The Carbon Tracker Initiative launched a report according to which in order to “deflate” the carbon and protect investors, oil and gas companies have to shrink, meaning that they have to combine their production by more than a third by 2040 to limit emissions, in line with the international climate targets.
Overall, the international climate targets aim to a zero-carbon shipping future and a more green and sustainable environment. The Paris Agreement states that nations have to limit warming to “well below” 2ºC and “pursue efforts” for 1.5ºC. For a 50% chance of success, carbon budgets for 1.5ºC and 1.75ºC, irrespective of the trajectory taken, equate to 13 and 24 years at current CO2 emissions levels.
The Carbon Tracker Initiative translates the macro global carbon budget to the company level and define “company carbon budgets” to provide aggregate limits for individual oil and gas producers, factoring-in the relative emissions-intensity of different projects.
Mike Coffin, Oil & Gas Analyst at Carbon Tracker and report author comments that
If companies and governments attempt to develop all their oil and gas reserves, either the world will miss its climate targets or assets will become “stranded” in the energy transition, or both … This analysis shows that if companies really want to both mitigate financial risk and be part of the climate solution, they must shrink production.
The initiative’s report notes that production and emissions reductions by 2040 are presented alongside capex numbers from Breaking the Habit (Sept 2019) to give an overall framework covering the entire oil and gas industry.
Also, according to their estimations, the major oil and gas companies need to decline their production by 35% to 2040 to stay within their B2DS budgets. Based on their analysis, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips have to limit emissions at the fastest rate to stay within their respective company carbon budgets. Although Shell’s portfolio is most aligned, it still needs cuts of 10%.
Major oil and gas industry players have to limit their average carbon emissions by 40%.
Yet, the companies that still sanction higher-cost projects which are not compliant with the new sustainability goals, have a negative impact on shareholder value through the creation of stranded assets, as well as contributing to the failure to achieve climate goals.
Companies can pursue different trajectories to meet their production reduction to 2040, however those that delay taking action carry a greater risk of being caught out
… the Initiative highlights.
In conclusion, investors and civil society groups are pressing companies to be much more transparent about their spending plans and drop projects that are not climate-friendly.
