巴黎协议的完成提高了人们对与气候稳定一致的投资轨迹的认识。必须留在地下的不燃烧碳中，最大的比例是煤。然而，石油和天然气投资具有特殊的宏观经济意义，如果石油和天然气行业的投资活动与导致滞留资产的气候路径不一致，可能引发关于潜在滞留资产和金融混乱的辩论。 另一方面，鉴于碳氢化合物对全球经济的持续重要性，在转型期几十年中，及时进行符合石油和天然气供应需求模式的投资仍然是能源安全的重要组成部分。稀缺性推动的高油价和天然气价格不仅有助于清洁能源，也有助于投资于可扩展的高碳替代能源。2014年底以来的油价周期，加上能源转型加速的预期，引发了油气上游投资的深刻转型。该行业减少并重组了投资活动：石油和天然气上游投资支出已稳定在比2014年历史峰值低30%以上的水平。这是从高前置期、大型且通常为高碳资产向轻质油和小型模块化棕地开发的结构性转变的总和。管理纪律、技术进步和供应链的松弛降低了上游成本，尽管在北美有新的成本膨胀迹象。
the completion of the paris agreement raised awareness of the investment trajectory consistent with climate stabilisation. the largest proportion of the unburnable carbon that has to stay underground is coal. nevertheless, oil and gas investment has a special macroeconomic significance that could trigger a debate on potential stranded assets and financial dislocation should the investment activity of the industry become inconsistent with a climate pathway leading to stranded assets.
on the other hand, given the continuous importance of hydrocarbons for the global economy, a timely investment consistent with demand patterns in oil and gas supply remains a crucial component of energy security during the transition decades. high oil and gas prices driven by scarcity not only help clean energy sources but also facilitate investment in scalable, high‐carbon alternatives as well. the oil price cycle that has unfolded since late 2014, coupled with expectations of an accelerating energy transition, has triggered a profound transformation of oil and gas upstream investment. the industry reduced and restructured its investment activity: oil and gas upstream investment spending has stabilised at a level that is over 30% below the 2014 historical peak. this is an aggregate of a structural shift from high lead‐time, large and often‐high carbon assets towards light tight oil and smaller, modular brownfield developments. management discipline, technological progress and slack in the supply chain reduced upstream costs although in north america there are signs of renewed cost inflation.
the financial position of the industry is stable. major international oil companies are reducing debt and returning capital to equity markets. the united states (us) light tight oil industry succeeded in maintaining its access to capital even during the downturn, and it is on track to become a mature, financially sustainable business. overall, access to capital does not represent a serious constraint to ramping up investment should market or geopolitical developments necessitate it since the industry has low leverage, and returns capital to equity markets is relatively immune to financial dislocation. the only segment of the oil and gas industry with a high debt is north american shale, whose short time horizon mitigates the financial impact of the long‐term climate policy.
in the international energy agency (iea) sustainable development scenario (sds), which models a pathway well below 2 degrees that is consistent with the paris agreement, global oil demand declines – but by considerably less than the loss of existing production due to geological depletion. as a result, substantial field development investment is completely consistent with the energy transition, and it remains a key component of energy security. the current investment activity of the oil and gas industry is broadly consistent with the sds in terms of investment spending and field development sanctions, as well as project composition and an emphasis on gas. this creates a window of opportunity for a smooth energy transition without major stranded asset problems. on the other hand, policy‐driven investment in efficiency and low‐carbon alternatives affecting oil demand is clearly inadequate to keep oil demand at the level of the sds. this creates the risk of triggering a boom‐and‐bust cycle and, eventually, a financially disruptive, disjointed energy transition.
the faster transition scenario (fts) developed in the context of the 2016 german g20 presidency has a tighter carbon budget that is within the interval of 1.5 degrees pathways. this has a stronger impact on oil and gas investment but does not fully eliminate field development. in the faster transition case, some of the previous exploration investment becomes stranded as the resources stay underground; nevertheless, the scale of stranded assets is manageable from a macroeconomic point of view if demand mitigation policies are implemented in a timely fashion.