????通訊員 據(jù)3月2日MENAFN消息：勘探和生產(chǎn)公司(E＆P)在過(guò)去十年中面臨的連續(xù)低迷加速了能源轉(zhuǎn)型，增加了對(duì)綠色能源解決方案日益增長(zhǎng)的社會(huì)和監(jiān)管需求。這對(duì)全球上游投資組合的彈性構(gòu)成了壓力。Rystad Energy上游團(tuán)隊(duì)的能源轉(zhuǎn)型專家已經(jīng)量化了油價(jià)和全球油氣組合凈現(xiàn)值(NPV)變化的長(zhǎng)期風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
????Rystad Energy根據(jù)能源多樣化、投資組合彈性和脫碳等因素，對(duì)E＆P在能源轉(zhuǎn)型過(guò)程中所采取的方式進(jìn)行了評(píng)估。
????長(zhǎng)期來(lái)看，能源轉(zhuǎn)型可能給油價(jià)帶來(lái)的下行風(fēng)險(xiǎn)高達(dá)10美元/桶，這意味著如果能源轉(zhuǎn)型加速，未來(lái)油價(jià)可能會(huì)比之前低10美元/桶。
????到目前為止，油價(jià)下跌的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)是決定全球勘探與生產(chǎn)上游投資組合彈性的最大因素，同時(shí)也是二氧化碳排放成本上升的潛在因素。Rystad Energy研究了排名前25位的非國(guó)有油氣公司的投資組合彈性，發(fā)現(xiàn)它們?cè)趹?yīng)對(duì)大宗商品價(jià)格下降和二氧化碳稅增加的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)方面存在很大差異。
????由于數(shù)量(擱淺資產(chǎn))導(dǎo)致的平均投資組合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)價(jià)值通常很低，平均對(duì)估值降低的貢獻(xiàn)不到1%，但價(jià)格導(dǎo)致的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)價(jià)值影響最大，平均降低30%。由于成本(二氧化碳稅)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)價(jià)值對(duì)大多數(shù)公司來(lái)說(shuō)很低，大多數(shù)低于10%。因此，由于能源轉(zhuǎn)型，一個(gè)平均投資組合的凈現(xiàn)值高達(dá)30-40%面臨風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
????能源轉(zhuǎn)型的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)因各勘探開(kāi)發(fā)公司而異。Rystad Energy的上游研究負(fù)責(zé)人Espen Erlingsen表示，與其他同行相比，挪威國(guó)家石油公司的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)相對(duì)較小，如果油價(jià)每桶下跌10美元并征收二氧化碳稅，該公司的上游投資組合價(jià)值可能會(huì)減少218億美元，降幅近30%。
????不同公司之間的價(jià)格風(fēng)險(xiǎn)存在較大跨度。對(duì)于有些公司來(lái)說(shuō)，當(dāng)油價(jià)長(zhǎng)期下跌10美元/桶時(shí)，其價(jià)值就會(huì)下降50%左右。價(jià)格風(fēng)險(xiǎn)較大的公司通常是油砂公司或頁(yè)巖/致密油公司。
????這些公司受影響最大的原因是，它們的投資組合通常包括盈虧平衡價(jià)格較高的資產(chǎn)。與此相反，由于價(jià)格風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在20-25%的范圍內(nèi)，大多數(shù)石油巨頭的價(jià)值都會(huì)下降。成熟的資產(chǎn)和高含氣量有助于降低這些公司的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
????當(dāng)涉及到二氧化碳相關(guān)成本時(shí)，一些公司以高價(jià)值脫穎而出。油砂公司的成本風(fēng)險(xiǎn)最高，以二氧化碳稅每噸100美元為例，會(huì)導(dǎo)致其投資組合價(jià)值下降約30%。
????埃尼、殼牌、挪威國(guó)家石油公司和道達(dá)爾的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)值都非常相似，風(fēng)險(xiǎn)值適中。埃克森美孚的收入風(fēng)險(xiǎn)高于其他同行，主要是因?yàn)樗耐顿Y組合包括幾個(gè)大型資本密集型項(xiàng)目，如二疊紀(jì)致密油和圭亞那資產(chǎn)。
????對(duì)于油砂和頁(yè)巖/致密油等利潤(rùn)較低的項(xiàng)目，生產(chǎn)商通常會(huì)在收入和成本方面受到影響。這其中的關(guān)鍵原因是這些項(xiàng)目的盈利能力對(duì)價(jià)格和成本的變化非常敏感。另外，油砂項(xiàng)目通常具有較高的二氧化碳排放量，這增加了其成本風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。
????馮娟 摘譯自 MENAFN
????原文如下：
????Energy Transition Could Cut Oil Prices By $10 Per Barrel
????The back-to-back downturns that exploration and production companies (E&Ps) have faced during the past decade have accelerated the energy transition, adding to growing social and regulatory demands for greener energy solutions. This is putting the resilience of global upstream portfolios under pressure. Energy transition experts on Rystad Energy's upstream team have now quantified the long-term risk of this change to oil prices and to the net present value (NPV) of global oil and gas portfolios.
????In an analysis marathon that has generated a series of three commentaries and a report to its clients, Rystad Energy has assessed the way E&Ps are navigating the energy transition, based on energy diversification, portfolio resilience and decarbonization. While the full in-depth findings are not going to be made public outside our client portal, in this press release we are offering a glimpse of our portfolio resilience findings.
????The downside risk that the energy transition can bring to oil prices is calculated to as much as $10 per barrel in the long term, meaning oil prices could end up $10 lower in the future than they otherwise would if the transition to cleaner energy speeds up.
????This oil price downside risk is by far the biggest factor in determining the resilience of global E&P upstream portfolios, along with the potential for rising costs for emitting carbon dioxide. Rystad Energy has studied the portfolio resilience of the top 25 non-national oil and gas companies and found big differences in how robust they are to the risks of lower commodity prices and increased CO2 taxes.
????While the average portfolio value at risk due to volume (stranded assets) is normally very low, on average contributing less than 1% to the reduction in valuation, the value at risk due to price has the largest impact, contributing to an average reduction of 30%. The value at risk due to cost (CO2 tax) is low for most companies, mostly below 10%. As a result, up to 30-40% of the net present value of an average portfolio is at risk as a result of the energy transition.
????'The energy transition risks vary depending on each individual E&P company. Equinor, for example, whose risk is relatively smaller compared to other peers, could see the value of its upstream portfolio reduced by $21.8 billion, almost 30%, with an oil price decrease of $10 per barrel and a CO2 tax,' says Espen Erlingsen, head of upstream research at Rystad Energy.
????There is a large span for the price risk among the different companies. For some companies the value is reduced by around 50% when the long-term oil price falls by $10 per barrel. Companies with a large price risk are typically oil sands companies or shale/tight oil companies.
????The reason these companies are most affected is that their portfolios normally include assets with high breakeven prices. On the opposite side of the scale, most majors have a reduction in value due to price risk in the range of 20-25%. Mature assets and high gas content help reduce the risk for these companies.
????When it comes CO2-related costs, some companies stand out with a high value. Oil sands companies have the highest cost risk, causing the value of their portfolio to decrease by around 30% in an example of a CO2 tax of $100 per tonne.
????Eni, Shell, Equinor and Total all have very similar scores with modest value at risk. ExxonMobil has a higher revenue risk than its peers, primarily because its portfolio includes several large, capital-intensive projects such as Permian tight oil and its Guyana assets.
????Producers with less profitable projects, like oil sands and shale/tight oil, are typically punished both along the revenue and cost dimensions. The key reason for this is that the profitability of these projects is very sensitive to price and cost changes. In addition, oil sands projects normally have high CO2 emissions, which increases their cost risk.
