Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Geoffrey Styles on Apr 2, 2014 with 3 responses

ExxonMobil Confronts the “Carbon Bubble”

Shareholders Quiz ExxonMobil on Climate Risks

Last fall I devoted a lengthy post to the notion that future policies to address climate change expose investors in companies producing fossil fuels to a bubble in asset valuations. So I was particularly interested to see that ExxonMobil (XOM) issued a report this week responding to specific shareholder concerns along these lines. Although the term “carbon asset bubble” did not appear in XOM’s report, the latter’s references to carbon budgets and the risk of stranded assets in a low-carbon scenario were aimed directly at this emerging meme.

Unsurprisingly, ExxonMobil’s management reassured investors that, “none of our hydrocarbon reserves are now or will become ‘stranded’.” Wisely avoiding past tendencies to question interpretations of climate science, the company’s analysis appears to be grounded in mainstream views of climate change. It focuses on the costs and achievability of an extreme low-carbon scenario, and on the resilience of the company’s portfolio under various climate policies.

You Can’t Get There from Here without Breaking the Economy Again

XOM’s analysis is based on the company’s latest Outlook for Energy, an annual global forecast broadly similar to the main “New Policies” scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA). It has fewer similarities to the IEA’s “450″ scenario that underpins carbon bubble claims. The company expects energy demand to grow at an average of about 1% annually over the next three decades–faster than population but much slower than the global economy–with increasing efficiency and a gradual shift toward lower-emission energy sources: Gas increases faster than oil and by more BTUs in total, while coal grows for a while longer but then shrinks back to current levels. Renewables grow fastest of all, producing about as much energy in 2040 as nuclear power does today. As a result of these shifts global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions peak around 2030 and then decline gradually.

That forecast won’t impress those advocating prompt and aggressive changes in the global energy mix to head off serious climate change, but it is not very different from the most recent global forecast of the US government’s Energy Information Administration. If anything, XOM expects slower growth of energy and emissions than the EIA.

Ultimately, XOM’s argument that it isn’t running outsized carbon asset risks depends heavily on its estimate of the implicit costs of achieving a much deeper and more rapid transition to renewables, compared to its (and others’) forecasts. It gauges this on the intensity of governments’ future climate policies, expressed in terms of their effective cost per ton of CO2, and on the affordability of such measures to energy consumers, especially in the developing world, where emissions are increasing rapidly.

Without directly disputing the technical feasibility of achieving such large and rapid emissions cuts, XOM essentially questions whether any government would or could impose the extraordinary costs necessary for that to occur. Their proxy estimate of $200/ton of CO2 for such policies is sobering. Even if that were all efficiently recycled by those governments–a heroic assumption–the resulting diversion of investment and increase in energy costs would adversely affect overall economic development.

A Conversation with Investors Based on the Numbers

I don’t know whether the sustainable investor groups that raised this issue with ExxonMobil will be satisfied with the response they got. Having participated in similar exercises at Texaco, Inc., I think XOM has gone well beyond the kind of perfunctory reply the investors might have expected. In particular, it has provided enough data to support a serious dialog with investors on this subject.

For example, XOM indicated that it “stress tests” its projects and acquisitions at proxy costs of up to $80/ton of CO2, compared to current levels of $8-10/ton in the EU’s Emission Trading System. Implicit in that is the question of whether investors would reasonably expect them to test projects at $200/ton., which would equate to around $100 per average barrel of oil, based on the nifty “seriatim” chart at the end of the report.

The document also includes information addressing the resiliency of the company’s assets and operations under a lower-carbon future, with their emphasis on natural gas and a global average cost of production under $12 per oil-equivalent-barrel (BOE). Climate policies would have to raise those costs and shrink the associated revenues very significantly, in order to jeopardize current production, nor are low oil prices generally consistent with a low-carbon world. Investments in future production are another matter, though XOM refers to the IEA’s 450 scenario to demonstrate how much additional oil and gas development would still be required in the next 20 years, even in a world that was determined to constrain global temperature increases to no more than 2°C.

Conclusion – Investors Have the Last Word

ExxonMobil’s  response to investors is unlikely to end the debate over the carbon bubble. While providing a lot of information, its rebuttal essentially argued that the extreme low-carbon scenario associated with the risks of a carbon bubble is irrelevant, because it can’t be achieved any time soon, irrespective of the risks associated with current emissions levels. If you’ve read my post on “Five Myths About the Carbon Asset Bubble“, you know that this is close to my own view.

Interestingly, the company’s report on carbon risks was apparently issued on the same day as the latest iteration of the predicted consequences of further warming from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In a sense each report provides context for the other, so that investors who accept the IPCC’s analysis can weigh the potential costs of global warming against the cost and scale of the changes that would be required to put the world on a crash program to avert the worst climate-change-related outcomes. They can then buy or sell accordingly.

Author’s disclosure: My portfolio includes no ExxonMobil stock, except within large, diversified mutual funds.

  1. By Tesla_X on April 5, 2014 at 1:33 am

    Carbon commies are destroying the US by imposing imaginary costs as taxes on businesses that provide needed jobs and energy to a still struggling economy.

    California democrats alone are destroying the job hiring potential of 500,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry over the next 10 years because of hysterical fear mongering of fracking.

    This is nothing more than economic suicide.

    Higher cost energy from carbon taxes will make china and Russia stronger.

    Shame on you for making plant food into a pollutant, and strengthening our adversaries.

    [link]      
  2. By Forrest on April 5, 2014 at 8:46 am

    My take on the science of global warming and alarmist. The science is soft, inaccurate, hard to prove, let alone projecting environmental damage. Even more so with projecting solutions. So, why are so many environmentalist so full of absolutes, certainties, hysteria, and so energized upon the subject? In short, it’s not the damages of global warming as much as the solutions to prevent and the power it bestows. Politics one empowered component. Politics requires a bogy man to rally the troops around and inject excitement upon fan base. Now, the earth requires their complete partisanship.

    What you post, energy demand will increase in spite of increased conservation efforts is easily overlooked. Green energy component of mix will increase, but will not meet demands, but nice to have nonetheless per lowering carbon footprint. Consumers will demand cost effective quality supply of energy and will seek that with money in hand. A factor to consider, will the alarmist be able to stampede public to foolish solutions? Convince or sell them easy solution’s that gut countries future? After all the majority get information about such matters not from blogs like these, but from entertainment (that includes news programs) or gain thinking skills per biases of public ed union teachers. Citizens also get approval per thinking skills by selecting political echo chambers to bolster confidence in thought process. Laugh, I guess we all need to exert are self importance. Your point of natural gas environmental benefit is important, as well. After reading of efficiencies of the advanced combined cycle turbine power plants, I now understand why NG is much less polluting than coal. It’s not the fuel itself as much as the utilization efficiency. Steam turbines not as efficient. Also, the fact these generators can throttle down easier to more efficiently meet low demand and start up much quicker makes them attractive. This fact alone pushes my thinking more to benefits of battery car and the need for coal to gas conversion solutions. If ever we could invent a low cost process for this and ship this technology around to emerging market economies….well that solution would do more than any green energy investment. Also, the battery car does fit in nice with CHP home energy production as well as the solar or wind fluxuations. If they could get price down and energy density up (a big if) the car may become the second car of choice.

    [link]      
  3. By Rahmat Hidayat on April 30, 2014 at 12:54 am

    it should be quantitatively risk analyzed

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!