By June 26, 2017 Read More →

Electric vehicles emerging as a ‘material risk’ for Alberta oil producers?


Is a version of this scenario the future of transportation?

Only substitution for oil is electric vehicles. How real is the threat to Alberta-based companies?

Climate change has become a “material risk” for publicly traded oil and gas companies, which must disclose to in vestors those trends or developments that could potentially damage the value of the investors’ share holdings. To date, climate change risk is mostly interpreted as greenhouse gas emissions and government policies to reduce them. But as regulators review climate change risk disclosure policies, a new – and potentially more serious – risk has appeared on Alberta oil producers’ radar: the spread of electric vehicles and the possibility of falling oil demand within a few decades.


Tony Seba, Stanford University lecturer and RethinkX founder.

Stanford University lecturer Tony Sebargues that autonomous EVs combined with the “Transportation as a Service” business model – think giant taxi or ride-sharing companies, consumers no longer own vehicles – will reduce global oil demand from 100 million b/d to 44 million b/d by 2030, effectively putting out of business the high cost producers like Alberta oil sands giants Cenovus and Suncor.

Seba is probably mostly wrong (read my columns here and here and here) about the TaaS timeline and the depth of the impact the new business model might have on transportation, but what if he’s not? My experts say Seba’s math is sound, which makes his doomsday scenario plausible if not probable.

Or, what if he’s only out by a decade or two and the oil industry lies in ruins by 2040 or 2050 instead?

That sounds like a very serious material risk for Calgary-based oil companies. Based on some recent conversations with those executives, many scoff at the thought of a world without oil – or even one that uses a lot less petroleum.

Securities regulators and investor watchdogs may change that attitude in coming months.

Alberta Securities Commission reviewing climate-based material risks


Follow Teo on Linkedin and Facebook!

The Canadian Securities Administrators announced in March a project to “review the disclosure of risks and financial impacts associated with climate change,” and other environmental matters.

“In light of the increasing prominence of the topic and demand from investors for improved climate-related disclosure, we believe it is appropriate to review the state of such disclosure in Canada,” Hilary McMeekin, communications manager for the Alberta Securities Commission, said in an email.

The Commission will be examining sample disclosures prepared by a sample of large TSX-listed reporting issuers, seeking feedback via an anonymous online survey, and conducting focus groups with reporting issuers, investors, experts, and advisors.

McMeekin says the Commission will publish a progress report after the process is completed at the end of summer.

Carbon Tracker study of energy companies and climate-based material risk

A study by financial think-tank Carbon Tracker says one-third of the $4.8 trillion in global oil and gas spending planned to 2035 is unnecessary if the industry is going to achieve emission reduction targets tied to the Paris Climate Accord – and that Canadian oil and gas companies are some of the most vulnerable to changing policies and technology.

“We’ve had a sort of ongoing discussion with investors, and there’s a growing desire to understand who the winners and losers might be in the energy transition,” said James Leaton, research director at Carbon Tracker, as reported by Reuters.


Cenovus CEO Brian Ferguson.

According to the study, between 50 and 60 per cent of capital expenditures proposed by Imperial Oil, Encana Corp., and Vermilion Energy are not justifiable. Suncor, Canada’s largest oil and gas company, and Husky Energy were considered to fall within the 40 and 50 per cent of spending that would be at risk.

In the Reuters story, Husky pointed out that the industry is innovating and developing new technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Cenovus recognizes that shareholders and other stakeholders benefit from understanding its strategy with respect to long-term corporate resilience in a low-carbon future,” said Cenovus in a recent financial report, noting it has already taken steps to combat climate change by reducing its per-barrel emissions in the oilsands by a third since 2004 and setting a similar target for total production by 2026, among other measures.

As I wrote in a June 13 column, de-carbonized oil sands crude could be a net carbon benefit if it displaces more carbon-intense crudes from Nigeria and Venezuela, for instance.

Alberta oil sands producers believe they can use new technology to reduce the carbon-intensity of their heavy crude oil to that of the average US crude oil – five to 10 on the California Air Resources Board index, compared to the current low-20s to low-30s.

Conclusion – Canadian oil/gas firms grappling with GHG emission threats, but not EVs

So far, so good for reducing material risk from GHG emission reduction policies.

But what about the threat from electric vehicles? That doesn’t yet appear to have popped up on the radar of Canadian companies.

In it’s latest climate report, Suncor – considered the Canadian leader in climate risk disclosure – only notes that, “Break through battery technology development supports growth in electric vehicles,” but there is no analysis of when that might occur or what the impact might be on the company’s operations.

This is not surprising. Under the “replacement model,” EVs will take decades before affecting oil consumption. Seba’s study was only released in May and the “TaaS model” is just beginning to attract attention from investors.

But given their potential to disrupt oil markets, EVs will likely receive more attention under the increasingly stringent climate change risk disclosure rules that appear to be coming from regulators.

I’ll be reporting on this issue in the coming months, exploring the risks posed by the electrification of transportation for Canadian oil producers and trying to quantify them. While the potential impact appears to be decades away, the pressing question is, how many decades?

The answer could be fewer decades than we think and investors will be anxiously waiting to see how Alberta’s oil firms will respond.

Posted in: Markham on Energy

1 Comment on "Electric vehicles emerging as a ‘material risk’ for Alberta oil producers?"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Warren says:

    Missing an even bigger trend. Look at Rifken’s “zero marginal cost society” book and Seba’s God point. Battery backed solar is already cheaper than the cost of transmission in many places and in 80% of the worlds clims can be 3 cents a KWH. It can go to 1/1000 khw.

    With petrol you have to find it and fight for it and defend it and ship it and refine it and store it and the ship it again and store it temporarily and then combust it and then deal with its externalities in polluting food, air and water- look up the effect that correlate lead in gas with crime. You also can’t predict supply price very far out. With solar and battery you harden the grid, don’t have night time spin waste and its solid state stuff made out of sand an other super abundant minerals and more than this the electrons come to you and come without a fee. And a tiny 100 mile square of solar in a place like Texas with current tech could replace all forms of energy in an economy the size if the US. Line loss isn’t much now with stabdard DC super conducting cable. So its over just based on the economics of stranded assets and profitless future.

    With petrol it has low economic efficiency which will not change short of something that would obviate its need like efficient convesion of energy into matter. Its got such low ecconomic efficiency that not only has it needed subsidies its needed increasingly destabilizing bailouts. The 07 collapse after several attempts to revive petrol including Iraq and Afganistan resulted from a collapse of derivatives insuring petrol because petrol due to low ecconomic efficiency routinely collapses as it hollows out a society and its property mechanism undermines democracy with more of a rule by hereditary wealth model.

    In the US the left correctly sees getting rid of petrol as a way to cut the rights money. They also see petrol as a driver of terrorism and climate instability and risk for nuclear war. They are also increasingly aware of petrol firms trying to hedge ther fall by holding pension funds hostage etc.

    So even if people say its not CO2 its the sun cycle there is still a tremendous sense that petrol is the source of injustice in the world and a retributional will to be rid of it. And there is no way to force the supply on countries that now have a supperior option with a massive stragic advantage of 80% or greater ecconomic efficiency. Petrol relative to solar is like being in the middle of lake superior and dying of thirst. And that holds even if we don’t see petrol as fossil fuel or don’t think its source is constrained. Dont have to accept cause of climate change or peak oil for this. Petrol is obsolete on cost and nothing will change that.