 3% annually through 2030. Management described the Mabruk restart as part of a series of recent moves in Libya, including the extension of the Waha concessions, which remain among the country’s most significant oil-producing assets.

TotalEnergies’ Libyan portfolio includes interests in the offshore Al Jurf field and several onshore developments, including El Sharara and the Waha concessions. The Waha assets are operated by Waha Oil Company, which is wholly owned by Libya’s National Oil Corporation and jointly held with TotalEnergies and ConocoPhillips.

In 2025, TotalEnergies reported average production in Libya of about 113,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day across its operated and non-operated assets. The addition of output from Mabruk could modestly increase that figure while contributing to the country’s broader efforts to stabilize and expand crude production.

Libya holds Africa’s largest proven oil reserves but has struggled to maintain consistent production levels due to political fragmentation and security risks. International operators have cautiously re-engaged in projects where infrastructure and operating conditions have improved, particularly in the Sirte Basin, one of the country’s most prolific hydrocarbon regions.

The restart of Mabruk highlights both the resilience of Libya’s upstream sector and the continued willingness of international oil companies to reinvest in the country despite lingering geopolitical risks.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com


Middle East Conflict Halts 15% of TotalEnergies Oil and Gas Production

The war in the Middle East has effectively shut in 15% of TotalEnergies’ global oil and gas output, while the now-offline barrels account for about 10% of the supermajor’s upstream cash flow.

Following requests from shareholders and to answer the question about the status of TotalEnergies’ exposure to Middle East, the France-based international major said on Friday that “production has been shut down or is in the process of shutting down in Qatar, Iraq, and UAE offshore, representing approximately 15%” of the group’s total output.

Onshore production in the UAE, of which TotalEnergies has a share of 210,000 barrels per day, is not affected by the conflict. 

The cash flow from operations from the Middle East barrels is lower than the company’s portfolio average due to higher taxation. The 15% of the shut-in volumes account for about 10% of Upstream cash flow, TotalEnergies added.  

Operations at the Satorp refinery in Saudi Arabia are continuing normally for now and are supplying the Saudi domestic market, said the French firm, which is a partner of majority shareholder Saudi Aramco in the 460,000-bpd refinery in the industrial city of Jubail on the east coast.  

TotalEnergies, a major global LNG trader, also says that the impact of LNG production shutdowns in Qatar on its LNG trading activities is limited, with around 2 Mt expected in 2026, as most Qatari LNG is marketed by QatarEnergy.

In the early hours of the war Qatar announced it is halting LNG production at Ras Laffan, the world’s biggest liquefaction complex and issued force majeure notices to customers, amid drone strikes from Iran and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz—the only way for Qatari and UAE cargoes of LNG to leave the Middle Eastern region. 

TotalEnergies also noted that “a higher oil price more than offsets the loss of Middle East production,” as an $8 a barrel increase in the Brent price is enough to offset the expected 2026 CFFO from the Iraq, Qatar, and UAE offshore assets at $60 per barrel. 

By Michael Kern for Oilprice.com  

 

Kazakhstan's Tengiz Oilfield Supply Uninterrupted Despite New Incident

The operator of Tengiz, the biggest oilfield in Kazakhstan, on Friday said it is investigating an incident from Wednesday, which has not interrupted supply. 

The field, operated by a Chevron-led consortium, has not stopped oil production, sources told Reuters.  

Uninterrupted operations at Tengiz, which has the capacity to produce as much as 950,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, would be crucial for global oil supply at these times in which about 10% of daily oil supply is already shut in by the producers in the Middle East, while millions of barrels of crude and products cannot reach their destinations with the blockage at the Strait of Hormuz.  

“The company is assessing the root cause in line with established processes,” Tengizchevroil, the operator of Tengiz, said in a statement on Friday carried by Reuters. 

The field has seen major production setbacks this year, with supply further strangled by bottlenecks at the export terminals on the Russian Black Sea coast.

The huge Tengiz field was forced to shut down in January, following a fire at the site that damaged critical power supply.   

Since then, the field has resumed operations and has been gradually raising production.

However, the pace of the ramp-up has been slowed due to severe storms in the Black Sea terminal of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), which handles most of Kazakhstan’s crude oil exports. 

Alerts of potential drone strikes from Ukraine on the energy infrastructure on the Russian Black Sea coast have also disrupted loading schedules and forced the Tengiz field to hold off ramp-ups as storage tanks have filled. 

These factors have prevented Tengiz from reaching peak production on February 23, as initially planned.   

Tengizchevroil’s shareholders include Chevron with a 50% stake, ExxonMobil with 25%, Kazakhstan’s state oil and gas firm KazMunayGaz with a 20% interest, and Russian Lukoil with 5%.    

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com 

Hormuz Crisis Forces Massive Saudi Oil Shut-In

Saudi Arabia has slashed oil output by roughly 20% as the war with Iran continues to choke off exports from the Persian Gulf, in what could become one of the largest sudden supply losses the global oil market has ever faced.

Saudi production has dropped by about 2 million barrels per day to around 8 million bpd after the kingdom shut down output from the massive Safaniya and Zuluf offshore fields, according to sources cited by Reuters. The two fields together produce more than 2 million bpd of mainly heavy and medium-heavy crude.

The shutdown is just the latest in the mounting disruption across the Gulf since the United States and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran on February 28. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively blocked to most commercial tanker traffic, producers across the region have been forced to shut in large volumes of crude

Saudi Arabia has attempted to reroute some exports westward through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, but that system primarily carries lighter crude grades and cannot fully compensate for the loss of offshore production tied to Gulf export routes.

The production cut marks a sharp reversal from February, when Saudi Arabia boosted output to 10.882 million bpd and supplied 10.111 million bpd to the market as part of contingency planning ahead of potential regional conflict.

Now the kingdom, the world’s largest oil exporter and the holder of most global spare capacity, is being forced to pull barrels off the market instead.

The International Energy Agency had already said earlier this week that Gulf producers—including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—have already cut at least 10 million barrels per day of oil production due to the shipping disruptions.

That represents roughly 10% of the global supply.

Unless shipping routes reopen quickly, the supply losses could deepen further, pushing oil prices sharply higher as refiners around the world scramble to replace barrels that may remain stranded in the Gulf for weeks or even months.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com