????通讯员 据3月2日MENAFN消息：勘探和生产公司(E＆P)在过去十年中面临的连续低迷加速了能源转型，增加了对绿色能源解决方案日益增长的社会和监管需求。这对全球上游投资组合的弹性构成了压力。Rystad Energy上游团队的能源转型专家已经量化了油价和全球油气组合净现值(NPV)变化的长期风险。
????Rystad Energy根据能源多样化、投资组合弹性和脱碳等因素，对E＆P在能源转型过程中所采取的方式进行了评估。
????长期来看，能源转型可能给油价带来的下行风险高达10美元/桶，这意味着如果能源转型加速，未来油价可能会比之前低10美元/桶。
????到目前为止，油价下跌的风险是决定全球勘探与生产上游投资组合弹性的最大因素，同时也是二氧化碳排放成本上升的潜在因素。Rystad Energy研究了排名前25位的非国有油气公司的投资组合弹性，发现它们在应对大宗商品价格下降和二氧化碳税增加的风险方面存在很大差异。
????由于数量(搁浅资产)导致的平均投资组合风险价值通常很低，平均对估值降低的贡献不到1%，但价格导致的风险价值影响最大，平均降低30%。由于成本(二氧化碳税)的风险价值对大多数公司来说很低，大多数低于10%。因此，由于能源转型，一个平均投资组合的净现值高达30-40%面临风险。
????能源转型的风险因各勘探开发公司而异。Rystad Energy的上游研究负责人Espen Erlingsen表示，与其他同行相比，挪威国家石油公司的风险相对较小，如果油价每桶下跌10美元并征收二氧化碳税，该公司的上游投资组合价值可能会减少218亿美元，降幅近30%。
????不同公司之间的价格风险存在较大跨度。对于有些公司来说，当油价长期下跌10美元/桶时，其价值就会下降50%左右。价格风险较大的公司通常是油砂公司或页岩/致密油公司。
????这些公司受影响最大的原因是，它们的投资组合通常包括盈亏平衡价格较高的资产。与此相反，由于价格风险在20-25%的范围内，大多数石油巨头的价值都会下降。成熟的资产和高含气量有助于降低这些公司的风险。
????当涉及到二氧化碳相关成本时，一些公司以高价值脱颖而出。油砂公司的成本风险最高，以二氧化碳税每吨100美元为例，会导致其投资组合价值下降约30%。
????埃尼、壳牌、挪威国家石油公司和道达尔的风险值都非常相似，风险值适中。埃克森美孚的收入风险高于其他同行，主要是因为它的投资组合包括几个大型资本密集型项目，如二叠纪致密油和圭亚那资产。
????对于油砂和页岩/致密油等利润较低的项目，生产商通常会在收入和成本方面受到影响。这其中的关键原因是这些项目的盈利能力对价格和成本的变化非常敏感。另外，油砂项目通常具有较高的二氧化碳排放量，这增加了其成本风险。
????冯娟 摘译自 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.
