X Close

Trump is starting an oil war How can the US compete with foreign companies?

New TV series Landman follows a family vying to exploit a Texas oil boom.

New TV series Landman follows a family vying to exploit a Texas oil boom.


January 8, 2025   4 mins

Has Donald Trump been reading Don Quixote? Last week, the incoming President warned the UK that it was making “a very big mistake” by raising tax on North Sea oil. His solution? “Get rid of windmills.”

It was classic Trump, the Presidential candidate who fashioned himself as a friend of Big Oil, promising to free up the nation’s stores of liquid gold and secure America’s “energy dominance”. Thanks to Biden’s pause, which yesterday crescendoed into a ban, on new oil and gas leases, along with his restrictive environmentalist agenda, America’s stocks have been kept in reserve. And Trump wants to exploit them.

But does this mean the US can expect another oil boom? Not so fast.

In America, the oil business is identified in the public mind with individual Texas oil men and their families. Think Hollywood movies like Giant (1956), starring Rock Hudson and James Dean, and the Eighties TV soap opera Dallas, whose Machiavellian antihero, J.R. Ewing, was portrayed by the late Larry Hagman (who happens to be my cousin twice removed). Today, the hybridisation of pop culture and petroculture continues with Landman, starring Billy Bob Thornton as a jack-of-all-trades working for an oil company.

The Texas connection is no myth. Only five American states produced 70% of US natural gas in 2023, with Texas producing 28% of the total, the same as the next two — Pennsylvania and Louisiana — combined. And from the Thirties to the Seventies, the Texas Railroad Commission helped to set world oil prices with its production quotas in the state.

However, this has never just been an American tale. From its origins in the 19th century, the oil industry in the US has been dominated by multinational corporations and subordinated to great power politics.

During the Fifties, when Giant played on movie screens, global oil prices were largely controlled by the cartel known as the “Seven Sisters”. And in the early Cold War, these companies — which included the predecessors of ExxonMobil, Texaco and British Petroleum — were partners with the US, UK and other Western governments. Indeed, during this period, petropolitics was geopolitics, leading to interventions such as the Western-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratic government and installed the autocratic Shah of Iran in 1953.

Over the following decade, Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries formed OPEC and demonstrated their collective power with the oil embargo of 1973 against the US and other allies of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. It was during this era, in Television Land, that J.R. Ewing hired a mercenary named B.D. Calhoun to blow up oil fields in the Middle East.

Back in the real world, however, foreign state capitalism won out over American-style private capitalism. Today, three-quarters of the world’s oil reserves are controlled by state-owned national oil companies. The largest, by revenue, are two Chinese companies, Saudi Arabia’s Saudi Aramco, Russia’s Rosneft, Brazil’s Petrobras, and India’s Indian Oil Corporation (IOCL). America, suffice it to say, does not compete.

“Today, three-quarters of the world’s oil reserves are controlled by state-owned national oil companies.”

Today’s Landman series, like the re-run of the Trump presidency, takes place in an era when high-tech hydraulic fracturing — the use of huge quantities of water to flush out “shale oil” and “shale gas” — has transformed the American fossil fuel industry and the global market. But geopolitics still rules the oil patch. More than 80% of the world’s oil reserves are controlled by the 13 members of OPEC, which produces 40% of all crude oil and 60% of global petroleum exports. And those members of OPEC — along with their expanded group OPEC+, which was created in 2016 — are not afraid to flex its muscles. After sanctions were placed on OPEC+ member Russia following its invasion of Ukraine, China helped Moscow by replacing Saudi Arabia with Russia as its largest foreign source of crude oil.

Meanwhile, pipeline politics also remain geopolitics. Shortly after President Biden vowed to “bring an end” to the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine, explosions rendered the undersea pipeline useless in September 2022. Washington and allied Nato governments professed to be mystified; last August, however, The Wall Street Journal reported the sabotage was carried out by Ukrainian saboteurs. Around the same time, the Chinese government claimed that a Hong Kong-flagged ship in the Baltic had destroyed a critical pipeline in the Baltic between Estonia and Finland. It was, needless to say, “by accident”. The late J.R. Ewing no doubt is smiling somewhere. Trump, by contrast, is surely not.

For in addition to having to deal with state-owned oil companies and the shifting alliances of our new Cold War, the incoming President can also expect resistance from inside the oil industry and investment world. The American Petroleum Institute, the main oil and gas lobby, opposes Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, including energy imports. Elsewhere, the major oil companies, which rely on delicate international deals, are unlikely to approve of Trump’s cowboy diplomacy, including his threat to impose tariffs on the EU if it fails to buy more oil and gas from the US.

Yet Trump doesn’t seem to recognise this, declaring instead that, “if they drill themselves out of business, I don’t give a damn”. Strong words, indeed, but ones that overlook the fact that not even the President of the United States can force private oil companies to ramp up drilling.

Instead, Trump is left with an oily irony: if he wants to secure America’s energy dominance, he’ll have to imitate every other global competitor and create a state-owned oil and gas company. History teaches us that black gold will never be tamed by one man alone. Forget Texaco — and bring on the age of Americo.


Michael Lind is a columnist at Tablet and a fellow at New America. His latest book is Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages is Destroying America.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

29 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nell Clover
Nell Clover
18 hours ago

USA oil production currently stands at 13.3 million barrels per day (mbpd). A USA record. But not just a USA record. A global record – the USA is now out-producing every other nation on earth. The USA’s nearest rival – Saudi – has hit aging infrastructure limits capping its output at 11mbpd.

In 2008 US oil production was only 5mbpd. In less than two decades the USA has nearly trebled its oil output. It has done this without the oil majors and without a state-owned oil company. Even more remarkable, the USA has achieved this in an era of real-terms low oil prices. More than two dozen large, medium, and small companies have driven this oil boom through innovation and – dare I say it – classic capitalism.

By contrast, the state owned Saudi Aramco has been more concerned with geopolitical manoeuvering and supporting the Saudi government’s stategic ambitions. State owned Aramco has failed to invest in its infrastructure and consequently it has lost market share. Despite sitting on vast reserves, its output peaked in 2016 at 12.5mbpd and has declined significantly since. Reserves count for nothing if a leadfooted state controls them.

Thems are the numbers and in no way do they support the author’s assertion that the US needs a state owned oil champion “Americo”. The numbers prove quite the opposite.

Last edited 18 hours ago by Nell Clover
Dave Canuck
Dave Canuck
10 hours ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

The Saudis are one of the richest countries in the world with 200 years of reserves, and production costs of about 10$ per barrel, they have huge financial reserves and not much debt. They are not interested in overproduction being the major player in Opec they control the price of oil , sometimes by reducing production, other times by increasing. They are sitting on a gold mine, unlike the US which relies on fracking which taps short term reserves with very rapid depletion rates. These reserves will deplete rapidly and US will once again become dependent on foreign oil. Even in the short term oil companies will not drill unless the demand is there, overproduction is not in their interest, they want a good price for their oil and a good return because of rapid depletion rates. The drill baby drill thesis is nonsense, it’s all hype.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
8 hours ago
Reply to  Dave Canuck

All of which is unchanged by a state owned “Americo” , the author’s asserted solution to allow the USA to compete with foreign companies. My point was to show in numbers that the author’s polemic is verifiable nonsense.

As for your point about reserves, the numbers don’t mean what you think they do. The USA currently has 40 billion barrels of proven crude reserves based on current technologies and market prices. That’s higher than 5 years ago and higher than 1990. Based on 1990 extraction rates, the USA should have run out of extractable crude by 2002. It didn’t. The proven reserves number us not the scientific absolute measure of all available oil, it is a measure of commercially prospected oil fields.

Huge areas of the USA don’t have the downstream pipeline infrastructure to handle crude production and so very little prospecting for tight oil has been done in these areas. When the current tight oil fields start running dry, the network of pipelines will be extended opening new areas for prospecting and drilling. Based on national geology data, the US EIA provisonally estimates at least another 190 bn barrels probably exist across the continental United States.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
7 hours ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Is it not time for Unherd to commission a few articles from you? Your comments often make far more sense than some of the poorly reasoned offerings such as this article. You are impressively well informed and cogent.

Peter B
Peter B
16 hours ago

No idea what this article is driving at. The author seems to imagine that the Us needs a state oil and gas company. But why ? There’s not actually any problem to solve here.
Trump doesn’t need the US to dominate world oil and gas supply. Besides which that’s not possible. The US already produces enough for its own needs though (though still does some import and export to balance out the product mix).
Suspect the author is making the classic error of taking Trump literally but not seriously when it should be the other way round.

Chauncey Gardiner
Chauncey Gardiner
11 hours ago
Reply to  Peter B

Well said, brother!
Yes, “dominance” or “energy independence” may have a lot of intuitive appeal, but it’s hard to make these notions make sense in a globalized market. At a given time, the US may appear “independent,” but it still faces global prices.
The same with wheat and other commodities. Australia has a bad harvest, say. Prices in the United State go up! Prices everywhere go up. Globalized market. Globalized prices.
But, the real thrust of a Trumpy energy policy is to not do what most of Europe is doing: Trading up from lower cost energy to high cost energy. And the result: Industry flees to places with lower-cost energy like China. It’s no accident, for example, that entities like Volkswagen have given up manufacturing EV’s and EV batteries in Europe and have instead set up production in China.

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
1 day ago

The whole analysis is faulty. The majors still do a lot of the work. They will do the work in the us where it’s profitable for them. Government controlled oil companies are partners with them while governments siphoning off cash. Some governments use it for legitimate purposes while others find other purposes for the cash.

Suffice to say the Americans have fixed their oil problem.

Some other problems, you don’t wash oil out with water and the me and etc has 80% of the light oil. (I’ll trust your stat but I probably shouldn’t)

Last edited 23 hours ago by Bret Larson
Alex Cranberg
Alex Cranberg
13 hours ago

Logic missing here..Trump needs a national oil company because….why? The only thing an Americo would do differently is reduce production and waste money. Even foreign oilfields are run by private multinationals (except in Kuwait and Saudi) and the “national oil companies” are merely regulators and revenue sharers. In that sense, the USA already has a national oil company: it’s called the Bureau of Land Management. And sure enough it does plenty to block more oil production (at least under Biden).

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
13 hours ago

The author seems nostalgic for the 1970s
It also seems very out of touch to mention the under-siege UK oil & gas industry without mentioning Norway , where it’s an absolute boom year for drilling.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
13 hours ago

Almost all of this nonsense. The idea that you need state owned oil companies to drill baby drill is ridiculous, almost as silly as the idea that Trump will impose 25% tariffs on Canadian oil.

Maverick Melonsmith
Maverick Melonsmith
13 hours ago

“Forget Texaco — and bring on the age of Americo”. Sounds a bit socialist.

Chauncey Gardiner
Chauncey Gardiner
11 hours ago

We already have Saudi Aramco, an entity organized by Chevron and Saudi Arabia back when Chevron was still Standard Oil of California (SOCAL). That was a long time ago, and it’s still running!

mike flynn
mike flynn
4 minutes ago

I read this remark as sarcasm.. probably you should, too.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
12 hours ago

The header is funny: What makes you think it’s Trump? After all, Biden just curbed off-shore drilling. Trump from the get-go has always been, “drill baby, drill.”

G M
G M
9 hours ago

State-owned enterprises tend to become bureaucratic, inefficient and corrupt over time, especially if they have a monopoly position.

In the long-term private companies, with competition, tend to produce better results.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
10 hours ago

why do tame comments get deleted?

alan bennett
alan bennett
7 hours ago

This column is economical with the truth.

Max Beran
Max Beran
7 hours ago

The discussion seems to have lost sight of the UK angle. Why is Trump saying UK should drill but EU must buy lots of US LNG (or else)? Just being nice to us? Or a calculation that LNG production and export is not without limits. The former sounds out of character and the latter sounds a bit technical for Trump. Others may have more informed answers.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
4 hours ago

Are some of the comments below have already said, Michael Lind’s recommendation of setting up an American state-owned oil and gas company is a crashing non-sequitur!

A bit like the arguments over rented and occupied accommodation, the transfer of assets from one category to another makes absolutely no difference to the overall capacity. I would think there’s quite a good argument for private ownership in that it’s much less likely to be subject to purely political objectives.

Last edited 4 hours ago by Andrew Fisher
Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
11 hours ago

And those members of OPEC — along with their expanded group OPEC+, which was created in 2016 — are not afraid to flex its muscles.
Please reconcile this with the title claim of Trump wanting to launch an oil ‘war.’ The country is full of energy resources. Are they to go unused for fear of offending OPEC?

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
11 hours ago

And those members of OPEC — along with their expanded group OPEC+, which was created in 2016 — are not afraid to flex its muscles.
Yet somehow, Trump is creating an oil war? He’s just taking advantage of his country’s natural resources, which sounds a lot like good business, good policy, and good politics.

Josef Švejk
Josef Švejk
1 day ago

Thank you Michael for your usual rigour and incisiveness. This article illustrates the impotence of any one man over events in an interconnected world. Trump sees himself as the Don, but he is Quixote, soon to be perplexed by the multitude of windmills turning to drive him to true madness. Oils is oils and greed is greed, one man can never truly influence the Oil Game.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
13 hours ago
Reply to  Josef Švejk

The “multitude of windmills” (intermittent, sprawling, low energy density) is one of the things driving the demand for gas (dispatchable on-demand, compact, high energy density).

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
13 hours ago
Reply to  Josef Švejk

Wind has, what, 30% efficiency. And also deduct transmission drag, so truly 25%. We need some other reliable source. Solar in some places, but not in the places we live and work.
We will run out of oil (in 1970 we were said to have 20 years supply left but now that is 150 years reserves), but we will run out eventually. Time to build lots of nuclear power stations yet though

Josef Švejk
Josef Švejk
58 minutes ago
Reply to  JR Stoker

Two events stand out for me from my school and student days in the 60’s and early 70’s, the oil crisis and the thrill of learning about nuclear energy while attending scientific exhibitions for schoolchildren. All that excitement. Where to did it go and why did it disappear ?

M To the Tea
M To the Tea
1 day ago

I have been saying that capitalism works only outside a country, not within it. To support your own people, you must have socialism or communism. So, I was not wrong. In order to compete, USA would need state-owned industries to create jobs, but that would require fundamental change, which is unlikely to go over well.

Don’t shoot the messenger. I am concerned for him! He will have to poke the bear!

“foreign state capitalism won out over American-style private capitalism. Today, three-quarters of the world’s oil reserves are controlled by state-owned national oil companies”

“Instead, Trump is left with an oily irony: if he wants to secure America’s energy dominance, he’ll have to imitate every other global competitor and create a state-owned oil and gas company”

Bret Larson
Bret Larson
23 hours ago
Reply to  M To the Tea

To support your own people allow them to own their labour and make decisions on the distribution of it.

Works much better, just ask the ussr.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
18 hours ago
Reply to  M To the Tea

I’ve down voted because the author and you ignore the simple truth that the USA and capitalism have nearly trebled oil output in less than 2 decades and the USA now produces vastly more oil than any other nation on earth. All without a state owned company in sight.

M To the Tea
M To the Tea
12 hours ago
Reply to  M To the Tea

My point may have lost its intended meaning due to my verbose writing. Ultimately, Trump’s challenges will revolve around two key issues: the conflict between globalism and U.S. hegemony versus China (which I believe is already a foregone conclusion), and addressing domestic issues that put pressure on globalists and financial elites while focusing on creating real, meaningful industries in the U.S. While he is supported by globalists, there is always a tension between their agenda and the broader population. If this effort fails, I’m not certain Trump wouldn’t resort to introducing state-owned companies to supercharge a new form of governance—something not necessarily aligned with what we’ve seen so far.