據(jù)今日油價(jià)10月12日?qǐng)?bào)道，俄羅斯石油公司(Rosneft)的一位高管形容英國石油(BP)和殼牌(Shell)最近承諾轉(zhuǎn)向可再生能源的做法是“石油供應(yīng)面臨的危機(jī)”。迪迪埃?卡西米羅表示，這種轉(zhuǎn)變將導(dǎo)致石油供應(yīng)更加吃緊，而需求將繼續(xù)增長。而這場供應(yīng)危機(jī)有可能推高油價(jià)，令Rosneft等公司受益。在今年的大部分時(shí)間里，石油市場的焦點(diǎn)一直是需求。正是需求使這場石油工業(yè)危機(jī)成為前所未有的危機(jī)。以前價(jià)格也曾下跌，但供應(yīng)通常會(huì)下降以平衡市場。但現(xiàn)在，而幾年春季需求被新冠肺炎造成的危機(jī)所掏空，盡管歐佩克+和非歐佩克成員國大幅減產(chǎn)，但需求仍使油價(jià)保持低位。

他補(bǔ)充道，從另一方面來講，需求也是促使大型石油公司如此迅速地在可再生能源領(lǐng)域采取行動(dòng)的因素之一。這些計(jì)劃在危機(jī)之前就已經(jīng)在制定了，但危機(jī)給了很大的推動(dòng)力。現(xiàn)在，英國石油和殼牌都計(jì)劃減少的石油和天然氣產(chǎn)量，加大對(duì)可再生能源的投資。正如英國石油最近股價(jià)下跌所顯露的那樣，投資者仍保持謹(jǐn)慎，但就目前而言，這種轉(zhuǎn)變似乎是不可避免和不可阻擋的，而這很可能造成供應(yīng)缺口。

卡西米羅在英國《金融時(shí)報(bào)》的一場活動(dòng)中表示：“我認(rèn)為，這些石油巨頭要脫離他們正在做的核心業(yè)務(wù)，就需要有人介入。因?yàn)檫@會(huì)對(duì)供應(yīng)構(gòu)成威脅，我們將面臨（供應(yīng)）緊縮、價(jià)格波動(dòng)，當(dāng)然還有面臨更高的價(jià)格的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)?！?/span>

近期，石油需求的持續(xù)擔(dān)憂導(dǎo)致價(jià)格持續(xù)走低，在這種情況下，很難看清未來走勢。美國能源信息署(EIA)連續(xù)三周報(bào)告的原油庫存連續(xù)三周上漲的信息，無法提振油價(jià)。與此同時(shí)，航空公司再次以請(qǐng)求政府更多援助的方式占據(jù)了新聞?lì)^條，眾做周知，航空旅行占了燃料需求的很大一部分。在航空旅行恢復(fù)之前，石油需求無法恢復(fù)到疫情爆發(fā)前的水平。

當(dāng)前，疫情仍在繼續(xù)，對(duì)新一輪出行限制的擔(dān)憂也在加劇，這加劇了看跌情緒。這種擔(dān)心的合理性是值得懷疑的，因?yàn)?，今年春季?shí)施封鎖的政府為此付出了高昂代價(jià)，除非感染人數(shù)繼續(xù)快速上升，否則不太可能再次冒險(xiǎn)實(shí)施封鎖。但這次疫情的感染人數(shù)可能會(huì)繼續(xù)上升，而且速度很快，死亡人數(shù)是否會(huì)快速上升尚不清楚，“不確定性”是全世界面臨的難題。

盡管現(xiàn)在很難集中精力關(guān)注供應(yīng)趨勢，但大規(guī)模的開支削減是事實(shí)，大型石油公司對(duì)可再生能源、能源存儲(chǔ)和電動(dòng)汽車充電的熱衷也是事實(shí)。這遲早會(huì)導(dǎo)致供應(yīng)短缺，即使需求趨于穩(wěn)定或下降。

英國石油（BP）對(duì)需求的預(yù)測可能最為悲觀，該公司在最新的能源展望中，正尋求轉(zhuǎn)型為綜合能源公司。即使是最樂觀的情況下，該公司預(yù)計(jì)未來幾年石油需求將趨于平穩(wěn)，然后開始穩(wěn)步下降。人們似乎越來越一致地認(rèn)為，短期內(nèi)需求可能永遠(yuǎn)無法恢復(fù)到疫情爆發(fā)前的水平。

像上述這樣的一般性結(jié)論的問題在于，它們往往需要加以解釋。目前，主流的解釋似乎支持繼續(xù)實(shí)施生產(chǎn)控制。歐洲正在走綠色之路，中國也在走綠色之路，殼牌和英國石油以及它們的大多數(shù)同行也在走綠色之路。石油需求肯定會(huì)保持低位。然而，亞洲有許多新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體并沒有采取環(huán)保行動(dòng)，因?yàn)樗麄儸F(xiàn)在負(fù)擔(dān)不起，尤其是在經(jīng)濟(jì)受到疫情破壞的情況下。盡管石油價(jià)格低廉，但他們將利用石油取代可再生能源來推動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇。

Rystad Energy曾在6月時(shí)預(yù)測，石油短缺將從6月的150萬桶/天增加到7月的460萬桶/天。根據(jù)這段時(shí)間的價(jià)格變動(dòng)來看，這種情況并沒有發(fā)生。復(fù)蘇的緩慢步伐令所有人措手不及。但仍有供應(yīng)趨緊的預(yù)估，高盛(Goldman Sachs)上月表示，預(yù)計(jì)今年年底前石油缺口將達(dá)到每日300萬桶，并推高油價(jià)。此外，瑞銀還預(yù)計(jì)會(huì)出現(xiàn)供應(yīng)短缺和價(jià)格上漲。

短期內(nèi)，大型石油公司勢必將參與到這次油價(jià)復(fù)蘇中來。但從長期來看，隨著這些大型石油公司放棄目前的核心業(yè)務(wù)，它們將為國有石油公司和頁巖鉆探公司留出更多空間。就目前而言，從所有雄心勃勃的政府可再生能源轉(zhuǎn)移計(jì)劃看來，這一空間可能不會(huì)太大，但仍要注意不確定性因素，以及對(duì)大多數(shù)這些計(jì)劃能否成功存疑。只要?dú)W佩克能挺過當(dāng)前的危機(jī)，最終可能會(huì)比疫情爆發(fā)前更強(qiáng)大。

王佳晶 摘譯自 今日油價(jià)

原文如下：

Could Big Oil’s Shift To Renewables Be Good For Prices?

An existential crisis for oil supply: this is how one Rosneft executive referred to BP’s and Shell’s recent commitments to a renewable energy shift. This shift, Didier Casimiro said, would lead to much tighter oil supply while demand continues to grow. And this existential crisis has the potential to benefit companies such as Rosneft by driving prices higher. For much of this year, the focus, when it comes to oil markets, has been on demand. It was demand that made this oil industry crisis an unprecedented one. Prices have fallen before, and as a result, supply typically falls to balance the market. But now, for the first time in history, it was demand that was the bigger culprit for the oil price collapse from this spring. Demand was eviscerated by the coronavirus pandemic. Demand is what is still keeping oil prices low despite a major cut in production made by OPEC+ and by non-members of the extended oil cartel.

Demand is also one of the factors that spurred Big Oil into such swift action on renewable energy. Their plans were in the making before the crisis, but it was the crisis that gave them a major push. Now, BP and Shell both plan to reduce their oil and gas production and invest more heavily in renewables. Investors remain wary as BP’s recent stock price drop suggests, but for now, the shift appears to be inevitable and unstoppable. And it may well create a gap of supply.

“I think that to go away from your core business, which is what they are doing, somebody will need to step in?.?.?.?somebody will need to take that responsibility,” Rosneft’s Casimiro told a Financial Times event. “It is an existential threat for supply. It is an existential threat for price volatility?.?.?.?we will have a [supply] crunch, price volatility, and yes higher prices,” he added.

It may be difficult to see so far into the future when all we hear these days is that continued fear about this oil demand is keeping prices low. Even three consecutive weekly crude oil stock draws reported by the Energy Information Administration could not help prices, because at the same time, airlines were again hogging headlines with their pleas for more government aid—and air travel accounts for a lot of fuel demand. Until air travel recovers, oil demand cannot recover to pre-pandemic levels.

Meanwhile, the pandemic continues, and fear of new lockdowns is also running high, fueling the bearish sentiment. How justified this fear is, is questionable as the governments that enforced lockdowns in the spring paid for them dearly and are unlikely to risk them again unless infection numbers continue to rise, and fast. But this is the thing with this pandemic: it is possible that infection numbers will continue to rise, and fast—whether the death counts will match remains unclear. Uncertainty is the name of this game, and the whole world is playing it.

Even though it may be hard to concentrate on supply trends right now, the massive spending cuts are a fact, and so is Big Oil’s enthusiastic foray deeper into renewables, energy storage, and EV charging. Sooner or later, this combination may well lead to a shortage of supply, even if demand is plateauing or falling.

BP has perhaps one of the most pessimistic projections for demand: in its latest Energy Outlook, the supermajor, which is on a quest to transform into an integrated energy company, said that even its most optimistic scenario saw oil demand plateauing over the next few years and then start declining steadily. Other forecasters tend to focus on short-term demand trends, but there appears to be a growing consensus that demand might not ever recover to pre-pandemic levels.

The trouble with general conclusions like the one above is the fact they lend themselves to interpretation. For now, the dominant interpretation appears to support continued production controls. Europe is going green, China is going green, and Shell and BP—along with most of their peers—are also going green. Oil demand is bound to stay low. Yet there are a lot of emerging economies in Asia that are not going green because they can’t afford it right now—not with their economies devastated by the coronavirus. And while oil is cheap, they will take it over renewables to fuel their economic recovery.

In June, Rystad Energy predicted a deepening oil deficit, to rise from 1.5 million bpd in June to 4.6 million bpd in July. Based on what we saw in terms of price movements during that period, this did not happen. The slow pace of recovery caught everyone unawares. But there are still forecasts for tighter supply: Goldman Sachs just last month said it expected the oil deficit to hit 3 million bpd by the end of this year and push prices up. UBS also expects a shortage and higher prices.

Over the short term, Big Oil will undoubtedly take part in this price recovery. But over the longer term, as the supermajors move away from what is now their core business, they will leave more space for the national oil companies and for shale drillers. For now, with all ambitious government programs for a renewable energy shift it looks like this space may not be too large but let’s not forget about the factor of uncertainty and the abounding doubts about the success of many of these programs. OPEC, as long as it survives the current crisis, might just end up even stronger than it was before the pandemic.