Andy Hall & OPEC out of business. Time for a new way to Trade Oil.

How Oil Trading ‘God’ Hall Made Money as Crude Fell
By Bradley Olson – Dec 10, 2014, 6:18:09 AM

Andrew J. Hall, revered for anticipating major swings in the market, posted a 1 percent gain in his commodity hedge fund in November, according to people familiar with the matter. Photographer: Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg
How does a renowned oil trader who bets on rising prices make money when crude plunges 18 percent in a month? By betting on the U.S. dollar at the same time.

Andrew J. Hall, revered for anticipating major swings in the market, posted a 1 percent gain in his commodity hedge fund in November, according to people familiar with the matter. Hall, who is leaving his longtime post as chief executive officer of Phibro LLC, the century-old commodities trading house now owned by Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY ▼ -3.29% 74.90), sees oil falling further as he focuses on his private fund.

“It’s a new era,” said Carl Larry, a former trader who is now a Houston-based director of oil and natural gas at Frost & Sullivan. “So many things have changed. This will be a chance for him to step back, assess the market, and maybe plot a comeback.”

The surprise rise at 64-year-old Hall’s Astenbeck Capital Management was driven by his bets on the greenback and a move to sell out of crude contracts before the worst of the rapid decline in prices, according to the people and his letters to investors in the $3 billion fund. A prolific art collector and Oxford University graduate, Hall is revered as a “god” by rival traders, according to “Oil,” a 2010 book by Tom Bower.

Known for his conviction that oil prices will rise in the long term and that U.S. shale drilling is overhyped, Hall still sees reasons for an oil rally — eventually. First he sees crude prices falling further to as low as $50 a barrel before recovering in the first half of next year, according to his Dec. 1 letter to investors.

Astenbeck, which posted losses in 2011 and 2013, is poised to finish the year up by as much as 7 percent, according to the people who asked not to be identified because the information isn’t public.

Phibro’s Fate

Andrew J. Hall, founder of Astenbeck Capital Management, right, and his daughter Emma Hall, stand for a photograph during the 21st annual Take Home a Nude gala and fundraiser for the New York Academy of Art at Sotheby’s in New York, U.S.. Photographer: Katya Kazakina/Bloomberg
The fate of Occidental’s Phibro has yet to be determined, with Hall’s departure making the future more uncertain. The oil company had already told employees this year that it planned to sell or close its energy trading unit by the end of 2014.

Phibro’s U.S. employees haven’t been active in trading for months and the overseas operations may be sold, the people said. Occidental announced plans in February 2014 to reduce exposure to proprietary trading, Melissa Schoeb, a company spokeswoman, said yesterday.

As CEO, Hall gained notoriety during the 2009 financial crisis for a nine-digit pay package while Phibro was owned by Citigroup Inc., igniting controversy over compensation at banks that had been kept afloat with federal funds.

‘Fool’s Errand’

The former trader for BP Plc anticipated oil’s rise to a record in 2008, and its subsequent fall, helping him land compensation near $100 million for three straight years. Before Phibro was bought by Occidental, it had been profitable every fiscal year since 1997 and in 80 percent of the quarters during that period. The trading house’s gains for those years amounted to $4.4 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Saudi Arabia was correct not to cut production after last month’s meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Hall wrote to his investors on Dec. 1. The market is oversupplied, making any effort to sustain prices at $90 a barrel “a fool’s errand,” he said.

Too much has been invested in boosting output in recent years, particularly in U.S. shale formations where producers have drilled wells with cheap, borrowed money, he said. Hall has frequently said the oil boom is over-hyped and won’t last as long as the industry thinks. Low prices will run weaker shale operators out of business and lead to reduced spending on more costly developments such as those in Canada’s oil sands, deep-water drilling and Arctic projects, Hall said.

‘Reasonable Bet’

“As the oil industry and, more to the point, its investors and its lenders slam on the brakes and as low prices stimulate demand growth, the current glut will in time disappear — if not turn into a future shortage,” he wrote in his letter. “That at least is what the Saudis are counting on, and to us it appears a reasonable bet.”

Hall’s strategy in the past has often been to buy so-called long-dated oil contracts for delivery years into the future. He likes to invest when those futures are cheaper than current prices, because he believes oil will rise. Earlier this year, the futures contracts were selling for less than oil prices at the time.

In February, a futures contract for a barrel of December 2019 West Texas Intermediate benchmark crude was selling for $76 a barrel while current prices averaged $100. By July, those 2019 contracts were selling for $88. That represents a 16 percent gain. Astenbeck, which also invests in numerous other commodities, including precious metals, was up 19 percent through June, according to his investor letters.

Holding Off

In August and September, Hall told investors he’d cut risk and sold a number of oil contracts at the higher price, and planned to wait for the market to once again turn his way. Now, such futures contracts are selling above today’s WTI price of $62.53, an environment in which Hall in the past has held off investing, according to people familiar with his positions.

When prices fell, Hall invested in the dollar. Astenbeck’s 1 percent gain in November came as U.S. oil prices fell to the lowest level in five years. In that same period, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index, a gauge of the dollar’s strength against 10 major trading partners, rose 15 percent.

Hall’s departure from Phibro, where traders have cut their teeth for more than 40 years, and the potential for the unit’s closure rippled through trading circles yesterday, said Eric Rosenfeldt, a vice president at Virginia Beach, Virgina-based energy supply firm PAPCO Inc.

Phibro History

Among the most storied trading houses in history, Phibro helped create modern oil-trading markets, with more than 2,000 employees around the world at one time. In 1981, the firm was large enough to buy the investment bank Salomon Brothers. Founded in 1901 as Philipp Brothers trading metals and chemicals, Phibro dove into oil in 1973 when the Arab oil embargo caused prices to soar and left U.S. refineries searching for supplies.

Phibro’s original crude traders included Marc Rich, who would later gain infamy for breaking sanctions against Iran and fleeing the country to avoid federal indictments. Rich won a controversial pardon from President Bill Clinton. Thomas O’Malley, now the chairman of PBF Energy Inc., hired Hall for Phibro at a salary of $135,000, he told reporters last month.

“You expect to see some trading shops come and go in energy trading, but there are some staple firms like Phibro that have been around such a long time, and created so many good professionals throughout the industry,” Rosenfeldt said by phone. If its doors eventually close, “it would certainly be the end of a very long era.”

Brent Plunge To $60 If OPEC Fails To Cut, Junk Bond Rout, Default Cycle, “Profit Recession” To Follow

Brent Plunge To $60 If OPEC Fails To Cut, Junk Bond Rout, Default Cycle, “Profit Recession” To Follow

NOVEMBER 24, 2014 AT 8:01 AM
Zero Hedge / Tyler Durden

While OPEC has been mostly irrelevant in the past 5 years as a result of Saudi Arabia’s recurring cartel-busting moves, which have seen the oil exporter frequently align with the US instead of with its OPEC “peers”, and thanks to central banks flooding the market with liquidity helping crude prices remain high regardless of where actual global spot or future demand was, this Thanksgiving traders will be periodically resurfacing from a Tryptophan coma and refreshing their favorite headline news service for updates from Vienna, where a failure by OPEC to implement a significant output cut could send oil prices could plunging to $60 a barrel according to Reuters citing “market players” say.

By way of background, the key reason OPEC is struggling to remain relevant is because, as the FT reported over the weekend, “US imports of crude oil from Opec nations are at their lowest level in almost 30 years, underlining the impact of the shale revolution on global trade flows. The lower dependence on imports from the cartel, which pumps a third of the world’s crude, comes amid advances in hydraulic fracturing that has propelled domestic US production to about 9m barrels a day – the highest level since the mid-1980s.”

The US “shale miracle” is best seen on the following chart showing the total output of the US compared to perennial crude powerhouse, Saudi Arabia:

It is this shale threat that has become the dominant concern for OPEC, far beyond whatever current US national interest are vis-a-vis Ukraine, and Russia’s sovereign oil revenues, and as reported previously, Brent has to drop below to $75 or lower for US shale player to one by one start going offline.

Unfortunately, it may bee too little too late for the splintered cartel. As Bloomberg reports, “the days when OPEC members could all but guarantee consensus when deciding production levels for oil are long gone, according to a veteran of almost two decades of the group’s meetings.”

The global glut of crude, which has contributed to a 30 percent decline in prices since June 19, has left the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries disunited and dependent on non-members to shore up the market, said former Qatari Oil Minister Abdullah Bin Hamad Al Attiyah. The 12-member group is set to meet in Vienna on Nov. 27.

“OPEC can’t balance the market alone,” Al Attiyah, who participated in the group’s policy meetings from 1992 to 2011, said in a Nov. 19 phone interview. “This time, Russia, Norway and Mexico must all come to the table. OPEC can make a cut, but what will happen is that non-OPEC supply will continue to grow. Then what will the market do?”

“OPEC had been enjoying easy meetings, and decisions were taken without a sweat,” Al Attiyah said. “Now the situation is different.”

Oil markets are oversupplied by about 2 million barrels a day, and global economic growth is below expectations, he said. “The U.S., which was a major market for OPEC, is no longer welcoming imports. It’s now striving to become an oil exporter. It’s already exporting condensates.”

So if OPEC is unable to reach an agreement, what is the worst case? Back to Reuters, which says that “The market would question the credibility of OPEC and its influence on global oil markets if there was no cut,” said Daniel Bathe, of Lupus alpha Commodity Invest Fund.

That could send Brent down to around $60, Bathe said.

“Herding behavior and a shift to net negative speculative positions should accelerate the price plunge,” he added.

Fund managers are divided over whether OPEC will reach an agreement on cutting output. Bathe put the likelihood at no more than 50 percent.

The oil price has been falling since the summer due to abundant supply — partly from U.S. shale oil — and low demand growth, particularly in Europe and Asia.

As a result, some investors believe a small cut — of around 500,000 bpd — would not be enough to calm the markets.

If OPEC fails to agree a cut, prices will drop “further and quite quickly”, with U.S. crude possibly sliding to $60, he said. U.S. crude closed at $76.51 on Friday, with Brent just above $80.

It’s not all downside: there is a chance that OPEC will agree on a 1 million barrel or more cut, which would actually send prices higher:

“The market really wants to see that OPEC is still functioning … if there is a small cut, with an accompanying statement of coherence from OPEC that presents a united front, and talks about seeing demand recovery, and some moderation of supply growth, then Brent could move up to $80-$90.” “Prices below $80 are putting significant strain on the cartel’s weakest members such as Venezuela,” said Nicolas Robin, a commodities fund manager at Threadneedle. He said a bigger cut — of 1 million bpd or more — was an “outlier scenario”, but such a move would rapidly push prices above $85.

Then again, even thay may be insufficient if the market prices in an ongoing deterioration in global end-demand: “Doug King, chief investment officer of RCMA Capital, sees Brent falling to $70, even with a cut of 1 million bpd.”

So in a worst case scenario, where Brent does indeed tumble to $60, what happens? We already know the answer, as it was presented in “If WTI Drops To $60, It Will “Trigger A Broader HY Market Default Cycle”, Says Deutsche”:

… it is not just the shale companies that are starting to look impaired. According to a Deutsche Bank analysis looking at what the “tipping point” for highly levered companies is in “oil price terms”, things start to get really ugly should crude drop another $15 or so per barrell. Its conclusion: “we would expect to see 1/3rd of US energy Bs/CCCs to restructure, which would imply a 15% default rate for overall US HY energy, and a 2.5% contribution to the broad US HY default rate…. A shock of that magnitude could be sufficient to trigger a broader HY market default cycle, if materialized. ”

This explains why the HY space has been far less exuberant in recent weeks, and the correlation between HY and the S&P 500 has completely broken down.

Finally it is not just the junk bond sector that is poised for a rout should there be no meaningful supply cuts later this week: recall that in another note over the weekend, DB said that should crude prices take another leg lower, then the most likely next outcome is a Profit recession, which while left unsaid, will almost certainly assure a full-blown, economic one as well.

So keep an eye on Vienna this Thanksgiving: the black swan may just be coated with an layer of crude oil this year.

U.S. Oil Exports Ready to Sail Tanker of Texas Oil Heading to South Korea in First Sale Since 1970s Embargo

By CHRISTIAN BERTHELSEN and LYNN COOK WSJ

Updated July 30, 2014 11:26 p.m. ET

A tanker of oil from Texas set sail for South Korea late Wednesday night, the first unrestricted sale of unrefined American oil since the 1970s.

How that $40 million shipment avoided the nearly four-decade ban on exporting U.S. crude is a tale involving two determined energy companies, loophole-seeking lawyers, and an unprecedented boom in American drilling that could create a glut of ultralight oil.

The Singapore-flagged BW Zambesi is the first of many ships likely to carry U.S. oil abroad under a new interpretation of the federal law that bars most sales of American oil overseas. Analysts say future exports appear wide open: as much as 800,000 barrels a day come from just one of the many U.S. oil fields pumping light oil.

Though U.S. policy on oil exports hasn’t changed, production of this kind of oil, known as condensate, is surging. This early shipment “is the wedge that’s pushing the door open” for more ultralight oil exports, said Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of consulting firm IHS. IHS +0.87%

Under rules Congress imposed after the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s, companies can export refined fuels like gasoline and diesel but not oil itself except in limited circumstances that require a special license. Such licenses, often for oil destined for Canada, are issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security, the unit inside the U.S. Commerce Department.

Related

Until recently, domestic oil production had been declining and exporting oil wasn’t a hot issue. All that changed as new techniques for tapping oil from shale formations have sparked an oil boom in Texas, North Dakota and elsewhere. Since the end of 2011, U.S. oil production has jumped by about 48%, to about 8.4 million barrels a day, according federal data.

That has been good news for companies including Enterprise Products Partners EPD -1.80% LP in Houston, a $47.7 billion company that processes, ships and stores oil and gas. Last summer, the company noticed a troubling trend: ultralight oil flowing from South Texas was flooding the market and pushing down prices. It predicted volumes would swell and prices could fall further as oil companies ramped up drilling and production.

Energy companies and lobbyists had started advocating for ending or at least relaxing the ban; Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM -0.29% , the nation’s biggest oil company, openly supported lifting export restrictions in December.

But neither Congress nor the Obama administration appeared willing to do more than study a change, which some lawmakers fear would result in higher gasoline prices in the U.S.

Green-decked BW Zambesi is preparing to sail from Texas with an oil cargo destined for South Korea. DigitalGlobe/Microsoft

The industry embarked on a subtle, behind-the-scenes review of the regulations, discovering an opening for exports under existing definitions of the law. Enterprise and its lawyers found language that they believed would allow them to argue that the processing to remove some volatile elements from oil would be enough to make the resulting petroleum qualify as exportable fuel, even though it is a far cry from the traditional refining process.

The processing, which peels off fuels like propane and butane, is commonly done in oil fields across the U.S. Companies that manufacture the equipment involved say it costs between $500,000 and $5 million, a fraction of the expense of building a refinery.

When Enterprise made its case to the government, it said the equipment that its customers use to treat oil for shipment on its pipelines chemically alters the condensate in a way that makes it an exportable fuel. However, several industry executives say the equipment is not special.

“Early this year, we became very confident, extremely confident, that this was indeed a petroleum product that could be exported,” Bill Ordemann, a senior vice president at Enterprise, said in an interview.

In late February, Enterprise representatives gave a private presentation to Commerce Department officials and answered a battery of questions.

Oil executives who have met with Commerce say five to 10 department officials are involved in the talks and decisions on export rulings. When energy companies began to plead their cases with the department in earnest, an official asked one company representative how to spell condensate, said a person at the meeting.

“I look for practical solutions. I looked over the regulations, said, ‘What is my client trying to do, what windows do we have?’ ” said Jacob Dweck, a partner at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP hired by Enterprise to press its case.

Pioneer Natural Resources Co. PXD -0.80% executives also were looking for a way around the ban. Pioneer, which drills across Texas, hired a former deputy secretary of the Commerce Department to represent it.

Ted Kassinger, a partner at law firm O’Melveny & Myers, zeroed in on existing oil field equipment and asked whether it might meet federal regulatory criteria. “We suddenly realized we had existing infrastructure that, at least in part, goes through a distillation process and is producing a product that’s not crude oil,” he said.

Jeff Navin, a partner at Washington, D.C.-based policy consultants Boundary Stone Partners, said that the final decisions rested on specific language in the export ban that didn’t define a refined product but rather said oil had to pass through a “distillation tower,” traditionally found at refineries, before it could be exported.

“So the question became, ‘What constitutes a distillation tower?’ ” said Mr. Navin, a former acting chief of staff to the Energy Secretary. “The more narrowly you define that question, the easier it is to get the administration to side with you.”

Commerce gave Enterprise the green light for exports at the end of March and Pioneer received its ruling soon after. Both companies said their applications weren’t coordinated.

The decisions mean unrefined ultralight oil can now be exported from the U.S. in some cases, because the processed condensate that comes from field-level equipment is considered chemically altered enough to skirt the ban.

The White House was caught off guard by the news of the department’s actions, which weren’t coordinated with other parts of the administration, according to senior White House counselor John Podesta.

Pioneer said its ruling is narrowly drawn to fit its own operations. But Enterprise said its ruling isn’t specific to its own operations or processing equipment. Any company that processes condensate in a manner that adheres to Commerce’s ruling can sell it to Enterprise for export, the company said.

As many as 10 other companies have since applied for their own rulings on oil exports, according to people familiar with the matter. All those requests are on hold for now.

The 400,000 barrel shipment leaving the U.S. from Enterprise’s terminal in Texas City, south of Houston, was purchased by GS Caltex Corp., a South Korean refiner. Oil traders and executives say negotiations are already under way for additional sales to Asian buyers.

— Amy Harder, Eric Yep and Alison Sider contributed to this article.

Write to Christian Berthelsen at christian.berthelsen@wsj.com and Lynn Cook at lynn.cook@wsj.com

Daniel Yergin: Why OPEC No Longer Calls the Shots

  • The Wall Street Journal
  • OPINION
  • October 14, 2013, 7:26 p.m. ET

Daniel Yergin: Why OPEC No Longer Calls the Shots

The oil embargo 40 years ago spurred an energy revolution. World production is 50% higher today than in 1973.

  • DANIEL YERGIN

Forty years ago, on Oct. 17, 1973, the world experienced its first “oil shock” as Arab exporters declared an embargo on shipments to Western countries. The OPEC embargo was prompted by America’s military support for Israel, which was repelling a coordinated surprise attack by Arab countries that had begun on Oct. 6, the sacred Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur.

With prices quadrupling in the next few months, the oil crisis set off an upheaval in global politics and the world economy. It also challenged America’s position in the world, polarized its politics at home and shook the country’s confidence.

Yet the crisis meant even more because it was the birth of the modern era of energy. Although the OPEC embargo seemed to provide proof that the world was running short of oil resources, the move by Arab exporters did the opposite: It provided massive incentive to develop new oil fields outside of the Middle East—what became known as “non-OPEC,” led by drilling in the North Sea and Alaska.

The Prudhoe Bay oil field was discovered in Alaska five years before the crisis. Yet opposition by environmentalists had prevented approval for a pipeline to bring the oil down from the North Slope—very much a “prequel” to the current battle over the Keystone XL pipeline. Only in the immediate aftermath of the embargo did a shaken Congress approve a pipeline that eventually added at its peak as much as two million barrels a day to the domestic supply.

image

image

© Corbis

A Connecticut filling station in 1974 amid the oil embargo.

The push to find alternatives to oil boosted nuclear power and coal as secure domestic sources of electric power. The 1973 crisis spawned the modern wind and solar industries, too. By 1975, 5,000 people were flooding into Washington, D.C., for a conference on solar energy, which had been until then only “a subject for eco-freaks,” as one writer noted at the time.

That same year, Congress passed the first Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which required auto makers to double fuel efficiency—from 13.5 miles per gallon to 27 miles per gallon—ultimately saving about two millions barrels of oil per day. (The standards were raised in 2012 to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025). France launched a “war on energy waste,” and Japan, short of resources and fearing that its economic miracle was at risk, began a drive for energy efficiency. Despite enormous growth in the U.S. economy since 1973, oil consumption today is up less than 7%.

The crisis also set the stage for the emergence of new importers that have growing weight in the global oil market. In 1973, most oil was consumed in the developed economies of North America, Western Europe and Japan—two thirds as late as 2000. But now oil consumption is flat or falling in those economies, and virtually all growth in demand is in developing economies, now better known as “emerging markets.” They represent half of world oil consumption today, and their share will continue to increase. Exporting countries will increasingly reorient themselves to those markets. Last month, China overtook the U.S. as the world’s largest net importer of oil.

A lasting lesson of the crisis years is the power of markets and their ability to adjust to disruptions, if government allows them to. The iconic images of the 1970s—gas lines and angry motorists—are trotted out whenever some new disruption happens. Yet those gas lines weren’t the result of markets. They were the largely self-inflicted result of government interference in markets with price controls and supply allocation. Today, the oil market is much more transparent owing to the development of futures markets.

The 1970s were also years of natural-gas shortages, which turned into a bitter political issue, particularly within the Democratic Party. Many at the time attributed these shortages to geology, but they too were the result of regulation and price controls. What solved the shortages wasn’t more controls but their elimination, which resulted in an oversupply that became known as the “gas bubble.” Today, abundant natural gas is the default fuel for new electricity generation. The lesson is that markets and price signals can work very efficiently, and surprisingly swiftly, even in crises, if they are allowed to.

There will be future energy disruptions because there is still much political risk around oil. In 2013, the Middle East is still in turmoil, but the alignments are different. In 1973, Iran was one of America’s strongest allies in the Middle East. Tehran didn’t participate in the embargo and pushed oil into the market. But since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Washington and Tehran have been adversaries. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which was at the center of the 1973 embargo, is now America’s strongest Arab ally.

The real lesson of the shock of 1973 and the second oil shock set off by the overthrow of Iran’s shah in 1979 is that they provided incentives—and imperatives—to develop new resources. Today, total world oil production is 50% greater than in 1973. Exploration in the North Sea and Alaska was only the beginning. In the early 1990s, offshore production expanded farther out into the Gulf of Mexico, opening up deep water as a new oil frontier. In the late 1990s, Canadian oil sands embarked on an era of growth that today makes them a larger source of oil than Libya before its 2011 civil war.

Most recent is the development of “tight oil,” the spinoff from shale gas, which has increased U.S. oil output by more than 50% since 2008. This boom in domestic output increases energy supply, and combined with shale gas has a much wider economic impact in jobs, investment and household income. As these tight-oil supplies increase, and as the U.S. auto fleet becomes more efficient, oil imports have declined. Imports reached 60% of domestic consumption in 2005, but they are now down to 35%—the same level as in 1973.

As the U.S. imports less oil it also produces more to the benefit of energy security. There are several million barrels of oil now missing from the world oil market, owing to sanctions on Iranian oil, disappointments in Iraqi production, and disruptions to varying degrees in Libya, South Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen. The shortfall is being partly made up by Saudi Arabia, which is producing at its highest level.

But the growth in U.S. oil output has been crucial in compensating for the missing barrels. Without it, the world would be looking at higher oil prices, there would be talk of a possible new oil crisis, and no doubt Americans would once again start seeing images of those gas lines and angry motorists from 1973.

Mr. Yergin, vice chairman of IHS, is the author of “The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World” (Penguin Press, 2012).

A version of this article appeared October 15, 2013, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why OPEC No Longer Calls the Shots.

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

Texas’ Next Big Oil Rush (WSJ 6/23/13)

New pipelines are beginning to carry a glut of domestic crude from the middle of the country to Texas’s Gulf Coast, boosting the fortunes of the area’s big refineries and further fueling a decline in oil imports. Dan Strumpf reports.

New pipelines are beginning to carry a glut of domestic crude from the middle of the country to Texas’ Gulf Coast, boosting the fortunes of the area’s big refineries and further fueling a decline in oil imports.

Magellan Midstream Partners’ Longhorn pipeline began shipping oil from West Texas to Houston in April—the first of at least seven pipeline projects that could send as much as two million barrels a day from oil-saturated choke points in Oklahoma and the interior of Texas to the largest concentration of refineries in the country. But domestic oil production is at such a high level that the Gulf Coast refineries won’t be able to process all of the crude.

The pipelines, all set to come online by the end of next year, mark a new phase in the U.S. oil boom.

Hydraulic fracturing has pushed U.S. oil output to its highest level in 17 years, but without adequate pipelines, much of the crude has been trapped at storage facilities, including domestically produced light, sweet crude at the massive storage hub in Cushing, Okla.

Because that Oklahoma crude is relatively stranded, its price is depressed compared with prices of oil stored in other parts of the U.S. and in Europe. But with the new pipelines, as well as increased use of rail cars and barges to move crude, Cushing prices are expected to rebound.

Light, sweet crude at Cushing is now trading at a discount of about $6 a barrel from imported European Brent crude, but far less than the $20 discount in February. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. says the discount could narrow to $5 by the third quarter as more pipeline capacity becomes available.

Oil refineries like this one near Houston are expected to benefit from new pipelines carrying less-expensive crude from inland and Midwest sites.

Refiners on the Texas Gulf Coast, which process about a quarter of U.S. gasoline, are poised to be the beneficiaries of the new pipelines. They have been largely stuck paying for more-expensive imported crude, or paying extra transport costs to have the cheaper, stranded U.S. crude brought in on rail cars, which are generally more costly than pipelines.

Valero Energy Corp., Phillips 66 and Marathon Petroleum Corp., as well as Exxon Mobil Corp., which runs a major refinery in Baytown, Texas, all stand to gain.

Valero will realize profit margins of $12.80 per barrel from 2013 to 2017, compared with $10.50 in 2011 and 2012, estimates investment research firm Morningstar. Phillips 66’s margins are projected to grow to $13.50 per barrel, from $11.40.

Refineries in the Midwest, meanwhile, may see adverse consequences. They have benefited from the regional glut, buying the low-price crude but selling gasoline at the same prices as their coastal competitors. (The price at the gas pump in the U.S. is determined by the higher cost of imported crude.)

Investors are already betting that Midwestern refiners’ profit margins will fall. Shares for CVR Energy Inc., which produces fuel in Oklahoma and Kansas, fell 4.3% Monday as the West Texas crude-oil discount continued to deteriorate.

However, Texas refiners won’t be able to take full advantage of the influx of U.S. oil, most of which is of the variety known as light sweet. That is because many of those refineries were modified years ago to also deal with heavier crudes from Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, preventing significant portions of their plants from refining light crude.

“It’s rare to find a refinery down there that can take the majority of its crude” from the U.S. supply of light, sweet oil, said Cowen Securities analyst Sam Margolin.

Some industry experts think the pipelines will simply ease the oil glut in Cushing and create one in the Houston area as U.S. crude pours into the area faster than refiners can process it.

Trying to sell the crude abroad instead won’t provide refiners a relief valve: U.S. law prohibits most crude exports, although refined products can be shipped overseas.

“We think the U.S. Gulf Coast gets saturated” with U.S. and Canadian crude once the pipelines are completed, said Greg Garland, CEO of Phillips 66, the independent refiner which spun off from ConocoPhillips last year. If that occurs, Mr. Garland said more crude will instead have to move to the East and West coasts by rail.

The arrival of more U.S. light, sweet crude on the Texas coast is displacing imports of similar crude from Nigeria and Angola, which dropped to their lowest levels in about a quarter of century last year, a concern that was aired at the most recent OPEC meeting in May.

The competition from the new light crude arriving in Houston could push down the prices paid by Gulf Coast refiners for Gulf of Mexico oil, said Alex Morris, energy analyst at Raymond James. But it is unlikely that deep-water production would be curtailed, he added, because onshore production is easier to shut off if prices go down.

Write to Alison Sider at alison.sider@dowjones.com, Dan Strumpf at daniel.strumpf@dowjones.com and Ben Lefebvre at ben.lefebvre@dowjones.com

A version of this article appeared June 25, 2013, on page B1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Texas’ Next Big Oil Rush.