Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Shorting Oil, Hedging Tesla

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
$100 Oil: Big Banks Believe A New Oil Supercycle Is Beginning | OilPrice.com

We should probably debate whether another "supercycle" is coming for oil. I'm pretty skeptical.
  • Can OPEC sit by as oil price ring the $100/b and not step up production to bring the price back down? I don't see how it is in OPEC's self-interest to watch the rest of the world ramp production up above sustainable level.
  • How would China react to $100/b oil? They may use this as an opportunity to draw down there strategic oil reserve while ramping up EVs, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: generalenthu
Oil business has always been boom & bust. With capital spending cut back due to COVID and low prices, and high pent up demand later this year, oil prices will definitely go up. Fracking has to drill new wells every couple of years to keep production up. Even so, I’m not buying oil company stocks on general principles. Sold my Exxon stock 3 years ago and bought Tesla stock and paid off big time.
If you do buy oil stocks, be sure to sell in a couple of years as the next oil bust will be the last one as Evs etc will finally start the long permanent decline in oil consumption.
 
Is This Oil Rally The Start Of Something Much Bigger? | OilPrice.com

Here's some more about the "supercycle" thesis. Specifically, stimulus spending coupled with very lose monetary policy could escalate the market.

Perhaps Buffet is trying to ride this putting a bet down on Chevron.

The basic problem here is sorting out what is really driving hype in the oil market. If it were truly about unmet demand, then OPEC and any other oil producers would be right about stepping up production. But easy money is also capable a driving up the price of oil in the short run and inventing the oil industry to ramp up production. Basically when central banks inject cash into the economy just about every asset class gets jacked up. Bitcoin for example will increase in price because more cash is looking for a store of value. In this regard, oil is not that different. Some investors will see oil as a store of value and a hedge against inflation.

So it is entirely possible that the price of oil could get pushed above $80/b by excess cash looking for somewhere to go. But if this is what is driving the hype cycle, it may not be so super for the oil industry. Rather it could lead once again to a massive glut. The hype cycle always likes to talk a mean game of massive unmet demand, even while the core driver is excess cash looking for something to store value.

Could this also be happening to Tesla and RE stocks too? Absolutely, but the difference is that overinvesting in EVs and RE can actually move these industries to new, more economical scales of operation. Give Tesla an extra $100B, and they'll ramp up Gigafactories, of which the world does not have enough. Give an extra $100B to the likes of Chevron, and the industry will need to build out more oil storage capacity. Even if the global market were flooded with EV, two things would happen. 1) the cost of making EVs and batteries would decline (Wright's law), and 2) the selling price of EVs would decline enough to clear the market. Basically, ther is a lot of market share that EVs can steal from ICE in the case of overproduction. The situation with fossil fuels is entirely asymmetrical. Oil is not a new tech that has huge alternative to displace for existing demand.

So basically I am not worried about over investment in EVs and RE leading to overproduction. Surplus cash can be well deployed here, but it can be destructive if deployed in fossil investments. This is not to say that the stock price for Tesla or SunPower can't get ahead of itself. It's just saying the the underlying businesses can put cheap capital to productive use. Even Bitcoin is a better place to put surplus cash because it does not lead to a production glut. When Bitcoin holders find something better to do with cash, the price can come down, but that does not an industry with surplus inventory takes years to work off. But better yet, I'd like to see the battery supply triple in a year. That could be transformative.
 
So it is entirely possible that the price of oil could get pushed above $80/b by excess cash looking for somewhere to go.

Apart from short-term investments, it all depends on how much of their stimulus check, people want to spend on refueling the car, and how many people decide to buy an EV. It is hard to keep prices sustainably high, with falling demand.

Stimulus will not last IMO, people can only spend it once, sooner or later governments will wind it back, once it looks like the economy may be close to standing on it's own 2 feet.

The long term trend is undeniable, and I wonder about the wisdom of Buffet's decision, dividend paying stocks in industries heading for disruption are only better than non-dividend paying stocks in industries heading for disruption. By the time they stop paying dividends, even the slower learners have caught on. I don't think a few years of dividends are worth the risk. Maybe he expects there to be a bounce back in the share price when the economy returns to normal?
 
Big Oil To See Production Peak In 2028 | OilPrice.com

Interesting to see Rystad predict a production peak for oil and gas combined by oil majors in 2028. It seems oddly specific, but I suspect there is good reasoning behind it. Primarily it recognizes that softening demand impacts both price and volume, and specifically this trend impacts investment in supply. So oil majors are signaling decline in oil and gas investments.

For example, BP is indicating that it will reduce oil and gas investment 40% by 2030. If you model out steady decline in investment along with production curves, you can model BP's production for the next 10 or more years.

I suspect this is the kind of analysis Rystad is doing for each oil major. So while we have long speculated about peak demand, this gives a nice complementary view to production. Moreover, I suspect that this sort of analysis can provide analysts with a view to how much oil prices would need to improve in order drive higher investment levels.

Over the past year, emission reduction targets and strategies have altered the long-term outlook for the supermajors’ production.

Rystad Energy now sees the majors’ net production at around 17.5 million boepd in 2025 and peaking at around 18 million boepd in 2028. Just before the pandemic, Rystad Energy had expected 2025 production to be at 19 million boepd and 20 million boepd in 2028.

What are the chances that a year from now Rystad lowers their projections for 2025 and 2028 yet again?
 
Lately I've been thinking a lot more about bitcoin. I've been posting in the bitcoin thread. But there are some topics that intersect with oil economics. I'm not sure if I should post here or there.

Any preferences?

Would love to hear your thoughts on bitcoin (or crypto currency in general)! Or at least link to the other thread. You're a data guru and I feel that your perspective (even where we don't agree) has been very valuable!
 
In Supply-and-Demand 101, normally when supply is high and demand is low, prices drop, right? However, what happens when we hit a tipping point where there are enough EVs to bring a noticeable reduction in demand for gasoline? Do gas stations raise their prices in order to make up for the lost selling volume, even though the supply is high and the demand is dwindling? If they do that, it will be yet another pressure point on the cost of gasoline. If that doesn't work, then gas stations will start closing and gas cars will start to have more and more range anxiety, but it will be much worse than EVs because you can't fill-up at home. Chalk this scenario up as one more nail in ICE's coffin.


Gas stations don't make their money with gasoline. It's the Ho-Ho's and Ding-Dongs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm
Would love to hear your thoughts on bitcoin (or crypto currency in general)! Or at least link to the other thread. You're a data guru and I feel that your perspective (even where we don't agree) has been very valuable!
Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Discussion Thread
Here are my basic observations.

In the Short Oil thread, we have had substantial discussion of the financialization of oil. The idea is that so many investors want to hold oil as financial hedge, i.e. a store of value, that the market price for oil becomes driven not by demand for physical oil, but by demand for a financial asset. This has had the consequence of driving up oil production to the point of a multi-year glut. This financialization of oil was also encouraged by cheap money from the Fed. The Fed was pursuing quantitative easing to help the economy recover from mortgage lending crisis and the Great Recession. All that surplus cash in the system needed to go somewhere, so a bunch of it went into overinvesting in oil. Not only did the oil glut lead to painful economic dislocations, but it was downright nasty for fighting climate change.

So what an economy to do with surplus cash? Any attempt to funnel that into commodities can have ruinous consequences. It's not good to overproduce commodities just because we have a financial need to store value in something. And yet when there is more cash than useful investments for that cash, there is a genuine need to have some place to safely park the cash. Moreover, we depend too much on central banks to bail the economy out, even though pretty much the only thing they can do in a recession is flood the economy with cash. Enter bitcoin.

Bitcoin is sort of the Seinfeld of commodities. What was the show about? Nothing, absolutely nothing. When cash need a safe parking lot, it can load up on bitcoin. No matter how high demand for bitcoin soars, the supply of bitcoin will not budge. The supply is perfectly inelastic. This avoids the risk of commodity risk. How? The commodity is nothing, and no matter how much you pay for nothing, you can make more nothing than nothing. Granted the bitcoin miners might burn through more CPU hours and MWh, but no matter how much they put into it they cannot make more of it than was predetermined. At the end of the day what incremental value did all the cost create? Absolutely zero? Bitcoin is literally the biggest nothing on the planet, and that may be what makes it so valuable. From an environmental and economic point of view, sometimes the best thing to do with excess cash is absolutely nothing.

Many energy investors seem to want a basic store of value. The perceive that energy assets have some intrinsic value to the economy and they want to hitch a ride to it. Bond investors are heavily dependent on fossil fuel deal flow. Renewables are so cheap that they can't fully replace all the fossil fuel deal flow. Energy will increasingly need less capital to supply the total amount needed for the global economy. This shrinkage of fossil assets is a big problem. And it is made much worse when central banks and governments are trying to goose the economy. There is way too much cash chasing energy and other commodity investments. Can bitcoin help? Well, maybe it it better to store wealth in bitcoin than to drill another oil well. And if there is a glut of renewable energy anywhere, it is better to mine bitcoin from the surplus capacity than to remain dependent on thermal generators for occasional power. Bitcoin puts a global floor on the price of renewable energy. (Green hydrogen can do this too, but may require much more capital investment to tap the surplus).

So maybe bitcoin can avoid overinvestment in fossil, the financialization oil, and energy gluts. It is not a perfect solution and by no means a complete solution, but sometimes we do need a safe place to park excess cash.
 
Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Discussion Thread
Here are my basic observations.

In the Short Oil thread, we have had substantial discussion of the financialization of oil. The idea is that so many investors want to hold oil as financial hedge, i.e. a store of value, that the market price for oil becomes driven not by demand for physical oil, but by demand for a financial asset. This has had the consequence of driving up oil production to the point of a multi-year glut. This financialization of oil was also encouraged by cheap money from the Fed. The Fed was pursuing quantitative easing to help the economy recover from mortgage lending crisis and the Great Recession. All that surplus cash in the system needed to go somewhere, so a bunch of it went into overinvesting in oil. Not only did the oil glut lead to painful economic dislocations, but it was downright nasty for fighting climate change.

So what an economy to do with surplus cash? Any attempt to funnel that into commodities can have ruinous consequences. It's not good to overproduce commodities just because we have a financial need to store value in something. And yet when there is more cash than useful investments for that cash, there is a genuine need to have some place to safely park the cash. Moreover, we depend too much on central banks to bail the economy out, even though pretty much the only thing they can do in a recession is flood the economy with cash. Enter bitcoin.

Bitcoin is sort of the Seinfeld of commodities. What was the show about? Nothing, absolutely nothing. When cash need a safe parking lot, it can load up on bitcoin. No matter how high demand for bitcoin soars, the supply of bitcoin will not budge. The supply is perfectly inelastic. This avoids the risk of commodity risk. How? The commodity is nothing, and no matter how much you pay for nothing, you can make more nothing than nothing. Granted the bitcoin miners might burn through more CPU hours and MWh, but no matter how much they put into it they cannot make more of it than was predetermined. At the end of the day what incremental value did all the cost create? Absolutely zero? Bitcoin is literally the biggest nothing on the planet, and that may be what makes it so valuable. From an environmental and economic point of view, sometimes the best thing to do with excess cash is absolutely nothing.

Many energy investors seem to want a basic store of value. The perceive that energy assets have some intrinsic value to the economy and they want to hitch a ride to it. Bond investors are heavily dependent on fossil fuel deal flow. Renewables are so cheap that they can't fully replace all the fossil fuel deal flow. Energy will increasingly need less capital to supply the total amount needed for the global economy. This shrinkage of fossil assets is a big problem. And it is made much worse when central banks and governments are trying to goose the economy. There is way too much cash chasing energy and other commodity investments. Can bitcoin help? Well, maybe it it better to store wealth in bitcoin than to drill another oil well. And if there is a glut of renewable energy anywhere, it is better to mine bitcoin from the surplus capacity than to remain dependent on thermal generators for occasional power. Bitcoin puts a global floor on the price of renewable energy. (Green hydrogen can do this too, but may require much more capital investment to tap the surplus).

So maybe bitcoin can avoid overinvestment in fossil, the financialization oil, and energy gluts. It is not a perfect solution and by no means a complete solution, but sometimes we do need a safe place to park excess cash.

I think that connection is weak at best, and my view stems from bitcoin's lack of utility. Cash/currency has "value" storage capacity, because cash is liquid (easily converted to goods and services and vice versa), and the supply could only be increased by one institution (U.S. mint). Fossil fuels is also liquid (in all meanings of that word), but can be supplied by many institutions, while bitcoins are illiquid and deflationary by design. Bitcoin is only recognized as a "store" of value now, because it's being hyped as a good _investment_. From that view, it's actually a POOR "store" of value!! Bitcoin's value rises (and occasionally falls) much too dramatically to be considered a "value store". I feel that once bitcoin's popularity has worn off, people will recognize it as fool's gold and ignore it.

Instead, I think electricity itself (measured in kwh) would become the new currency, and batteries will become the storage medium of that currency. Electricity should exhibit the same tradable nature as fossil fuels, and much like crude, there can be multiple sources of supply (one per household in the form of solar panels and powerwalls). Unlike fossil fuels, it's much easier to use. And if electricity/energy becomes the fiat currency, then bitcoin (as a "value store" product) would become too expensive (the transaction fee, in the form of energy consumed to process the exchange of value, is MUCH TOO HIGH) to use.
 
I think that connection is weak at best, and my view stems from bitcoin's lack of utility. Cash/currency has "value" storage capacity, because cash is liquid (easily converted to goods and services and vice versa), and the supply could only be increased by one institution (U.S. mint). Fossil fuels is also liquid (in all meanings of that word), but can be supplied by many institutions, while bitcoins are illiquid and deflationary by design. Bitcoin is only recognized as a "store" of value now, because it's being hyped as a good _investment_. From that view, it's actually a POOR "store" of value!! Bitcoin's value rises (and occasionally falls) much too dramatically to be considered a "value store". I feel that once bitcoin's popularity has worn off, people will recognize it as fool's gold and ignore it.

Instead, I think electricity itself (measured in kwh) would become the new currency, and batteries will become the storage medium of that currency. Electricity should exhibit the same tradable nature as fossil fuels, and much like crude, there can be multiple sources of supply (one per household in the form of solar panels and powerwalls). Unlike fossil fuels, it's much easier to use. And if electricity/energy becomes the fiat currency, then bitcoin (as a "value store" product) would become too expensive (the transaction fee, in the form of energy consumed to process the exchange of value, is MUCH TOO HIGH) to use.
I'm no longer convinced that commodities are an adequate store of value in a world where central banks and lending institutions can increase the money supply much larger than the use value of all commodities combined. To attempt to store more value than is demanded for consumption over a reasonable amount of time is problematic. Such excess value is no more "backed by commodities" than is bitcoin. That is, commodities have a finite amount of use value, which also should place a limit on how much value they actually store beyond simply being a mere token of value. All excess value is token value.

Even so, a functioning economy does need certain commodities to be able to sustain economic activity. In the oil age, oil was necessary for the global economy to function, so holding oil did store substantial (but not unlimited) value both use value and token value. I would also point out that substantial capital in other assets like automobiles and refineries derived value from the assumption that oil would continue to be valuable over the life of these useful assets. So it becomes understandable that oil would also take on substantial token value. This token value also reinforced the token value of the US Dollar as most global trade in oil was conducted in USD. The construct of petrodollars point to this nexus oil and USD as central tokens of the global economy.

Before we get too deep into cryptocurrencies, we do well to deconstruct the token value of petrodollars. Specifically, as oil demand erodes into perpetual decline, what happens to the value of oil? Post peak, the use value of oil goes into decline. Can the token value persist as use value declines? As the energy economy pivots away from the centrality of oil, what happens to USD as a reserve currency? Most central banks serve economies that must import oil to function and that ability revolved around converting local currencies to USD to make payment on oil imports. So it was natural many central banks would hold USD reserves and many week currencies have attempted to peg a fixed exchange rate to USD. US citizens have benefited enormously from this appetite of central bank across the world to hold USD as a reserve currency. The Fed and US Government can print cash and issue treasury debt and the rest of the world is happy to hold it. But as the global economy becomes less dependent on importing oil just to run local economies the centrality of petrodollars falls apart.

In recent years, China has largely propped up the value of crude by filling up a massive strategic petroleum reserve (SPR). This has also given China some of the clout they need to trade oil in their domestic currency. China is definitely making moves away from the petrodollar regime. Not coincidently China has also made some of the biggest moves toward renewables, EVs and batteries. Increasingly, China becomes less dependent on importing crude oil.

It may be premature to argue that the global economy will reorganize around bitcoin as the age of oil comes to a close, but we should be wary that the petrodollar regime may sunset with petroleum use itself.
 
I'm no longer convinced that commodities are an adequate store of value in a world where central banks and lending institutions can increase the money supply much larger than the use value of all commodities combined. To attempt to store more value than is demanded for consumption over a reasonable amount of time is problematic. Such excess value is no more "backed by commodities" than is bitcoin. That is, commodities have a finite amount of use value, which also should place a limit on how much value they actually store beyond simply being a mere token of value. All excess value is token value.

Even so, a functioning economy does need certain commodities to be able to sustain economic activity. In the oil age, oil was necessary for the global economy to function, so holding oil did store substantial (but not unlimited) value both use value and token value. I would also point out that substantial capital in other assets like automobiles and refineries derived value from the assumption that oil would continue to be valuable over the life of these useful assets. So it becomes understandable that oil would also take on substantial token value. This token value also reinforced the token value of the US Dollar as most global trade in oil was conducted in USD. The construct of petrodollars point to this nexus oil and USD as central tokens of the global economy.

Before we get too deep into cryptocurrencies, we do well to deconstruct the token value of petrodollars. Specifically, as oil demand erodes into perpetual decline, what happens to the value of oil? Post peak, the use value of oil goes into decline. Can the token value persist as use value declines? As the energy economy pivots away from the centrality of oil, what happens to USD as a reserve currency? Most central banks serve economies that must import oil to function and that ability revolved around converting local currencies to USD to make payment on oil imports. So it was natural many central banks would hold USD reserves and many week currencies have attempted to peg a fixed exchange rate to USD. US citizens have benefited enormously from this appetite of central bank across the world to hold USD as a reserve currency. The Fed and US Government can print cash and issue treasury debt and the rest of the world is happy to hold it. But as the global economy becomes less dependent on importing oil just to run local economies the centrality of petrodollars falls apart.

In recent years, China has largely propped up the value of crude by filling up a massive strategic petroleum reserve (SPR). This has also given China some of the clout they need to trade oil in their domestic currency. China is definitely making moves away from the petrodollar regime. Not coincidently China has also made some of the biggest moves toward renewables, EVs and batteries. Increasingly, China becomes less dependent on importing crude oil.

It may be premature to argue that the global economy will reorganize around bitcoin as the age of oil comes to a close, but we should be wary that the petrodollar regime may sunset with petroleum use itself.

As you've said, for the longest time, oil carried substantial token value because it was fundamental to a functioning global economy. The only reason we're all thinking about what would supplant it, is because there's a social call to end oil's relevance/use in the global economy.

BTC (or any cryptocurrency) doesn't carry that same functional value - the economy would run just fine with-or-without BTC. So the replacement of an energy commodity can really only be another energy commodity. Now, if crypto could be directly exchanged for a fixed quantity of energy, then I could see it as a stored value, since it would represent a fixed "packet" of energy. Without that guaranteed value exchange, crypto's value is completely speculative.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: navguy12
I love this conversation, it's all the way down to the base of oil's impact on human civilization. IMO that almost makes this whole transition topic easier to understand and discuss.

As you've said, for the longest time, oil carried substantial token value because it was fundamental to a functioning global economy. The only reason we're all thinking about what would supplant it, is because there's a social call to end oil's relevance/use in the global economy.
Here we are falling into the same trap as Porsche trying to develop a biofuel that's nearly as good as EV technology. We're trying to predict what will supplant the currency of our historical dynamic, but the dynamic has completely and permanently reversed. We are quite literally in a new Age, maybe even something a level above an Age.

Yesterday's world was rooted in scarcity. We're rapidly moving towards, and in many ways are already in, a world of sustainable abundance based on renewable energy production and(ironically) energy storage.

So the replacement of an energy commodity can really only be another energy commodity. Now, if crypto could be directly exchanged for a fixed quantity of energy, then I could see it as a stored value, since it would represent a fixed "packet" of energy. Without that guaranteed value exchange, crypto's value is completely speculative.
Precisely. There is no replacement because the underlying economic dynamics of scarcity and ever-present growth no longer exist. The base is no longer investment in fossil acquisition and hoarding, it's technology for the gathering and decentralized storage of ubiquitous free energy.

So what are the attributes of a "replacement" for the token of value? You're looking to exchange it for a quantity of future energy. I would argue we could just as easily use units of past energy production. I'm not a super-genius like jhm, but I've brought this up all over the place and not heard a rational argument against as of yet. What's wrong with base tokens being kWh of renewable energy production?

Future energy value won't be a requirement once we move out of scarcity, something more along the lines of a gift certificate compensating for renewable energy production would be just fine. When there is no scarcity to be concerned about, why would we be so militant about ensuring future value or so myopically focused on "growth"?

I think we're entering the pre-Star Trek era where we go through the insane process of rationalizing all this. I think it'll go fast and by the middle we won't be so fixated on what backs our currency. We should rationally be thinking about using non-energy resources effectively. Going to Mars will help, I think Bitcoin helps A LOT as a practice run for decentralized currency. We just need to remember that 15 years from now we're unlikely to be sitting around a bunch of laptops staring at TSLA and BTC all day every day.
 
I love this conversation, it's all the way down to the base of oil's impact on human civilization. IMO that almost makes this whole transition topic easier to understand and discuss.


Here we are falling into the same trap as Porsche trying to develop a biofuel that's nearly as good as EV technology. We're trying to predict what will supplant the currency of our historical dynamic, but the dynamic has completely and permanently reversed. We are quite literally in a new Age, maybe even something a level above an Age.

Yesterday's world was rooted in scarcity. We're rapidly moving towards, and in many ways are already in, a world of sustainable abundance based on renewable energy production and(ironically) energy storage.


Precisely. There is no replacement because the underlying economic dynamics of scarcity and ever-present growth no longer exist. The base is no longer investment in fossil acquisition and hoarding, it's technology for the gathering and decentralized storage of ubiquitous free energy.

So what are the attributes of a "replacement" for the token of value? You're looking to exchange it for a quantity of future energy. I would argue we could just as easily use units of past energy production. I'm not a super-genius like jhm, but I've brought this up all over the place and not heard a rational argument against as of yet. What's wrong with base tokens being kWh of renewable energy production?

Future energy value won't be a requirement once we move out of scarcity, something more along the lines of a gift certificate compensating for renewable energy production would be just fine. When there is no scarcity to be concerned about, why would we be so militant about ensuring future value or so myopically focused on "growth"?

I think we're entering the pre-Star Trek era where we go through the insane process of rationalizing all this. I think it'll go fast and by the middle we won't be so fixated on what backs our currency. We should rationally be thinking about using non-energy resources effectively. Going to Mars will help, I think Bitcoin helps A LOT as a practice run for decentralized currency. We just need to remember that 15 years from now we're unlikely to be sitting around a bunch of laptops staring at TSLA and BTC all day every day.
You've made a fundamental point: "There is no replacement"
We are moving from dependence on a limited energy resource to a virtually free unlimited resource. This has profound implications. Where will all those energy assets go? Many will be stranded. If energy has no value, there is no point in investing in any energy or energy surrogate.

My personal situation is relevant. I've been installing solar arrays to the point now where they meet most of my energy needs (heating, lights, transportation, etc.) and they have all been paid for (using avoided electricity purchase costs). So now I have free energy for the next 20 to 40 years.
 
You've made a fundamental point: "There is no replacement"
We are moving from dependence on a limited energy resource to a virtually free unlimited resource. This has profound implications. Where will all those energy assets go? Many will be stranded. If energy has no value, there is no point in investing in any energy or energy surrogate.

My personal situation is relevant. I've been installing solar arrays to the point now where they meet most of my energy needs (heating, lights, transportation, etc.) and they have all been paid for (using avoided electricity purchase costs). So now I have free energy for the next 20 to 40 years.

What you did is prepay for your energy in the form of the investment in the solar equipment, that is not free.

It is analogous to paying up front for an oil well and then receiving "free" energy for the next 20-40 years.

What is really interesting is that oil, like sunlight, is a limitless resource.

Read Julian Simon to understand this. All energy is "free", all it takes is human effort to access it.
 
What you did is prepay for your energy in the form of the investment in the solar equipment, that is not free.

It is analogous to paying up front for an oil well and then receiving "free" energy for the next 20-40 years.

What is really interesting is that oil, like sunlight, is a limitless resource.

Read Julian Simon to understand this. All energy is "free", all it takes is human effort to access it.
I prepaid for 5 years of energy. I bought it from my solar installation at the same cost as the power company. I'm now past the 5 year mark so everything is paid for and all my energy from now on is free. Free as in beer.