據今日油價6月3日報道，環保激進主義者要求石油巨頭大幅減少排放，并將戰略轉向低碳能源投資，而不是石油和天然氣，這可能在不遠的將來，導致油價飆升。盡管環保人士和激進的股東們希望大型國際石油公司進一步削減上游投資，但世界能源體系還沒有準備好剝離大型石油公司正在勘探和開發的油氣資源。目前，全球80%的能源仍由化石燃料來滿足，無論凈零排放目標是否實現，全球向低碳能源的過渡將需要幾十年，而不是幾年。

　　對大型石油公司當前戰略方向的指責，為氣候活動家可能忽視的一些意想不到的后果埋下了伏筆。這些后果包括在無意中給予歐佩克更多的全球石油市場控制權。國有石油公司們(其所在國家的環保政策要比石油巨頭所在的歐美國家弱得多)將急于填補供應缺口。

　　此外，在開發新資源方面的投資大幅減少，要知道，在2020年油價暴跌后，這種投資已經很低了，可能會導致未來的供應緊張。當石油供應難以跟上需求時，這將反過來導致油價飆升。

　　一些人可能會說，石油需求無論如何都會下降，世界對石油供應的需求也不會像過去10年那樣大。但目前沒有跡象表明石油需求正準備大幅下降，盡管存在一廂情愿的想法和凈零假設，包括國際能源署(IEA)的一份爆炸性報告，該報告指出，如果世界要在2050年達到凈零排放，就不需要批準今年計劃以外的任何新的石油和天然氣投資。

　　但需要注意的是，即使全球氣溫上升2攝氏度，對新石油的投資仍將是重要的。伍德麥肯茲(Wood Mackenzie)分析師表示，新的低成本、低碳原油將是必要的，以替代成熟油田不斷減少的產量。伍德麥肯茲指出，如果來自國際石油公司的投資不足，國有石油公司將加緊探明新資源并將其商業化。

　　如果大型石油公司聽從環保主義者的呼吁和國際能源署“不再進行新的石油和天然氣投資”的建議，那么在一個能源轉型剛剛開始、仍需要石油和天然氣來運作和支持經濟體的世界里，石油供應將受到嚴重限制。

　　挪威石油和天然氣協會（Norwegian Oil and Gas Association）表示：“如果需求沒有像國際能源署在其設想中所假設的那樣迅速下降，同時供給端被掐斷，全球能源供應可能受到威脅，并導致能源價格變得非常高?！?。挪威是西歐最大的石油生產國，其環境標準比歐佩克的石油生產國更為嚴格，其石油排放量是世界上最低的國家之一。

　　在歐洲，石油巨頭們正準備在未來幾十年里減少排放，并逐步降低石油產量，以兌現到2050年實現凈零排放的承諾。然而，這些公司也意識到，石油和天然氣的利潤將為他們的“能源轉型”投資組合買單。

　　原道達爾首席執行官Patrick Pouyanné表示：“我們需要停止生產石油，這很好，但如果不再有足夠的項目或產量，將會發生什么呢？我們也需要慎重考慮?！?/p>

　　Rystad energy表示，過去十年來，大型石油公司的儲量有所下降，但即使是歐洲的大型石油公司，也繼續依賴以油氣銷售為主導的商業模式。這些公司都承諾成為凈零排放的能源企業。

　　Rystad energy負責上游研究的副總裁Parul Chopra表示:“如果儲量不足以維持生產水平，企業將難以為昂貴的能源轉型項目提供資金，從而導致其清潔能源計劃放緩?！?/p>

　　早在股東和氣候維權人士發出迄今最大的警告之前，大型石油公司就已經意識到投資低碳能源的必要性。然而，如果石油巨頭在當前計劃之外大幅削減未來的石油供應，或者按照環保人士的要求“不開采”石油，這將導致油價飆升，也將使世界上大部分的石油供應掌握在歐佩克+手中。

　　王佳晶 摘譯自 今日油價

　　原文如下：

　　Climate Revolt Against Big Oil May Lead To Surge In Crude Prices

　　The surge in climate activism demanding that Big Oil drastically cut emissions and shift strategies to investment in low-carbon energy instead of oil and gas could result in a surge in oil prices in the not-too-distant future. As much as environmentalists and activist shareholders want the major international oil firms to slash upstream investment further, the world’s energy system is not ready yet to deprive itself of the oil and gas resources that Big Oil is exploring and developing. As it stands, 80 percent of global energy is still being met by fossil fuels, and net-zero emission targets or not, the global transition to low-carbon sources of energy will take decades, not just years, and a shareholder meeting or two.

　　Last week’s rebuke of Big Oil’s current strategic direction sets the stage for some unintended consequences that climate activists may have overlooked.

　　These consequences include unintentionally giving OPEC even more control over the global oil market. National oil companies—in countries where environmental policies are much weaker than in the U.S. and Europe where the oil supermajors are based—will be all-too-eager to step up and fill in the supply gap.

　　Then, significantly reduced investments in developing new resources—which are already low after the 2020 oil price collapse—could lead to a supply crunch down the road. This will, in turn, result in an oil price spike when oil supply struggles to catch up with demand.

　　Some would argue that oil demand would fall anyway, and the world wouldn’t need as much supply as it did over the past decade. But there are currently no signs that oil demand is getting ready for a drastic fall, despite wishful thinking and net-zero scenarios, including the one from the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) bombshell report that suggested no new investment in oil and gas needs to be approved beyond this year’s commitments if the world is to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

　　Investment in new oil will continue to be important, even if the world gets on the 2 degrees Celsius pathway. New low-cost, low-carbon barrels will be necessary in order to replace dwindling production from maturing fields, Wood Mackenzie analysts said last week. If these investments from international oil firms are insufficient, the national oil firms will step up to prove and commercialize new resources, WoodMac notes.

　　If Big Oil were to heed all the calls from environmentalists and the IEA’s suggestion of ‘no new oil and gas investment ever again’, oil supply would be severely constrained in a world that is only at the beginning of its energy transition and still needs oil and gas to function and support economies.

　　“If demand does not decline as rapidly as the IEA assumes in its scenario, and the supply side is simultaneously choked off, global energy provision could be threatened and lead to very high energy prices,” said the Norwegian Oil and Gas Association, the professional body and employers’ association of the industry. Norway, Western Europe’s biggest oil producer, has more stringent environmental standards than OPEC’s producing countries and pumps oil at one of the world’s lowest emissions levels.

　　In Europe, oil majors are preparing to reduce emissions and gradually slow oil production over the coming decades as per their net-zero by 2050 pledges. However, those firms are also aware of the fact that it will be oil and gas profits that will pay for their ‘energy transition’ portfolios.

　　“It’s nice to say that we need to stop producing oil, but if there are no longer enough projects or production, what will happen? Prices will rise,” Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive at TotalEnergies, formerly Total, told France’s Europe 1 radio on Monday.

　　Over the past decade, Big Oil’s reserves have dropped, but even Europe’s majors, all of which have pledged to become net-zero emission energy businesses, continue to rely on business models dominated by oil and gas sales, Rystad Energy said in a report last month.

　　“If reserves are not high enough to sustain production levels, companies will find it difficult to fund expensive energy transition projects, resulting in a slowdown of their clean energy plans,” said Parul Chopra, vice president of upstream research at Rystad Energy.

　　Big Oil had already awakened to the need to invest in low-carbon energy even before last week’s biggest wake-up call from shareholders and climate activists so far. Yet, aggressive reductions—or ‘keeping it in the ground’ as environmentalists demand—in future oil supply beyond the oil majors’ current plans would lead to oil price spikes. It would also leave most of the world’s supply in the hands of OPEC and Russia.