Skip to Content
Stock Strategist Industry Reports

What the Saudi Oil Attack Means for Energy Stocks

We see some midstream opportunities, but much depends on the speed of recovery.

Mentioned: , , , , , , , , ,

After an attack on Sept. 14, Saudi Arabia has lost about 5.7 million barrels per day of oil production capacity. This is more than half of its capacity and about 6% of world capacity. Two major oil facilities--Abqaiq, an oil processing complex with a capacity of 7 mmb/d, and processing trains with a capacity of 1.2 mmb/d in the Khurais field--have been damaged. Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility for the drone strikes. But the United States--specifically the secretary of state, among others--has cast doubt on that and says the attacks were directly from Iran. The Saudis have been predictably optimistic about being able to partially restore production within days. However, a more realistic scenario is weeks and potentially months, given the complexity of the equipment and testing required, the release of U.S. satellite imagery showing extensive damage, and the lack of even a preliminary assessment of the damage from the Saudis. The potential impact of the attack hinges on how quickly operations can be fully restored, and on whether the kingdom or its allies--including the U.S.--choose to retaliate.

Saudi inventories are not officially reported, but the Joint Organisations Data Initiative estimates the kingdom has 188 mmb held in reserve, which means it can theoretically maintain domestic consumption and exports at the prior level for about 37 days before shortages take hold. So if capacity is restored within that time frame, the availability of supply should not be threatened and the maximum impact on annual supply would be capped at roughly 0.5 mmb/d. The implied drain on global inventories translates to roughly two days of forward supply, or 4% of the current OECD stockpile. In that scenario, we would expect prices to slightly exceed what’s in our current valuation models for one to two years, but our long-term outlook would not change as the West Texas Intermediate threshold to encourage the appropriate level of U.S. shale activity would still be $55 a barrel. As a result, our fair value estimates would not dramatically increase for most of our energy coverage. The degree of any change would depend on a company’s financial and operating leverage.

Dave Meats does not own (actual or beneficial) shares in any of the securities mentioned above. Find out about Morningstar’s editorial policies.

Transparency is how we protect the integrity of our work and keep empowering investors to achieve their goals and dreams. And we have unwavering standards for how we keep that integrity intact, from our research and data to our policies on content and your personal data.

We’d like to share more about how we work and what drives our day-to-day business.

We sell different types of products and services to both investment professionals and individual investors. These products and services are usually sold through license agreements or subscriptions. Our investment management business generates asset-based fees, which are calculated as a percentage of assets under management. We also sell both admissions and sponsorship packages for our investment conferences and advertising on our websites and newsletters.

How we use your information depends on the product and service that you use and your relationship with us. We may use it to:

  • Verify your identity, personalize the content you receive, or create and administer your account.
  • Provide specific products and services to you, such as portfolio management or data aggregation.
  • Develop and improve features of our offerings.
  • Gear advertisements and other marketing efforts towards your interests.

To learn more about how we handle and protect your data, visit our privacy center.

Maintaining independence and editorial freedom is essential to our mission of empowering investor success. We provide a platform for our authors to report on investments fairly, accurately, and from the investor’s point of view. We also respect individual opinions––they represent the unvarnished thinking of our people and exacting analysis of our research processes. Our authors can publish views that we may or may not agree with, but they show their work, distinguish facts from opinions, and make sure their analysis is clear and in no way misleading or deceptive.

To further protect the integrity of our editorial content, we keep a strict separation between our sales teams and authors to remove any pressure or influence on our analyses and research.

Read our editorial policy to learn more about our process.