IEA plots divergent paths for oil demand

  • Market: Crude oil, Oil products
  • 13/10/20

The IEA has highlighted the uncertain impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the energy transition on global oil demand through four scenarios in its World Energy Outlook (WEO) this year.

In two of the scenarios, demand does not reach a "clear peak". The Stated Policies scenario (Steps) is based on existing and announced policies and targets, and assumes that the pandemic is under control by next year. The Delayed Recovery scenario (DRS) explores the effect of a prolonged crisis. Oil demand's path in both of these scenarios mirrors Opec's recent World Oil Outlook (WOO) but it contrasts with some industry views that suggest demand could peak as soon as this decade.

Under the Steps, global oil demand returns to pre-crisis levels around 2023 and rises to 103.2mn b/d in 2030 (see table). Demand flattens beyond 2030 with annual growth slowing to 100,000 b/d as higher demand for transport services offsets the effect of improved vehicle efficiency, electrification and biofuels use. Under the DRS, demand also plateaus after 2030 but at around 4mn b/d lower than in the Steps.

Peak oil demand is already a reality in advanced economies, but this is offset by growth in emerging markets and developing economies, the IEA says. Under the Steps, India continues to drive demand growth in the coming decade, while the outlook for China has been revised down from last year's WEO to reflect lower car sales and strengthened policy goals, with Chinese oil demand peaking around 2030 at just over 15mn b/d.

The IEA offers two other scenarios in which demand already peaked last year. Under the Sustainable Development scenario (SDS), in which the world achieves net zero emissions by 2070, global oil demand falls to 86.5mn b/d by 2030 from 97.9mn b/d in 2019, although the direct impact of the Covid-19 crisis could make sustainable goals embodied in this scenario harder. And under a new Net Zero Emissions scenario, in which the world reaches the net zero target by 2050, oil demand declines by an average 3.5pc/yr to 65mn b/d in 2030.

Tight supply

The pandemic has also made the outlook for tight oil uncertain. In the Steps, US tight oil supply returns to 2019 levels by 2022 and peaks in the early 2030s, slightly earlier than in last year's WEO. In the SDS, US tight oil production is nearly 2mn b/d lower in 2030.

Producers have "become used to a world in which US tight oil picks up a lot of the slack in oil supply," the IEA said. Its short investment cycle means "the response time for tight oil to market signals" is around 6-12 months. If demand recovers and US production remains flat throughout the next decade, there could be a supply gap of 4.3mn b/d which conventional producers would struggle to bridge, the IEA said.

Tight oil production depends largely on the amount of industry investment. In Steps, this averages $85bn/yr for US tight oil over the next decade, just below pre-pandemic levels. "The timing and extent of a rebound in [global oil and gas] investment from the one-third decline seen in 2020 is unclear, given the significant overhang of supply capacity in oil and gas markets, and uncertainties over the outlook for US shale and for global demand," the IEA said.

In Steps, upstream spending rises in response to an oil price of just over $70/bl in 2025. Upstream oil projects require average investment of $390bn/yr in 2030-40, under 10pc of which meets rising oil demand, while the rest sustains and develops new and existing fields to offset declines elsewhere. Even in the Net Zero Emissions scenario, investment is required on new or existing fields, without which oil supply falls by around 8-9pc/yr in 2019-30.

Oil demand, supply in IEA WEOmn b/d
2019202520302040
State Policies scenario
Oil demand97.999.9103.2104.1
Demand change from WEO 2019na-3.6-2.2-2.3
Tight oil supply7.710.011.612.1
Tight oil change from WEO 2019na-0.5-0.4-1.3
Non-Opec supply60.563.164.161.8
Opec supply34.934.436.539.5
Sustainable Development scenario
Oil demand97.992.586.566.2
Demand change from WEO 2019nana-0.6-0.7
Tight oil supply7.79.39.48.8
Tight oil change from WEO 2019nana-0.7-0.4
Non-Opec supply60.558.252.940.0
Opec supply34.932.131.524.4
* Includes crude oil, tight oil, NGLs, extra-heavy oil, bitumen and processing gains

Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
28/03/24

Crane barge arriving at Baltimore bridge tonight

Crane barge arriving at Baltimore bridge tonight

Houston, 28 March (Argus) — The first major piece of equipment capable of beginning to clear the blocked Port of Baltimore, Maryland, is expected to arrive onsite tonight. The Chesapeake 1000 crane barge, capable of lifting 1,000 short tons with its a 231ft-long boom, is expected to arrive at the site of the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge near Baltimore at 11pm ET on 28 March, the US Coast Guard (USCG) told Argus . Both the crane and the tug pulling it, Atlantic Enterprise , are owned by Donjon Marine. It is currently the only crane on route to the collapsed bridge, the USCG said. There is no official timetable for the reopening of the port after the Interstate 695 highway bridge over the Patapsco River was hit in the early hours of 26 March by a container ship and collapsed, with the debris and ship blocking the waterway. The operator of the ship, Maersk, has contracted with marine salvage company Resolve Marine to refloat the vessel and remove it from the area, according to the USCG. It is not clear who has contracted for the Chesapeake 1000. Despite the inbound crane, it could take weeks or even months to clear debris and reopen the waterway under the collapsed bridge according to a engineering professor at the nearby Johns Hopkins University. By Nathan Risser Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Read more
News

'Weeks, months' to reopen Baltimore waterway: professor


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

'Weeks, months' to reopen Baltimore waterway: professor

Houston, 28 March (Argus) — It could take weeks or even months to clear debris and reopen the waterway under the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, according to a engineering professor at the nearby Johns Hopkins University. As of Wednesday, there was no official timetable for the reopening of the Port of Baltimore after a major highway bridge over the Patapsco River was hit in the early hours of 26 March by a container ship and collapsed, with the debris and ship blocking the waterway. "I'd be shocked if it's weeks, but I don't think it'll take even a year" to clear the waterway, structural engineer and Johns Hopkins professor Benjamin Schafer said Wednesday. He expects the rebuild of the bridge to take significantly longer. "I've lived through quite a few civil infrastructure projects and they're rarely less than 10 years. So I think that's what we're looking at," Schafer said. He noted that it took five years to build the original Francis Scott Key Bridge and seven years to repair the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay, Florida, after a similar collapse in 1980. Still, "this is definitely not a national supply chain crisis," John Hopkins operations management professor Tinglong Dai said Wednesday. "The effect will be mostly local, mostly minimal and mostly temporary." The bridge collapse and port closure is also unlikely to trigger a global supply chain crisis, he said. The Port of Baltimore is an important but "niche" port specializing in automobile imports and exports, Dai added. "The supply chain has evolved...I have already seen a lot of rerouting happening." Automakers started adjusting their supply routes away from the top port for US vehicle imports the day of the collapse, including General Motors, Ford and Mercedes-Benz. Baltimore is also a major port for coal exports, which may start to shift to terminals to the south in Hampton Roads, Virginia. Freight rates for ships that carry coal could see increases in global markets Other commodities like asphalt and caustic soda that move through the port will see challenges, while organic agriculture imports may see less problems due to seasonal flows. By Nathan Risser Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Baltimore probe includes potential contaminated fuel


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Baltimore probe includes potential contaminated fuel

New York, 28 March (Argus) — Federal authorities are examining whether the containership that crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, was burning contaminated marine fuel at the time of the incident. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said it will collect a sample of the fuel on board the 116,851-dwt container vessel Dali as part of its investigation into why the ship lost power and hit the bridge support early on 26 March, taking down the span. "That sample will be taken, and we will analyze the quality, any sort of contaminants, we will look at viscosity," NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy said this week. "That will be part of our investigation." Shipboard power is generally generated by turbines connected to the same engines driving propulsion. There are a number of issues related to fuel that could have led to a loss of power on the ship, according to Wajdi Abdmessih, chief executive at Seahawk Services, a marine fuel testing company based in New Jersey. The fuel on the ship could have been contaminated, as was the case last year when contaminated very low-sulphur fuel oil was found on a number of ships fueld through a Houston, Texas, bunkering operation, or it could have been a compatibility issue with the vessel's engine, where the fuel was not optimized for the equipment. "If the vessel switches between different types of fuels, compatibility and stability issues could occur, which may cause a problem with the engine," Abdmessih said. "Unstable fuel could cause increased sludging and high sediment, which could clog the filter and cause fuel starvation and engine downturns." Singapore-based Synergy Marine Group, which manages Dali , said it is taking part of this investigation but declined to comment possible causes of the accident, including possible fuel contamination. The pilots on board the vessel lost control because of a loss of propulsion, according to the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), which is assisting in the investigation because Dali was sailing under the Singapore flag. An issue with the ship's propulsion and auxiliary machinery was discovered during its June 2023 inspection in San Antonio, Chile , according to Equasis, a vessel information database. The problem involved the vessel's gauges and thermometers, according to the data. Its most recent inspection was in September 2023, but there are no indications of issues from the inspection. The vessel's next inspection was due in June 2024, the MPA said. By Luis Gronda Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI

London, 28 March (Argus) — The "best bet" to achieving global energy security is through mitigation funding and multilateral cooperation, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI). WRI highlighted that governments are funding more domestic renewable energy projects but have increased oil and gas production in the name of "energy security" at home in the years following the Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The recent rebrand of energy transition funding to energy security funding has allowed some developed nations to justify domestic oil and gas licences and drag their feet on multilateral financial commitments. This is causing "real worry" among climate-vulnerable developing nations, WRI chief executive Ani Dasgupta said. He said that although the initial "shock" to the world's energy markets after the invasion of Ukraine "quickly went away", it has triggered "real worry among poorer countries that when push comes to shove, it won't be an even game, or have a fair outcome." Developing countries have long complained about the lack of access to climate funding. Richer nations have only recently met the $100bn/yr target in climate finance to developing countries agreed in 2009, while discussions on setting a new climate finance goal for 2025 at Cop 29 in Baku in November could prove difficult. President of the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) Denis Sassou-Nguesso said last year that the $100bn/yr in climate financing to developing countries promised by rich countries "never reached us", adding that the annual UN Cop climate conferences have become little more than a talking shop. "Just after the invasion of Ukraine, every country started to think about energy security," Dasgupta said. "In theory, good things could have happened, countries could have concluded that their best bet to getting energy security is by going renewable". But it was not the case in key consumer countries or regions, Dasgupta pointed out. China bought the majority of Russian gas following the EU's withdrawal, he said, and has since upped production at coal-fired power stations despite an "extraordinary" acceleration towards renewables set for 2023-28, according to Paris-based energy watchdog IEA . In Europe, the UK and Norway continue to award new oil and gas licences . "In the US, the fossil fuel lobby argues that the best route to energy security is to invest more in fossil fuels". But the best route is to invest in more renewables, he said. "Even if the US produces a large amount of oil and gas, it is still a traded commodity, and so you have to pay a price for it that is set globally." The US special presidential co-ordinator for energy security Amos Hochstein has also suggested in September that a widening climate finance gap could ultimately threaten global security. "We have seen the percentage of dollars spent on the energy transition outside the OECD, in developing and middle income countries actually go down instead of up…" By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

ACT to partner with LR, Wartsila, and UECC on CNSL


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

ACT to partner with LR, Wartsila, and UECC on CNSL

London, 28 March (Argus) — Dutch supplier ACT Group is collaborating with classification society Lloyd's Register, Finnish engine manufacturer Wartsila, and Norwegian shipping firm United European Car Carriers (UECC) on the development and evaluation of cashew nut shell liquid (CNSL) as a biofuel in marine biodiesel blends. ACT confirmed the launch of a CNSL-based biofuel called "FSI.100", which has gone through extensive engine testing with various blend combinations. The CNSL-based biofuel has now received approval from engine manufactures to be blended as a 30pc component with marine gasoil (MGO) to form a marine biodiesel blend for the purpose of further sea trials. ACT confirmed that the FSI.100 product will benefit from lower acidity, and there is potential for the product to be compatible for blending with fuel oil. CNSL is an advanced biodiesel feedstock, making it a more appealing and price competitive option to buyers compared with other biodiesel feedstocks. The development follows a report by Lloyd's Register fuel oil bunkering analysis and advisory service (FOBAS) that pointed to a correlation between engine fuel pump and injector-related damage in vessels and the presence of "unestablished" CNSL in the utilised marine fuels. By Hussein Al-Khalisy Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more