文华期货软件:脫碳對石油巨頭有戰略意義

远华外汇投资
文华期货软件:脫碳對石油巨頭有戰略意義

原標題:脫碳對石油巨頭有戰略意義

    中國石化新聞網訊 據今日油價1月23日報道,石油公司轉型為低碳、綠色企業是否有利可圖?這對投資者來說是個大問題。與石油投資者和管理層已經習慣的投資相比,綠色投資有著較低的風險,不過其獲得的回報也較低。此外,石油公司在可再生能源投資方面沒有特別的優勢——其中地熱能除外,因為它們可以利用其豐富的鉆井專業知識。為瞭使金融市場長期向好,石油行業的管理者需要超越可再生能源投資的“標準框架”。此外,由於投資者的貼現行為,市場不太可能給石油行業擁有的可再生能源項目賦予太多價值。綠色投資機會並不重要,除非大到足以吸收石油巨頭目前的巨額現金流。如果石油公司僅僅停止在勘探和生產上的資本支出,一些人對它們能找到足夠的可再生能源項目來取代現在在石油和天然氣上的支出表示懷疑:“如果沒有足夠的綠色能源項目,石油公司將無法用更環保的能源產品來取代石油收入。”

    脫碳需要的不僅僅是風能,一些替代需求,如能源存儲或核能需要巨額的資本支出。五大石油公司的年度資本支出計劃加在一起,可以還不足以建設完成占世界發電能力0.5%的10個核電站。或者,更實際地說,它們或許能滿足全球1%的能源儲存需求,不過,這些都是粗略的估算,還有很多領域可以投資。

    所有石油公司資本支出都會隨油價波動而波動,每年500億到1萬億美元似乎是一個合理范圍。這是一大筆錢。然而,全球電力部門脫碳所需資本支出每年可能接近1萬億美元。而電力供應商支出遠遠達不到這一水平,尤其是在美國,電力生產商正處於向脫碳的緩慢過渡階段。全世界每年用於脫碳的電力開支(超過2020年)至少有3000億美元的缺口。然而,這些數字還不包括更多經濟電氣化的額外支出(電動汽車、化學加工和加熱),這將使電力行業的支出至少增加三分之一。考慮到額外支出,目前的支出與向現有用戶和新用戶提供無碳能源所需的支出之間的差距將上升到每年6000億美元左右。

    因此,如果石油工業認真對待脫碳,它可以將其資本項目轉向電力脫碳。而電力行業可以吸收這些碳,盡管可能並不情願,因為許多美國電力公司在脫碳轉型過程中步調緩慢是有原因的。然而,石油公司從綠色投資中獲得的回報可能會更低,現在石油公司大量湧入該行業,不僅會更快地降低他們的盈利能力,而且還會減少石油產品銷售。放慢步伐,失去市場份額,還是加快步伐,用低利潤銷售取代高利潤銷售,但保持市場份額,這不是一個容易的決定。

    目前,石油公司希望在減少或消除碳排放方面取得長足進展,同時也希望人們保持耐心,因為改變大型企業的戰略投資政策需要很長時間。如果它們不理會那些悲觀的預言者,繼續保持良好的財務狀況,它們將擁有資源來幫助世界結束對化石燃料的依賴。在分析石油工業戰略時,請記住,為脫碳做出貢獻與純粹的綠色能源經濟是有區別的。為一個無論如何都會上漲的電力行業的融資,不應該真正算作對企業碳排放的抵消。

    所以,總而言之,石油行業可以在脫碳方面進行巨大而有意義的投資。這將加速或促成全球環境整治進程,但石油利潤可能會大大降低。或者,石油行業可以像往常一樣繼續經營,繼續投資於長期衰退但仍非常龐大、重要的現有業務。這種情況下,石油公司的希望不過是,這個看似不可避免的衰退發生得比預期要慢些,這也是該行業目前正在努力解決的問題。

    王佳晶 摘譯自 今日油價

    原文如下:

    Why Decarbonization Could Make Strategic Sense For Oil Majors

    Can oil companies profitably transform themselves into low carbon, green enterprises? That is a big question for investors. We have already noted that green investments because of their lower risk profile earn lower returns than those to which oil investors and managements have become accustomed. Also oil companies bring no particular edge in renewable investment with the possible exception of geothermal which could utilize the industry’s considerable drilling expertise. In order to make a long term positive financial oil industry managers need to look beyond the standard menu of renewable investments. Plus the market is not likely to ascribe much value to oil industry owned renewables due to a conglomerate discount by investors. Green investing opportunities will not matter unless large enough to absorb the presently huge cash flows of the petroleum majors. If oil companies simply stopped capital spending on exploration and production, could they find enough renewable projects to replace what they spend now on oil and gas? The doubters sneer, “There aren’t enough windmills out there. “ Without enough green projects, oil companies would have no way to replace oil -derived revenues with something greener but still in the energy business. Isn’t that the argument of those who want the oil companies to stick to their knitting?

    We can’t speak for the windmill count, but decarbonization requires more than windmills, and some of those alternative needs, such as energy storage or nuclear power (if someone can manage to get nuclear construction under fiscal control) require huge capital outlays. The combined annual capital expenditure program of the top five oil companies could fund completion of fewer than ten nuclear power plants accounting for maybe 0.5% of world electric generating capacity. Or, more practically, they could finance maybe 1% of the world’s energy storage needs. Those are rough numbers, but you get the idea. There is no shortage of places to put the money.

    The capital expenditures of all oil companies bounce around, depending on the price of oil, and $500-$1,000 billion a year seems a reasonable range to use. That is a lot of money to spend. However, the worldwide capital expenditure required to decarbonize the electricity sector may be close to $1,000 billion per year. And electricity providers are nowhere close to spending that amount, especially in the US where electricity producers are on a slow motion transition to decarbonization. We would venture that the annual shortfall in the spending needed to decarbonize electricity worldwide (spent over 20 years) is at least $300 billion. These numbers, however, do not include additional expenditures to electrify more of the economy (electric vehicles, chemical processes and heating) which would raise electric industry spending by at least one third. Taking into account that additional spending, the gap between present spending and that required to furnish carbon-free power to present and new users rises to around $600 billion per year.

    So, if the oil industry were serious about decarbonizing it could shift its capital program into electricity decarbonization. And the electric industry could absorb it although perhaps unwillingly because many U.S. electric companies have their own reasons for slow walking their decarbonization transitions. However as noted previously, the oil companies may earn a lower return from green investment and really piling in now would not only reduce their profitability faster, but also reduce sale of petroleum products. Go slow and lose market share or go fast and replace high margin sales with low margin sales but keep the market share? Not an easy decision.

    Right now, oil companies would love to be viewed as progressive, making strides to reduce or eliminate their carbon emissions, while still pleading for patience because it takes a long time to change strategic investment policy in very large corporations. And if despite the doomsayers they surprise and continue to do well financially they will have the resources to help the world end its reliance on fossil fuels. In analyzing oil industry strategies, keep in mind that there is a difference between making a contribution to decarbonization as opposed to mere greenwashing. Financing a windmill that would have gone up anyway shouldn’t really count as an offset to corporate carbon emissions.

    So, to sum up, the oil industry could make enormous and meaningful investments in decarbonization. That would accelerate or enable the process of global environmental remediation but with likely far lower oil profits. Or the oil industry can continue a business as usual strategy by continuing to invest capital in a still very large, important legacy business in secular decline. Their hope in this case is simply that the industry’s seemingly inevitable decline takes place more slowly than expected. That seems to be the issue the industry is grappling with right now. And there is a lot at stake.




外汇资讯相关推荐:
中国期货协会:【礦石產量】10月份鐵礦石原礦產量同比增長0.7%
期货手续费:滬鉛關註日線60日均線支撐
期货公司:生意社:11月19日文水振豐化肥碳酸鉀價格動態
期货基金:熱卷延續震蕩偏強
期货从业:短期矽鐵市場報價相對堅挺
期货知识:生意社:1月14日純苯國內市場動態
动力煤期货:CIFI窄幅回升
期货软件:期市開盤:棕櫚油、豆油漲逾2% 原油、紙漿跌近2%
苹果期货:農業農村部:目前秋糧長勢總體不錯
兴业银行股票:抱團股大跌!大佬看法不盡一致,國君策略稱首次藍籌股泡沫已至!林鵬:市場仍延續結構性行情
燃料油期货:【鐵路貨運】1-11月份國傢鐵路貨運量32.62億噸 同比增長4.72%
苹果股票:第33隻股票晉層首日大漲 有望帶動精選層後續發行
中国期货保证金监控中心:瑞達期貨:金銀探底回升 多空交投謹慎
期货居间人:彭超:加快轉變農業發展方式 推動稻米產業高質量發展
郑州期货交易所:(倫敦金屬)LME銅價從近8年高點回落
金信期货:在成本支撐下 矽鐵短線走穩
股票k线图:重磅!半年大賺超70億,又一超級獨角獸上市來瞭!這傢A股巨頭要笑瞭
a50指数期货:供需失衡助推美國大豆期貨連漲12天 創40年來最長漲勢
银行股票:主力資金凈流出166億元 龍虎榜機構搶籌11股
股指期货手续费:生意社:11月6日山東裕康化工環氧氯丙烷報價動態