4_prix
π Geopolitics π Economics π Energy
Oil to lithium, the energy transition is shuffling the cards for global politics

Oil in murky waters : pressure on prices and uncertain demand

with Patrice Geoffron, Professor at the University of Paris-Dauphine and Director of Center of Energy and Climate Change Economics (CGEMP)
On May 13th, 2021 |
3min reading time
Patrice Geoffon
Patrice Geoffron
Professor at the University of Paris-Dauphine and Director of Center of Energy and Climate Change Economics (CGEMP)
Key takeaways
  • For the first time, due to the pandemic, investments from oil majors in low-carbon technologies are higher than budgets allocated to oil and gas exploration and production.
  • It looks like the downturn on the oil market is here to stay – the crisis appears to have altered demand in a lasting way, due to our lifestyle shifts (remote working, e-learning, telemedicine).
  • The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that total energy demand will increase by only 4% over this decade (versus 12% predicted before the pandemic), the lowest level of growth since the 1930s.

Pan­de­mic and oil crisis

The oil mar­ket seems to have gone back to “nor­mal,” with bar­rels pri­ced well above $50 since ear­ly this year and costs cove­red in most pro­duc­tion zones. But it’s too ear­ly to know what to expect of the oil indus­try going through the 2020s because the pan­de­mic will clear­ly leave las­ting scars. This is how the IEA has sum­med up the many serious “sin­gu­la­ri­ties” of a year without precedent.

The oil majors’ finan­cial results also confirm these conclu­sions : BP, Che­vron, Exxon, Shell and Total took losses of near­ly $80bn in 2020, com­pa­red to pro­fit of near­ly $50bn in 2019. Need­less to say, this cri­sis direct­ly impac­ted invest­ments in oil and gas explo­ra­tion and pro­duc­tion, which also drop­ped by more than 30% in 2020. For the first time, these invest­ments were over­ta­ken by money pou­red into low-car­bon tech­no­lo­gies : rene­wable ener­gy, elec­tric vehicles, hydro­gen, etc. This is the big­gest drop recor­ded since the turn of the cen­tu­ry – in com­pa­ri­son, the bru­tal drop seen in 2014–2016 “only” rea­ched 22% over two years (during the coun­ter-shock spar­ked by the Ame­ri­can uncon­ven­tio­nal gas pro­duc­tion boom). 

Of course, eco­no­mic sup­port bills have sof­te­ned the impact of the shock – the G20 pro­vi­ded up to $250bn in direct and indi­rect sup­port mea­sures to fos­sil fuel pro­duc­tion and consump­tion (for pro­du­cers, air­lines and car manu­fac­tu­rers), ver­sus $230bn for rene­wables, ener­gy effi­cien­cy and low-car­bon alternatives.

A long-term cri­sis for supply…

Even with these mea­sures, the scene is set for insta­bi­li­ty to become a fix­ture this decade, for both sup­ply and demand.

First­ly, because price regu­la­tion mecha­nisms remain very weak, with the inter­na­tio­nal mar­ket domi­na­ted by the Uni­ted States, Rus­sia and Sau­di Ara­bia. Although it’s now almost for­got­ten, the March 2020 drop in bar­rel prices was not only due to Covid-19, but also because of Russia’s deter­mi­na­tion to engage in a price war against the Ame­ri­can oil indus­try, brea­king an agree­ment with Sau­di Ara­bia that had been in place since 2016. With the glo­bal eco­no­my grin­ding to a halt, the Rus­sians and Sau­dis had to rebuild ties qui­ck­ly. Howe­ver, the fact remains that any joint effort to regu­late volumes, while sup­por­ting prices, will allow Ame­ri­can pro­duc­tion to climb again throu­ghout the 2020s like in the last decade (even if, in the short term, Ame­ri­can pro­du­cers seem more concer­ned with rees­ta­bli­shing their mar­gins than increa­sing their volumes). That being said, Pre­sident Biden qui­ck­ly dis­tan­ced him­self from his predecessor’s poli­cy by stop­ping the giant pipe­line pro­ject (Keys­tone-XL) which would have connec­ted Cana­dian oil with refi­ne­ries in the Gulf of Mexico.

Howe­ver, Biden’s power to direct­ly res­trict the acti­vi­ty of natio­nal oil com­pa­nies is limi­ted by the fear of increa­sing imports and rekind­ling concerns over depen­den­cy, assua­ged since the late 2000s oil and shale gas boom (an indus­try which pro­vides ten mil­lion well-paying jobs), espe­cial­ly since the White House only has direct control over ope­ra­tions under­ta­ken on fede­ral territory.

… and demand

Second­ly, if we look at demand, the “bou­quet” of uncer­tain­ties is also com­ple­te­ly unpre­ce­den­ted. Some fac­tors were alrea­dy there, of course, par­ti­cu­lar­ly concer­ning the speed of deve­lo­ping and adop­ting green tech­no­lo­gies. In this area, the Uni­ted States’ return to the Paris Agree­ment and Biden’s sti­mu­lus stra­te­gy (spe­ci­fi­cal­ly invest­ments into “green” infra­struc­ture) will cer­tain­ly act as an acce­le­rant. If the US reaches its objec­tive of redu­cing emis­sions by 52% (com­pa­red to 2005) by 2030, dai­ly oil consump­tion could be redu­ced from 19 to 10 mil­lion bar­rels a day in the Uni­ted States.

But other fac­tors, direct­ly trig­ge­red by the pan­de­mic, were not sup­po­sed to affect demand for oil. The intro­duc­tion of new socioe­co­no­mic sys­tems that are like­ly to last, with growth in dis­tance acti­vi­ties (remote wor­king, e‑learning, tele­me­di­cine), has chan­ged both trans­port needs and connec­ted ener­gy consump­tion. To this, we can add shifts in tou­rism and inter­na­tio­nal trade, whose impact on oil demand has not yet been cal­cu­la­ted. At this point, the IEA is sim­ply sta­ting that inter­na­tio­nal demand for oil in 2021 should remain around 3% below 2019 levels, due to both lower levels of road trans­port and, most­ly, air tra­vel (down 20–30% com­pa­red to pre-pan­de­mic levels). Beyond that, it fore­sees only 4% growth in total ener­gy demand over the decade (com­pa­red to its pre-pan­de­mic pre­dic­tion of 12%), the lowest level of growth since the 1930s.

Could the envi­ron­men­tal tran­si­tion be the solution ?

Such pre­dic­tions, even more chao­tic than before the pan­de­mic, have pushed some oil majors to start trans­for­ming their busi­ness model. Those in Europe (BP, Shell and Total) recent­ly set objec­tives to reach car­bon neu­tra­li­ty by the middle of the cen­tu­ry. Howe­ver, faced with skep­ti­cism from NGOs, they will have to put their money where their mouth is. Even Sau­di Ara­bia, with its “Vision 2030,” seems to have ack­now­led­ged the limi­ta­tions of exclu­sive depen­den­cy on oil (and the uncer­tain­ty regar­ding the value of its 50 years of reserves).

But beyond these efforts for an “orga­ni­sed” tran­si­tion, concerns main­ly cen­ter on the most fra­gile pro­du­cing coun­tries (Iraq, Iran, Nige­ria, Alge­ria, Libya), which were struck hard by the pan­de­mic at a time when the pre­vious decade had alrea­dy left them in a wea­ke­ned posi­tion. Fai­ling that, decar­bo­ni­sa­tion efforts may just make the geo­po­li­ti­cal situa­tion even more chaotic.

Contributors

Patrice Geoffon

Patrice Geoffron

Professor at the University of Paris-Dauphine and Director of Center of Energy and Climate Change Economics (CGEMP)

Patrice Geoffron has been acting president and international vice-president of the University of Paris-Dauphine. He also directed the Economics laboratory and has been a visiting professor at Bocconi University in Milan for several years, as well as a member of the Cercle des Économistes. He heads the energy-climate team at LED which runs several research chairs (Climate Economics, Gas Economics, European Electricity Markets) and a Master's degree (Energy-Finance-Carbon). Previously, he was a member of the World Council of the International Association for Energy Economics and an expert for the Citizen’s Climate Convention.

Support accurate information rooted in the scientific method.

Donate