CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power keppler-totals

Published on May 1st, 2014 | by Giles Parkinson

13

Global Fossil Fuels Face A Loss Of $30 Trillion

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

May 1st, 2014 by  

Originally published on RenewEconomy.

The global fossil fuel industry faces a loss of $US28 trillion ($A30.2 trillion) in revenues over the next two decades, if the world takes action to address climate change, cleans up pollution and moves to decarbonise the global energy system.

The assessment, made by leading European broking house Kepler Chevreux, underlines what’s at stake for the fossil fuel industry from a push to cleaner fuels and concerted efforts to reduce emissions, and helps explain the enormous push back from the oil and coal industries in particular against such policies.

The Kepler Chevreux report, led by Paris-based analyst Mark Lewis, a former head of Deutsche Bank’s carbon and energy team, says the oil industry has most to lose, with the potential loss of $US19.3 trillion in revenues from 2015 to 2035. The coal industry stands to lose $US4.9 trillion, while the gas industry $US4 trillion.

The latter two markets have particular implications for Australia, which is among the world’s largest exporters of LNG and thermal coal.

keppler totals

The most at risk projects are the high cost, high carbon sources – particularly deepwater drilling, oil-sands and shale-oil plays –which rely on high prices for oil.

Kepler Chevreux arrives at its primary conclusions by comparing the forecasts included in the International Energy Agency’s “New Policies Scenario”, which is effectively business as usual, and what would be needed to meet the 450 Scenario, the parts per million level seen as a benchmark for capping global warming to a maximum 2°C. These graphs below illustrate the emissions reduction path, and the IEA’s estimate of how this might affect production of various energy sources.

keppler emissions

But Kepler Chevreux says that its predictions do not rely on there being a global climate agreement struck in Paris at the end of 2015. It says trillions of dollars are still at risk from unilateral and regional action, pollution controls such as those being implemented by China, and the falling of cost of renewables, which will likely displace more coal, gas and oil production.

“The oil industry’s increasingly unsustainable dynamics … mean that stranded-asset risk exists even under business-as-usual conditions,” Kepler Chevreux writes. “High oil prices will encourage the shift away from oil towards renewables (whose costs are falling) while also incentivising greater energy efficiency.

This graph below illustrates the problem. Much of the existing production is low to medium cost, but the remaining reserves – such as those locked under the Arctic, and in complicated and deep reserves, are all expensive to extract.

kepplerOn this point, the report reflects the majority view of leading investment houses, including Citigroup’s latest assessment that the “Age of Renewables has begun” on the basis of costs, and Sanford Bernstein’s recent warning that the world faced a scenario of energy price deflation because of the impact of the plunging cost of solar, and its likely displacement of fossil fuels across the world.

Some of these stranded asset scenarios are already playing out in Australia. The prospect of energy price deflation could have an impact on LNG projects planned and under construction, as well as the mega projects planned for the Galilee Basin. Independent analyst Tim Buckley recently suggested that Australia’s biggest coal infrastructure project was already at risk, and the soaring price of gas is also sidelining generators and forcing write downs.

According to The Australian, the Energy Supply Association of Australia commissioned a report from Lewis (before he joined Kepler Chevreux) that shows $4 billion of Australia gas-fired generation assets at risk. The ESAA is using this research to argue for the renewable energy target to be dumped, while renewable energy developers say renewable energy will protect consumers from soaring gas prices.

The global fossil fuel industry has been clinging grimly to the IEA’s New Policies scenario, seeking to justify – to both shareholders and bankers – the huge investment it is making in exploration and ever-more capital-intensive projects.

Kepler Chevreux is particularly critical of ExxonMobil’s recent carbon risk report, saying it had focused almost exclusively on business-as-usual scenarios, and “did not advance the debate at all.”

The report says that most existing production – be it in oil, gas or coal – are not at risk. The production at risk are the proven reserves that yet to be developed. As Citigroup and others, including HSBC and Deutsche Bank have previously noted, these proven but as yet undeveloped assets form a significant part of some company’s market and asset valuations.

On the subject of renewables, Kepler Chevreux says tremendous cost reductions have been achieved in recent years, and this is likely to continue over the next two decades – just as the upward trajectory for oil costs becomes steeper.

“This suggests, perhaps paradoxically, that there could be a real risk to the oil industry from rising oil prices under a BAU scenario, as combined with continuing reductions in the costs of renewable technologies this could drive the accelerated substitution of oil in the global energy mix over the next two decades,” it writes.

“In turn, this would risk creating stranded assets over the medium to longer term both for the oil industry itself and – owing to the central role of oil in energy pricing more generally – for the global fossil-fuel industry as a whole.

“The implications of such a scenario would be momentous, as it would mean that the oil industry potentially faces the risk of stranded assets not only under a scenario of falling oil prices brought about by the structurally lower demand entailed by a future tightening of climate policy, but also under a scenario of rising oil prices brought about by rising demand under increasingly constrained supply conditions.”

Not that the oil industry is taking much notice. Most of the major energy forecasts rely on the IEA’s New Policy Scenario. The broking house is particularly critical of the oil industry’s clinging to business as usual forecasts

For this reason Kepler Chevreux is highly critical of ExxonMobil’s recent report on how it was managing carbon risk. The broking house said Exxon was too focused on business as usual, was dismissive of the risk of a co-ordinated global policy response ever happening; and far too “binary” in its assessment of the climate-policy risks the oil industry faces.

“We have already acknowledged that a 450-ppm deal by December 2015 does not look at all likely, but the point about global climate policy is as much the direction of travel as the speed.

“And in effectively dismissing the likelihood of policymakers ever getting genuinely serious in terms of policy ambition, we think ExxonMobil is giving itself a free pass in terms of the need to at least contemplate what a 450-ppm world would mean. It said ExxonMobil“ did not advance the debate at all” but it did signal the importance of engaging investors and bankers in the debate.

It notes that certain kinds of investments – notably high-cost, high carbon assets such as Canadian oil sands – could become socially unacceptable as investments for growing numbers of institutional investors over time. Indeed, this was one of the assets explicitly cited by shareholders that forced Exxon to write its carbon risk report.

“We can also envisage a risk of stranded assets arising for oil companies under a scenario of rising oil prices,” Lewis writes.

“Specifically, if oil prices rise faster in future than currently assumed by the IEA in its base-case projections, we think this could lead to an acceleration of the policy incentives for, and deployment of, renewable-energy technologies and energy-efficiency measures, and hence a faster shift away from oil in the global energy mix over the next three decades than ExxonMobil assumes.?

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

is the founding editor of RenewEconomy.com.au, an Australian-based website that provides news and analysis on cleantech, carbon, and climate issues. Giles is based in Sydney and is watching the (slow, but quickening) transformation of Australia's energy grid with great interest.



  • Doug

    In California, the state is reducing gasoline consumption year over year. Refineries are closing. If only other states would catch on. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091840_california-to-use-1-billion-gallons-less-gasoline-in-six-years

    • Otis11

      Thanks for the link – good read.

  • http://www.energyquicksand.com/ Edward Kerr

    The fossil fuel industry, due to it’s irrational thinking, has locked itself into a financial and environmental death spiral. They refuse to face the fact that continuing to increase atmospheric CO2 will lead to disaster long before they can bring all of the known ‘reserves’ to market. Imagining that a rise of 2deg C will have no consequences is delusional at best. We are already seeing rapid and unpredictable climate changes @ .85C. At 2C self-reinforcing feed-backs will be beyond our control. Yet they blithely consume more and more of the world’s financial resources to feed (our/their) deadly addiction.

    The massive subsidies that are routinely given to fossil energy producers have always hidden the exigent costs of what has become humanities folly. If people had to pay the actual cost(s) at the pump or in their electric bills they would be up in arms demanding that we switch to a carbon neutral energy paradigm. When it hidden in subsidies, health costs, military spending, etc few seem to be able to connect those dots.

    I’ve been accused of being an alarmist (why we aren’t all alarmed is a mystery to me) when I’ve averred that if we don’t reverse course as rapidly as possible that mankind is headed for, if not extinction, at least the complete collapse of the industrial civilization (and I use that word somewhat loosely). If I’m right in my calculations (and I hope that I’m not) I wonder in hindsight how much we will have paid for every gallon of gasoline/diesel or every ton of coal that we consumed?

    This train that is being pulled by the engine of fossil fuel use will lead the industry to disaster. The question that we must ask ourselves is,” will we continue to allow ourselves to be passengers on this ride to hell”?

  • LookingForward

    To help solve the problem of stranding of assets governments should start with 1 thing: stop building new coal and gas fired powerplants, let renewables take the brunt, they will be able to in most of the world in the next few years anyway. Look at the US, I wouldn’t be surprised if, on average, from 2014 to 2018 over 90% new capacity will be renewable/low carbon.
    From next year on, new capacity of low carbon will be atleast 10-12GW anually, is that not enough to cover electricity growth (if there is any, looking at efficiency growth) and replacing retiring plants?

    • Doug

      It depends on which electricity growth forecast you believe. With rising prices, demand for electricity in the US may actually level out, which would result in renewables generating over 100% of net new capacity.

      • Bob_Wallace

        How about ‘has leveled out’?

  • Karl-Friedrich Lenz

    I disagree with the basic premise. If regulation tells ExxonMobil that they need to reduce production by 7% a year, what would that do to the price of oil? Wouldn’t it go up massively? And what would that in turn mean for the valuation of their 13.238 billion barrels of oil?

    Having strong CO2 regulation reduce oil supply would assure gigantic extra profits for the oil industry. Once they understand this simple fact, they will lobby for such regulation to happen. Our little global warming problem would be solved in no time.

  • Banned by Bob

    Oil production typically declines about 10%/year from existing wells. If E&P companies simply quit reinvesting their current returns back into their businesses, their production profile would decline quite quickly. They have the ability to easily adjust to future demand growth/decline scenarios quite easily as they have demonstrated over time.

    You can be sure that the major E&P companies are aware of what is going on in the Renewables space and what impact it will have on their business.

    • Bob_Wallace

      I wouldn’t be surprised if some haven’t quite got it.

      A recent survey of utility district CEOs found 5% saying that distributed solar would have no impact on their business.

      • Calamity_Jean

        Sounds like those guys have been reading their own propaganda too much.

  • JamesWimberley

    I trust the Harvard Corporation’s investment managers are reading this. They are more likely to listen to researchers at investment banks and brokers than their own students and faculty.

  • Ross

    The complacency of the fossil fuel dealers is to be welcomed. It will make them less prepared and drive up their costs relative to renewable energy.

  • sault

    No wonder they spend $1B to confuse the public and buy elections each year. It’s chump change compared to what they will eventually lose.

Back to Top ↑