Commentary – Sharpening Pencils for the Future of Oil

Commentary – Sharpening Pencils for the Future of Oil

Get yourself a ruler, a pencil and a piece of paper. Place the ruler at about 45 degrees and draw a line upward across the page.

That’s what a chart of world oil consumption looks like over the past 30 years, give or take a few shakes off the line (Figure 1).

That was easy. Now think about how to draw oil consumption over the next three decades.

Plenty of pundits are scrubbing their spreadsheets and fidgeting with their rulers to show us the answer.

Some forecasters are economists who work for multinational oil and gas companies and government agencies. Most of their oil outlooks extend upward. The biggest uncertainty is the angle of their rulers.

The steepest slope assumes that our prevailing consumption habits and government policies are extended out a few more decades. Oil demand reaches nearly 120 MMB/d at the top of this cluster, up almost 25% from today. More moderate trajectories in the group are based on pledges made pursuant to the November 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference; but tallying up country commitments still suggests modest growth to between 100 and 105 MMB/d by 2040.

A group of weaker outlooks tilt downward like a loosely held hockey stick. Clustering between 73 and 80 MMB/d by 2040, this collection of prognostications assumes more aggressive global efforts to limit carbon loading in the atmosphere and the faster adoption of innovations like electric vehicles. The International Energy Agency’s 450 Scenario is the most bearish demand outlook among these peers.

Environmental groups don’t equate fossil energy usage to classroom instruments or clichéd sports equipment. Slick oil charts from naysayers with green-coloured glasses look more like a BASE jump gone badly. The most catastrophic scenario appears to come from Greenpeace, which  proposes that pipelines will trickle in the range of 35 MMB/d by 2040.

What and whom to believe? The range of consumption estimates 25-years out is wider than the tailgate of a Ford F350; on one end is 35 MMB/d, on the other 120 MMB/d. Even the top cluster varies by 20%

Given the 80 MMB/d range in opinions and analyses (each convincing on their own), stakeholders in the oil business may feel a tendency to adopt a, “the truth lies in the middle,” forecast. This method instructs us to believe a midpoint somewhere between denial and exuberance.

Taking the median of all expert opinions and calling it the “consensus” of wisdom suggests oil demand will drop by 20% over the next quarter century. I don’t find this approach satisfying. Looking through a row of ten cloudy crystal balls doesn’t yield a new one of greater clarity.

For over 100 years, the oil industry and its stakeholders have believed that the market for their products will continue to grow ad infinitum without competitive challenges. Today, that thesis is about as useful as a bent ruler and a broken pencil.

Never in my 35-year career following energy markets has there been so much widespread disagreement about future demand for oil. And it’s a relatively recent confusion, one that’s been emerging over the past decade, but heightened in the past couple of years due to the potential forces of technological change and carbon regulation.

An 80 MMB/d disagreement in various outlooks says to me that there is little value to add by uploading yet another spreadsheet into an already foggy cloud of forecast charts.

I’m only confident in one fact and one forecast.

Fact: There is widespread ambiguity in expert outlooks for oil consumption, one of the world’s most vital commodities.

Forecast: The uncertainty is not going to diminish over the next five years at least. In other words, trends in technology, policy, economy and social factors are going to put wider and wider error bars on every pundit’s numbers.

In my mind, the fuzzy question of, “How much oil is the world going to consume by 2030 and beyond?” must now yield to sharper, qualitative thinking.

Pencils and rulers down, the questions going forward are, “What type of decisions will be made—relating to investment, corporate strategy, government policy and so on—under unprecedented uncertainty, and how will these near-term decisions affect the world’s long-term energy future?”

I’ll be pondering answers to these questions during my commute to work and back – in my new electric vehicle.

To be continued…

February 21, 2017 Charts

February 21, 2017 Charts

Broad equity indices hit all time highs last week; Investor bullishness rose to 2014 levels; US crude oil inventories rose to an all-time high.

Commentary – EV’s Face Battery Cost Road Block

Commentary – EV’s Face Battery Cost Road Block

     Source: Pixabay.com

The monopoly of the internal combustion engine (ICE) on human transport was not always a guaranteed outcome. At the turn of the last century, about one-third of the “horseless carriages” that were driving around New York, Boston, and Chicago were actually propelled by an electric drive and not one that fired pistons.

When gasoline-powered vehicles were first introduced, the technology had some serious drawbacks for mass market adoption. The cars were noisy, the exhaust was dirty, the gear system was complex, plus the hand crank for starting the engine was as inconvenient as it was dangerous. Early electric vehicles (EVs) seemed to have the upper hand. But not for long.

A critical innovation for the ICE was the development of the electric starter in 1911. Doing away with the hand crank removed a formidable barrier to adoption, and thanks to the combination of Henry Ford’s assembly line and the discovery of plentiful and cheap crude oil, affordability of the ignition engine improved, eliminating another hurdle for mass use.

Yet, on the flip side of history, after sitting on the sidelines of technological development for a century, EVs have started to make a comeback. This revival has been fueled by many factors including improved battery technology, high performance, and government policies that encourage electric car ownership through price subsidies.  For example, the Chinese government’s EV tax incentives reduce the price of a car between $US 6,000 and $US 10,000. Closer to home, the Ontario government’s incentive program provides up to $C 14,000 per vehicle.

As a result, global EV sales have been increasing by 70 percent year-on-year. And, while these annual increases are impressive, the sales numbers are off a small base.  In 2016, EVs still made up less than one percent of all new vehicle sales.

The falling cost of lithium-based batteries is one of the most influential factors that is reviving the market potential of EVs. Costs have dropped almost 80 percent in the past eight years, to an estimated $US 227/kWh in 2016 (Figure 1). These gains are impressive even though the rate of improvement has leveled off in recent years.

Even with today’s lowered battery costs, EVs still do not compete with their ICE peers.  For example the compact Chevy Bolt EV costs almost $C 43,000, more than two-times the price of the similarly sized combustion engine powered Sonic model on offer by Chevy. The price difference is mostly due to the costly battery pack. For the sizable gap between the two options to close, battery costs must fall even more.

Automakers and their battery-making partners think they can buck the trend. GM and Tesla are both predicting that battery costs will drop by more than half to $US 100/kWh by the early 2020s. Others suggest it may take longer; for example a joint report by McKinsey & Company and Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates it could take a decade to reach this threshold.

Even if battery costs can achieve the $US 100/kWh marker soon, low oil prices create another hurdle for EV technology adoption. MIT researchers have calculated that even with $US 100/kWh storage costs, a $100/barrel oil price is needed before EV and ICE economics equalize. Today’s oil price is stubbornly closer to $50/barrel.

Another impediment to EV adoption is that innovation is ubiquitous. The combustion engine is not standing still. US automakers have been mandated to double fleet-average fuel efficiency by 2025.  Advances in ICE fuel economy will force future EV’s to price  even cheaper to compete.

While past gains in battery technology have been impressive, major gains are still needed before EVs are on a comparable economic footing with their long standing nemesis.  While it is still uncertain if and when automakers will achieve the $100/kWh threshold, battery costs will probably need to drop even further to overcome the effects of cheaper oil and advancing ICE technology.  But if EVs can achieve major breakthroughs on storage and other dimensions, just like the piston powered engine did with the invention of the electric starter over 100 years ago, it could change the future of transport   ̶  and oil consumption too.

To explore the future of battery technology, and what it could mean to investors, corporate leaders and policy makers in the energy realm, attend the unique, one-day forum hosted by the ARC Energy Research Institute on April 3rd, 2017 in Calgary, Alberta. Discounted registration ends February 20th .  For more information visit:  https://www.arcenergyinstitute.com/section/events/

February 14, 2017 Charts

February 14, 2017 Charts

Oil investor sentiment pulled back last week; OPEC is achieving solid compliance so far; Crude stocks had their second largest gain ever.