石油巨头现金充裕 但不知道该花在哪里

由于征收暴利税，石油巨头正在考虑改变他们在欧洲的战略

石油巨头希望在上游石油和天然气上投入更多，但需要对其产品的长期需求才能做到这一点

油气投资不足可能会对整个石油市场产生严重后果

据油价网2023年3月12日报道，埃克森美孚公司正在考虑改变其在欧洲的战略，因为欧盟各国政府正在征收暴利税，以获取石油巨头从去年石油和天然气价格上涨中获得的部分利润。壳牌公司警告称，欧洲在能源安全方面不应再指望运气，欧洲应投资建设新的天然气基础设施，以弥补失去的天然气供应。壳牌公司新任首席执行官瓦埃尔·萨旺表示，依靠运气并不是一个好策略。

雪佛龙公司和塔洛斯能源公司更新了他们在得克萨斯州建立碳捕获和存储中心的计划。他们现在盯上了一个三倍于最初设想容量的设施。

所有石油巨头都在敦促各国政府促进氢气工业的发展，特别是利用核能、风能和太阳能生产低碳氢气。

这只是本周从在休斯敦举行的剑桥能源周（CERAWeek）会议上传出的一部分消息。每年，油气行业高管和其他决策者都会聚集在这里，讨论能源、政治和未来。目前还没有讨论的是投资更多这些公司的核心业务。

CERAWeek的总结是：“从石油行业的角度来看，市场投资不足，需要投入更多，不是我们，但肯定是其他人，我有没有提到我们在氢气和碳捕获方面所做的事情? ”

这条由标普全球商品洞察能源和自然资源部门主管卡利姆·法瓦兹发布的推文，似乎非常简洁地总结了目前全球石油和天然气行业的现状。

生产商，即使是最大的生产商，似乎也在左右为难，一方面是根据政府的压力改变商业战略方向，另一方面是坚持核心业务。去年核心业务为生产商带来了创纪录的利润。在他们陷入困境的同时，他们向股东分配了数千亿美元。

《华尔街日报》本周援引哥伦比亚大学全球能源政策中心公布的数据报道称，去年石油行业以股息形式发放的资金总额达到1700亿美元，股票回购耗资1400亿美元。

同年的投资总额达到3100亿美元，相当于股息和股票回购的资金总和。这个数字可能看起来很可观，但正如《华尔街日报》所指出的那样，如果石油公司在分红和回购方面不那么慷慨的话，这个投资数字本可以达到5800亿美元。

问题在于，似乎没有人确定它是否值得更多投资——至少在公开场合是这样。壳牌公司首席执行官萨旺、埃克森美孚公司首席执行官伍兹、雪佛龙公司首席执行官沃思和英国石油公司首席执行官鲁尼很可能清楚地意识到，为了满足当前和未来的需求，世界需要对石油和天然气进行更多的投资。然而，来自政府和维权股东们要求停止生产更多石油和天然气的压力，与全球能源需求的现实背道而驰。

这种压力——以及相关的立法和法院裁决——正在做出在历史上任何时候都是最简单、最明显的决定，但现在却变得困难和危险。

此外还有意外获利因素，这进一步阻碍了石油和天然气生产商去做显而易见的事情。因此，石油公司并没有做出现实要求的决定，相反，他们选择在很大程度上只是在口头上支持这种转型。

沃思在CERAWeek会议上说：“你必须非常小心，不要过早关闭系统A。”系统A——他指的是从化石燃料转向替代燃料。

鲁尼两年前曾热情地接受转型，但现在他承认，公司向可再生能源的转型并没有如预期的那样产生效果，并表示，更多的石油和天然气投资将有利于转型。

这位英国石油公司高管在最近的国际能源周会议上表示：“减少供应而不同时减少需求，不可避免地会导致价格飙升，价格飙升导致经济波动，而这种波动可能会削弱民众对转型的支持。”

萨旺则直接表示，现在削减石油和天然气产量是不明智的。在接受英国时代广播电台记者采访时，这位壳牌公司高管表示：“我坚信，世界在未来很长一段时间内都将需要石油和天然气。因此，削减油气产量是不明智的。”

也许这种敢于陈述显而易见事实的新勇气迟早会带来投资决策的勇气。问题在于，根据欧佩克官员和国际能源分析人士的说法，石油市场的平衡已经因投资不足而受到损害，供应短缺可能只是时间问题。 

李峻 编译自 油价网

原文如下：

Big Oil Is Flush With Cash, But Doesn’t Know Where To Spend it

·     Oil majors are considering a change in strategy for Europe because of windfall taxes.

·     Oil majors want to spend more on upstream oil and gas, but need long-term demand for their products in order to do so.

·     Underinvestment in oil and gas may have serious consequences for the oil market in general.

Exxon is considering a change of strategy for Europe because of the windfall taxes governments are using to get some of the money Big Oil made from last year's oil and gas price rally. Shell is warning that Europe should stop relying on luck with its energy security and invest in new gas infrastructure to replace lost Russian supply. Relying on luck, according to CEO Wael Sawan, is not a good strategy.

Chevron, along with Talos Energy, have updated their plans for a carbon capture and storage hub in Texas. They are now eyeing a facility three times as large as the original idea.

All oil majors are urging governments to facilitate the development of a hydrogen industry, especially the production of low-carbon hydrogen from nuclear and wind and solar.

This is just a portion of the news coming out this week from Houston, where the industry and other decision-makers gather every year to discuss energy, politics, and the future. What does not seem to be on the table is talk about investments in more of these companies' core businesses.

"Summary of CERAWeek from an oil industry perspective: 'The market is underinvested, someone needs to invest more, not us but definitely someone else, have I mentioned what we're doing on hydrogen and carbon capture?'"

This tweet, by S&P Global Commodity Insights' Energy and Natural Resources group director Karim Fawaz, seems to summarize quite succinctly the state of affairs in the oil and gas industry right now.

Producers, even the biggest ones, appear torn between changing the direction of their business strategy in line with government pressure and sticking to their core business, which brought them record profits last year. And while they are torn, they distributed hundreds of billions of dollars to shareholders.

The total amount of money that the oil industry distributed as dividends last year hit $170 billion, with share buybacks costing another $140 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported this week, citing data from Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.

Investments in the same year amounted to $310 billion—an amount equal to that distributed as dividends and buybacks combined. The sum may look impressive, but it's not, as the WSJ points out, the $580 billion it could have been if oil companies had been less generous with dividends and buybacks.

The problem is that nobody appears to be certain it is worth investing more—not publicly, at least. It is quite likely that Shell's Sawan, Exxon's Woods, Chevron's Wirth, and BP's Looney, are well aware that the world needs more investments in oil and gas in order to meet current and future demand. Yet that pressure from governments and activist shareholders to not produce more oil and gas is countering the reality of global energy demand.

That pressure—and associated legislation and court decisions—are making decisions that at any other time in history would have made the simplest and most obvious sense seem difficult and risky.

There's also the windfall profit element, which has further discouraged oil and gas producers from doing the obvious thing. So oil companies are not making the decisions that reality dictates, instead opting for largely paying lip service to the transition.

For all that confusion, with governments telling the oil and gas industry they need to produce more—but just for a short while because we are transitioning away from fossil fuels—while taxing them additionally because of high oil and gas prices, there is a silver lining. The industry is becoming bolder in stating the obvious.

"You have to be very careful about switching off system A too early," Chevron's Mike Wirth said at CERAWeek, referring to the switch from fossil fuels to alternatives.

BP's Bernard Looney, who had embraced the transition enthusiastically two years ago, now admits the company's shift to renewables did not pay off as expected and says that the transition would benefit from more oil and gas investment.

"Reducing supply without also reducing demand inevitably leads to price spikes, price spikes lead to economic volatility, and there's a risk that volatility will undermine popular support for the transition," the executive said at the recent International Energy Week.

Shell's Sawan, for his part, said outright that cutting the production of oil and gas now is not healthy. In an interview for British Times Radio, the executive said, "I am of a firm view that the world will need oil and gas for a long time to come. As such, cutting oil and gas production is not healthy."

Perhaps this newfound courage to state the obvious may sooner or later lead to courage in investment decision-making. The problem is that, according to OPEC officials and international energy analysts alike, the balance in the oil markets is already compromised by underinvestment, and the shortage may be just a matter of time.