In this quarter’s MLP Insights piece, we examine some of the causes and effects of increasing crude output in the US, as well as the potential stimulus from the Trump administration’s policies on MLPs and energy infrastructure.

We’ll discuss three areas in more detail:

  • US output growth and falling producer breakeven prices: While oil output around the world has fallen this year, US oil producers have sharply increased their production. These gains are due to falling breakeven prices caused primarily by technological advances, lower oilfield services costs, and the practice of high-grading.1
  • Lack of takeaway capacity: The growth in crude production is heading towards potential pipeline capacity issues, particularly in hot spots like the Permian Basin, where additional energy infrastructure is now needed.2
  • Policy support for MLPs: The Trump Administration’s executive orders as well as their proposed plans on tax reform and infrastructure spending are largely supportive of MLPs and energy infrastructure, which could provide additional tailwinds for the asset class.

US Output Growth & Falling Producer Breakeven Prices

US oil production has rebounded almost 6% in 2017, taking total output to levels not seen since mid-2015.3 This turnaround is occurring while other major oil producing blocs are reducing their output either in an effort to rebalance the oil markets or because oil production has proven unprofitable at current prices.

Source: Bloomberg. Data through 4/30/17.

With oil prices fluctuating around the $50/barrel level this year, many investors are wondering how US producers are able to profit and increase production in a low oil price environment. Fortunately for many US oil producers, the 56% drop in average crude prices from 2013 to 2016 was matched by a 55% drop in average wellhead breakeven prices over the same time frame.4 The fact that price of oil has remained above the cost of extracting the commodity in many basins has allowed oil producers to continue to profit on oil sales.

Source: Reuters, EIA, and Rystad Energy NASWellCube, 2017.

There a number of factors that have led to this dramatic fall in breakeven prices, including but not limited to: 1) technological advances including applying big data and 3D imaging techniques to optimize the selection of drilling locations, and using advanced materials in drills and pumps to improve reliability; 2) renegotiating oilfield services costs, which some estimate fell 40% from 2013 to 2016;5 and 3) the practice of high-grading, whereby producers only employ their most efficient existing wells, rather than drilling and completing new wells, which can be more expensive.

Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. Dallas Fed Energy Survey as of 3/29/2017.

Lack of Takeaway Capacity

Since 2014, takeaway capacity utilization, which measures how much of the nation’s energy infrastructure is being utilized relative to its maximum capacity, has increased across the US as oil production has exceeded the growth of new pipelines. This trend emerged because the low oil price environment caused many pipeline operators to cancel or suspend projects designed to add additional capacity. The rise in oil output in 2017 has further strained US energy infrastructure and resurfaced worries about available takeaway capacity, particularly in high growth areas like the Permian Basin.

Source: EIA, 2017.

When takeaway capacity is in short supply, it can introduce unusual distortions in the oil markets. For example, the WTI Midland spot price, which is primarily used by Permian Basin producers, and the benchmark WTI Cushing spot price, used by most other US producers, experienced significant divergences from 2012 and 2014. WTI Midland traded at an average discount of $4.23/barrel versus WTI Cushing, and at times the discount spiked to as much as $20/barrel, despite historical trends of the two prices being largely identical.6 The cause of this distortion was a 62% increase in production over this time frame that challenged existing pipeline capacity in the Permian and forced producers to sell at major discounts.7 Estimates hold that production in the Permian Basin is currently utilizing 90% of takeaway capacity and could reach 100% by the end of the year.8

In an effort to avoid costly capacity issues arising again, pipeline operators have proposed a variety of new projects, including four in the Permian that could add over 800,000 barrels per day of capacity.9 In the natural gas space there is an extensive roster of proposed projects with 33 pipeline proposals around the country currently awaiting Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval.10

Policy Support for Infrastructure

Beyond the consistent pre- and post-election discussion of the need to improve the US’s infrastructure, President Trump signed a series of executive orders, since taking office, with the aim of expediting the review process of portions of the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL. By streamlining environmental reviews and expediting the permitting process, the Administration hopes to remove ‘red tape’ that adds time and expenses to future infrastructure development.

Most recently, the Administration’s preliminary tax plan outline demonstrated support for infrastructure investment through the reduction of taxes that should benefit MLP investors. Direct MLP unitholders are currently taxed at a maximum pass-through rate of 39.6%, the top individual income tax rate, on their proportionate share of partnership income and depreciation recapture upon the sale of their investment.11 The proposed plan lowers this rate to just 15%. By lowering the effective tax rate for MLP unitholders, the asset class is expected to become more attractive to investors, which should in turn result in higher valuations and lower costs of capital for MLPs looking to raise money for infrastructure projects.


While recent oil price volatility has put near-term pressure on MLP unit prices, the midstream energy space could potentially benefit from strong macro-tailwinds. Lower breakeven prices are spurring the rapid growth of oil production in the US, which in turn is creating additional demand for infrastructure assets. The Trump Administration’s executive orders, tax proposal, and infrastructure spending plan are providing further support for infrastructure development. These circumstances are coming together to create an environment in which midstream MLPs and energy infrastructure companies might increasingly prioritize seizing growth opportunities.



Category: Articles

Topics: MLPs

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. International investments may involve risk of capital loss from unfavorable fluctuation in currency values, from differences in generally accepted accounting principles, or from economic or political instability in other nations. Investments in securities of MLPs involve risk that differ from investments in common stock including risks related to limited control and limited rights to vote on matters affecting the MLP. MLP common units and other equity securities can be affected by macro-economic and other factors affecting the stock market in general, expectations of interest rates, investor sentiment towards MLPs or the energy sector, changes in a particular issuer’s financial condition, or unfavorable or unanticipated poor performance of a particular issuer (in the case of MLPs, generally measured in terms of distributable cash flow). MLP funds may invest in the energy industry, which entails significant risk and volatility. In addition, the funds may be non-diversified, which represents a heightened risk to investors. Furthermore, the funds may invest in small and mid-capitalization companies, which pose greater risks than large companies.

MLP funds may be taxed as a regular corporation for federal income tax purposes. The amount of taxes currently paid by the fund will vary depending on the amount of income and gains derived from MLP interests and such taxes will reduce an investor’s return from an investment in the fund. The potential tax benefits from the fund’s investment in MLPs depends largely on the MLPs being treated as partnerships for federal income tax purposes. As a partnership, an MLP has no federal income tax liability at the entity level. Therefore, treatment of one or more MLPs as a corporation for federal income tax purposes could affect the fund’s ability to meet its investment objective and would reduce the amount of cash available to pay or distribute to you. There is no guarantee distributions will be made and dividends may be reduced or eliminated at any time. Furthermore, certain distributions are expected to be treated as a return of capital for tax purposes rather than from net profits and shareholders should not assume that the source of distributions is from the net profits of the fund.

All expressions of opinion reflect judgement as of the date set forth above and are subject to change. Sources utilized for this information are believed to be accurate but no warranties are made to their accuracy or timeliness of reporting. Global X Management accepts no responsibility for the conclusions and decisions clients make utilizing this information.

Shares are bought and sold at market price (not NAV) and are not individually redeemed from the Fund. Brokerage commissions will reduce returns.

Carefully consider the Funds’ investment objectives, risks, and charges and expenses before investing. This and additional information can be found in the Funds’ summary and full prospectuses, which may be obtained by calling 1-888-GX-FUND-1 (1.888.493.8631), or by visiting Please read the prospectus carefully before investing.

Global X Management Company LLC serves as an advisor to the Global X Funds. Global X Funds are distributed by SEI Investments Distribution Co., which is not affiliated with Global X Management Company or any of its affiliates. Solactive Indexes have been licensed by Solactive AG for use by Global X Management Company LLC. Global X Funds are not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold, or promoted by Solactive AG nor does this company make any representations regarding the advisability of investing in the Global X Funds.