In a warming world, Big Oil does not look quite so big anymore.
A global glut of oil and natural gas has sent prices tumbling over the past two years and profits are evaporating. Improving auto fuel efficiency standards threaten to depress oil consumption eventually, and fleets of electric vehicles are gradually emerging in China and a few other important markets.
Perhaps most troubling for oil companies over the long term is the goal — agreed to in December last year by virtually every country in the world at a climate conference in Paris — of staving off a rise in average global temperatures of more than 2?C above preindustrial levels.
International Energy Agency (IEA) executive director Fatih Birol has said that to reach that goal, two-thirds of the global coal, oil and natural gas reserves still underground might never be burned without some improbable technological breakthrough in dealing with the carbon emissions. This position has been echoed by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney.
The oil industry has experienced global crises, booms and busts for over a century, and few energy experts think it faces an existential threat in the immediate future. The world will still need oil and gas for decades, and normal declines in existing fields oblige further drilling. However, change is almost certainly coming.
“Any energy company in the world that makes its strategy without considering climate change policies is making a major mistake, not only a major mistake for the climate, but also for their own profits and for their own shareholders, because climate change policies represent a fundamental challenge to business as usual,” Birol said in an interview.
IEA’s projections of future global oil demand include one possibility in which demand could drop more than 20 percent from today’s levels, to 74 million barrels per day by 2040, if measures are put in place to keep global warming at levels proposed at the Paris conference. As coal burning declines precipitously and renewable energy grows steadily, natural gas demand will rise only modestly by 2040 even as the global population grows, if the world truly wants to come to grips with climate change.
Not surprisingly, many oil executives view a different path as more likely. Exxon Mobil, for example, projects that global demand for oil will keep growing — by more than 13 percent from today to 109 million barrels per day by 2040.
At the same time, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell and many other companies are investing heavily in natural gas as a lower-carbon answer to growing global energy needs. They view gas as a clean fuel of the future.
“We continue to believe fossil fuels will have a significant and important role to play for as far as we can see,” Exxon Mobil chief executive Rex Tillerson said at the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting in May.
Which way the world will turn is still in doubt. Most oil executives and independent experts agree that the ambitious Paris target will be challenging to reach and that reduced burning of fossil fuels will require big technological and policy shifts.
Governments will probably need to be more proactive in deploying nuclear power, which is virtually carbon-free, many experts say.
Coal-fired power plants will need to be equipped with costly carbon capture and sequestration systems. Higher prices for carbon-based fuels are needed in countries like the US to depress demand and encourage investments in nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration.
Advanced biofuels must be developed to produce renewable fuels without competing with food supplies. Better and cheaper batteries are needed to make electric cars affordable, while recharging stations need to be deployed far more widely.
All those strategies are costly, politically charged or technically challenging. Big scientific breakthroughs would be needed.
Oil companies have tried to offer solutions to remain relevant. Exxon Mobil, for instance, has financed research into carbon capture and sequestration, and lobbied for a carbon tax. Royal Dutch Shell has been a big investor in Brazilian biofuels, while Chevron has long been one of the biggest investors in geothermal energy. The French oil company Total is making a major effort in solar power.
Several oil and gas companies have already moved quickly to reduce emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from their exploration and transmission operations. Some farsighted executives have even suggested that their natural gas production could eventually be a major source of hydrogen for fuel cells because methane is hydrogen-rich.
However, it is just a start. With their scientific and engineering prowess and capital muscle, many oil companies have the capacity to retrofit their business plans if and when they are forced to.
Shell vice president for global business environment Jeremy Bentham said that Shell and other oil companies could adapt and prosper to meet the world’s energy needs, which should continue to grow.
“Our portfolio mix would adjust over time, such that the level of the demand for oil would be met and the level of demand for overall energy would be met,” he said.
Bentham acknowledged that the world must leave some fossil fuels in the ground, but that the global community and not just oil companies must take action to reduce demand for carbon-based fuels.
“To have a demand at a much lower level you need a significant restructuring of mobility systems with more compact cities and with more public transport that can be electrified,” he said. “You’ve got to have hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles that can take a longer range — a whole restructuring that isn’t driven by energy production.”
The restructuring of a new energy system is years if not decades away and signs that important change is coming have been uneven.
The electric car market is growing slowly in the US and most of Europe because of high costs and range limitations, although it is advancing faster in China. Toyota, Hyundai and Honda already offer hydrogen fuel-cell cars in select markets, and other companies are testing models that would emit nothing but water from the tailpipe, but major market penetration could be decades away.
As for the petroleum industry, there are multiple signs of stress in a world of cheap hydrocarbons and rising environmental concerns. What once looked like a rush to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic has stalled. Investments in Canada’s oil sands have slowed, partly as a result of low commodity prices, but also because environmentalists have been successful in opposing the Keystone XL and other pipelines.
Likewise, the hydraulic fracturing revolution that led to a frenzy of drilling in the US is taking off in Argentina, but hardly anywhere else. The collapse in oil and natural gas prices has led to scores of bankruptcies, mounting debts and the slashing of exploration budgets. Attorneys general in several US states are investigating charges that Exxon Mobil raised doubts about climate change while its scientists warned about the dangers of carbon emissions.
In this new world, European companies have been relatively more responsive to change. Many have embraced shareholder proposals to acknowledge the need to limit the rise in global temperatures and to test operations to see how they would perform in a carbon-constrained world. Such proposals have mostly been rejected by the US majors.
Independent energy experts are either skeptical of or only cautiously optimistic about the will of the oil companies to change.
“Oil companies are moving slowly but surely,” Birol said. “Some are moving faster, and some are moving much, much slower, if at all.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath