You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
As the world tries to move away from fossil fuels, the oil supermajor acquires one of the Permian Basin’s biggest players. Here’s why.

ExxonMobil has long been considered by observers as something more akin to a state than a mere oil company. Its signature massive overseas projects, which can take over a decade to go from idea to getting oil out of the ground, require not just billions of dollars of investment, but the type of on-the-ground convincing and conniving typical of interstate diplomacy.
Exxon executives even got the awards typically reserved for statesman, as when the company’s former chief executive (and future secretary of state) Rex Tillerson received the Russian Order of Friendship as a commendation for the work ExxonMobil did with the Russian state oil company Rosneft in the Arctic.
But ExxonMobil now sees the future of the oil business in its relative backyard — namely, the Permian Basin, the massively productive oil field that stretches from western Texas to eastern New Mexico, and specifically its western stretch, the Midland basin. The move represents an acknowledgement that the world’s energy markets have changed and the ability to start — and stop — production quickly may be more valuable than securing massive new projects.
ExxonMobil and Pioneer Natural Resources announced a planned stitch-up on Wednesday, combining the supermajor with one of the Permian’s biggest players. The deal is worth almost $60 billion, making its ExxonMobil’s biggest deal since its purchase for, well, Mobil in 1999.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
The combined companies will, in less than five years, be producing 2 million barrels of oil per day in the Permian (out of over 5 million total), ExxonMobil’s chief executive Darren Woods said Wednesday morning. Today, merged production would represent some 1.3 million barrels per day, about half of Exxon Mobil’s total in 2022. Exxon will own some 1.4 million acres in the Permian, thanks to Pioneer’s 850,000.
The average cost of extracting the oil in territory controlled by Pioneer will be $35, Woods said, well below where oil prices have ranged in the last year.
Now, much of Exxon’s oil portfolio will be in so-called “short-cycle” oil, meaning that the time that elapses between deciding to drill and getting oil out of the ground is shorter.
“Where new, major conventional fields cost billions of dollars, take several years to begin, and a decade or more to produce from, a hydraulic fracturing well costs $10 million or less, takes a few months to set up, and produces the majority of its oil within a few years. It provides a flexible means by which investors can extract oil, distinct from the mainstream industry,” explained University of California geographer Gabe Eckhouse in 2021.
These investments can swing dramatically in response to oil prices. When ExxonMobil slammed the brakes on oil production in the early months of the pandemic, it even announced a 75% cut in its Permian rigs.
ExxonMobil is not positioning itself to a world where the fossil fuel business dries up, but one where demand becomes more unstable. When oil executives can forecast that demand will steadily grow over time, they can justify billion-dollar-investments in massive new oil projects.
“All that Big Oil needed was the geological acumen to find the next reservoir and the political skills to sign a contract with a government in a far-flung corner of the world. Its cash and prowess to build marvels of engineering mega-projects would do the rest for the next 50 years or so,” Bloomberg’s Javier Blas wrote when the deal first came into focus last week.
With a portfolio more heavily weighted towards domestic assets that are cheaper to operate, ExxonMobil can now more nimbly respond to wild swings in energy policy across the globe — whether it’s a major oil exporter disappearing from the legitimate Western market, or countries in the industrialized world deliberately reducing their oil consumption — and more precisely scale its investment to oil demand.
“When commodity markets have downcycles, the short-cycle assets provide additional capital flexibility as shale assets require less long-term capital commitments, compared to conventional operation,” Woods said, essentially explaining to investors that ExxonMobil would be able to conserve cash when oil prices dropped and return it to them when oil prices go back up.
ExxonMobil isn’t the only company buying in the Permian. Pioneer itself previously swallowed up DoublePoint Energy, which had almost 100,000 Midland Basin acres, as well as Parsley Energy. Occidental, which has been a leader in investing in carbon management, bought Andarko in a massive $55 billion deal in 2019. The Pioneer acquisition could be a sign that new wave of consolidation is upon the Permian.
While the deal is not at all consistent with a world without fossil fuels, it’s not entirely inconsistent with where we are today, where much of the rich world at least has some kind of climate policy. Earlier this year, ExxonMobil announced that it would buy Denbury Inc., which operates a massive set of pipelines for transporting carbon dioxide. They could be used in the oil giant’s emerging carbon-management business, which includes deals for carbon capture for its Louisiana ammonia plant, a Nucor steel plant, and a hydrogen plant it’s working on in Texas. Woods said Thursday morning on an investor call that the deal “strengthens our low-carbon solutions business by increasing the volume of low-cost and lower-carbon Permian feed into our planned Baytown low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia facilities,” and that it would use its technology to reduce emissions from its oil operations in the territory it acquired from Pioneer.
But ExxonMobil itself isn’t being reduced. It’s only getting bigger.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
1. Marion County, Indiana — State legislators made a U-turn this week in Indiana.
2. Baldwin County, Alabama — Alabamians are fighting a solar project they say was dropped into their laps without adequate warning.
3. Orleans Parish, Louisiana — The Crescent City has closed its doors to data centers, at least until next year.
A conversation with Emily Pritzkow of Wisconsin Building Trades
This week’s conversation is with Emily Pritzkow, executive director for the Wisconsin Building Trades, which represents over 40,000 workers at 15 unions, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the Wisconsin Pipe Trades Association. I wanted to speak with her about the kinds of jobs needed to build and maintain data centers and whether they have a big impact on how communities view a project. Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
So first of all, how do data centers actually drive employment for your members?
From an infrastructure perspective, these are massive hyperscale projects. They require extensive electrical infrastructure and really sophisticated cooling systems, work that will sustain our building trades workforce for years – and beyond, because as you probably see, these facilities often expand. Within the building trades, we see the most work on these projects. Our electricians and almost every other skilled trade you can think of, they’re on site not only building facilities but maintaining them after the fact.
We also view it through the lens of requiring our skilled trades to be there for ongoing maintenance, system upgrades, and emergency repairs.
What’s the access level for these jobs?
If you have a union signatory employer and you work for them, you will need to complete an apprenticeship to get the skills you need, or it can be through the union directly. It’s folks from all ranges of life, whether they’re just graduating from high school or, well, I was recently talking to an office manager who had a 50-year-old apprentice.
These apprenticeship programs are done at our training centers. They’re funded through contributions from our journey workers and from our signatory contractors. We have programs without taxpayer dollars and use our existing workforce to bring on the next generation.
Where’s the interest in these jobs at the moment? I’m trying to understand the extent to which potential employment benefits are welcomed by communities with data center development.
This is a hot topic right now. And it’s a complicated topic and an issue that’s evolving – technology is evolving. But what we do find is engagement from the trades is a huge benefit to these projects when they come to a community because we are the community. We have operated in Wisconsin for 130 years. Our partnership with our building trades unions is often viewed by local stakeholders as the first step of building trust, frankly; they know that when we’re on a project, it’s their neighbors getting good jobs and their kids being able to perhaps train in their own backyard. And local officials know our track record. We’re accountable to stakeholders.
We are a valuable player when we are engaged and involved in these sting decisions.
When do you get engaged and to what extent?
Everyone operates differently but we often get engaged pretty early on because, obviously, our workforce is necessary to build the project. They need the manpower, they need to talk to us early on about what pipeline we have for the work. We need to talk about build-out expectations and timelines and apprenticeship recruitment, so we’re involved early on. We’ve had notable partnerships, like Microsoft in southeast Wisconsin. They’re now the single largest taxpayer in Racine County. That project is now looking to expand.
When we are involved early on, it really shows what can happen. And there are incredible stories coming out of that job site every day about what that work has meant for our union members.
To what extent are some of these communities taking in the labor piece when it comes to data centers?
I think that’s a challenging question to answer because it varies on the individual person, on what their priority is as a member of a community. What they know, what they prioritize.
Across the board, again, we’re a known entity. We are not an external player; we live in these communities and often have training centers in them. They know the value that comes from our workers and the careers we provide.
I don’t think I’ve seen anyone who says that is a bad thing. But I do think there are other factors people are weighing when they’re considering these projects and they’re incredibly personal.
How do you reckon with the personal nature of this issue, given the employment of your members is also at stake? How do you grapple with that?
Well, look, we respect, over anything else, local decision-making. That’s how this should work.
We’re not here to push through something that is not embraced by communities. We are there to answer questions and good actors and provide information about our workforce, what it can mean. But these are decisions individual communities need to make together.
What sorts of communities are welcoming these projects, from your perspective?
That’s another challenging question because I think we only have a few to go off of here.
I would say more information earlier on the better. That’s true in any case, but especially with this. For us, when we go about our day-to-day activities, that is how our most successful projects work. Good communication. Time to think things through. It is very early days, so we have some great success stories we can point to but definitely more to come.
The number of data centers opposed in Republican-voting areas has risen 330% over the past six months.
It’s probably an exaggeration to say that there are more alligators than people in Colleton County, South Carolina, but it’s close. A rural swath of the Lowcountry that went for Trump by almost 20%, the “alligator alley” is nearly 10% coastal marshes and wetlands, and is home to one of the largest undeveloped watersheds in the nation. Only 38,600 people — about the population of New York’s Kew Gardens neighborhood — call the county home.
Colleton County could soon have a new landmark, though: South Carolina’s first gigawatt data center project, proposed by Eagle Rock Partners.
That’s if it overcomes mounting local opposition, however. Although the White House has drummed up data centers as the key to beating China in the race for AI dominance, Heatmap Pro data indicate that a backlash is growing from deep within President Donald Trump’s strongholds in rural America.
According to Heatmap Pro data, there are 129 embattled data centers located in Republican-voting areas. The vast majority of these counties are rural; just six occurred in counties with more than 1,000 people per square mile. That’s compared with 93 projects opposed in Democratic areas, which are much more evenly distributed across rural and more urban areas.
Most of this opposition is fairly recent. Six months ago, only 28 data centers proposed in low-density, Trump-friendly countries faced community opposition. In the past six months, that number has jumped by 95 projects. Heatmap’s data “shows there is a split, especially if you look at where data centers have been opposed over the past six months or so,” says Charlie Clynes, a data analyst with Heatmap Pro. “Most of the data centers facing new fights are in Republican places that are relatively sparsely populated, and so you’re seeing more conflict there than in Democratic areas, especially in Democratic areas that are sparsely populated.”
All in all, the number of data centers that have faced opposition in Republican areas has risen 330% over the past six months.
Our polling reflects the breakdown in the GOP: Rural Republicans exhibit greater resistance to hypothetical data center projects in their communities than urban Republicans: only 45% of GOP voters in rural areas support data centers being built nearby, compared with nearly 60% of urban Republicans.

Such a pattern recently played out in Livingston County, Michigan, a farming area that went 61% for President Donald Trump, and “is known for being friendly to businesses.” Like Colleton County, the Michigan county has low population density; last fall, hundreds of the residents of Howell Township attended public meetings to oppose Meta’s proposed 1,000-acre, $1 billion AI training data center in their community. Ultimately, the uprising was successful, and the developer withdrew the Livingston County project.
Across the five case studies I looked at today for The Fight — in addition to Colleton and Livingston Counties, Carson County, Texas; Tucker County, West Virginia; and Columbia County, Georgia, are three other red, rural examples of communities that opposed data centers, albeit without success — opposition tended to be rooted in concerns about water consumption, noise pollution, and environmental degradation. Returning to South Carolina for a moment: One of the two Colleton residents suing the county for its data center-friendly zoning ordinance wrote in a press release that he is doing so because “we cannot allow” a data center “to threaten our star-filled night skies, natural quiet, and enjoyment of landscapes with light, water, and noise pollution.” (In general, our polling has found that people who strongly oppose clean energy are also most likely to oppose data centers.)
Rural Republicans’ recent turn on data centers is significant. Of 222 data centers that have faced or are currently facing opposition, the majority — 55% —are located in red low-population-density areas. Developers take note: Contrary to their sleepy outside appearances, counties like South Carolina’s alligator alley clearly have teeth.