???? 據伍德麥肯茲官網4月1日報道，目前，很少有國家要求生產商繳納碳排放稅或參與排放交易計劃(ETS)。但隨著各國政府尋求實現脫碳目標，這種情況可能很快就會改變。碳排放收費很可能會到來，這將改變上游行業，影響資產價值和行業經濟。

????全球財政研究高級副總裁格雷厄姆 凱拉斯(Graham Kellas)表示:“各國政府對上游業務征收碳排放稅有兩種選擇。一是征收碳稅，二是設定適用于所有二氧化碳排放的固定稅率，或實施排放交易計劃。根據這兩項計劃，對特定項目的財務影響可能會通過排放限額得到緩解。

????目前在國際、國家和國家以下各級有60多個碳收費制度，但很少有制度以每噸20美元以上的價格影響主要油氣產區。

????挪威是上游碳排放收費的佼佼者，該國自1991年起就對二氧化碳征稅，是歐盟排放交易系統(ETS)的成員之一。英國同樣也參與的歐盟(EU)計劃是全球規模最大、最活躍的計劃。

????2007年，加拿大阿爾伯塔省建立了北美首個針對大型油氣生產商的碳排放稅。不列顛哥倫比亞省于2008年實施了類似的稅收，加拿大聯邦政府于2019年開始征收。去年，加拿大政府宣布，到2030年，其碳排放稅率將提高到每噸135美元左右。美國的綠色議程使美國上游業務的碳排放收費可能性大大增加。

????與此同時，考慮到在挪威大陸架運營的勘探與生產企業已經支付了世界上最高的碳稅，挪威政府提出的將上游油氣業務的總體碳稅稅率提高近三倍的建議做出了大膽的表態。

????挪威新的碳排放計劃旨在減少廢料和農業等行業的排放，這些部門目前還沒有受到碳稅的影響。不過，石油和天然氣生產商也將受到影響。

????WoodMac上游研究團隊的Kyrah McKenzie表示:“根據這些提議，到2030年，挪威二氧化碳稅和歐盟ETS的價格合起來將達到每噸262美元，幾乎是目前價格的三倍。到2030年，碳稅將增加到每年近20億美元，并將增加每桶2美元左右的運營支出，類似于運輸關稅。在更成熟的油田，這可能會使每桶油增加10美元。”

????值得一提的是，挪威的高稅率將有助于抵消碳排放稅的增長。因此，這對資產和公司價值的影響很小，資產估值將僅下降約1%(14億美元)，但那些更成熟、高碳投資組合的公司價值可能會下降5%。

????雖然挪威的一些油田可能會提前停產，但對恢復行業生產的影響有限。WoodMac的研究表明，地下還將剩下不到5000萬桶的石油。

????分析表明，碳稅的財政處理可以說比定價更重要。在世界其他地區，每噸262美元的碳價格將造成更嚴重的影響。一段時間以來，生產商一直在把碳定價假設——通常在每噸40美元到100美元之間，納入其財務模型。

????分析表明，在每噸40美元的價格下，大多數資產的價值對碳排放收費相對不敏感，盡管這樣的收費率也可能抹去一些資產的剩余價值。但是按照每噸200美元的價格——這比挪威計劃的2030年的價格要低，三分之一的資產將至少有50%的剩余價值轉移到碳排放費用上。

????這些數據假設所有的排放都要收取碳排放費，實際風險敞口將更低，這取決于各國政府是否愿意以免費排放信貸的形式提供排放限額。這是政府可以用來調整碳排放收費的最重要措施，從而保護資產價值，減輕對該行業投資的影響。

????緩和碳排放收費影響的另一個主要手段是，有能力用政府的其他支出抵消這些影響。雖然減輕碳排放收費的影響是可能的，但在許多司法管轄區實現這一目標將是復雜的。

????與那些以稅收為中心的國家相比，那些實行包括特許權使用費在內的財政制度的國家將處于不利地位，特許權使用費是對總收入征收的，不允許扣除運營成本。而對于由產量分成合同管理的上游業務，將更加復雜。

????王佳晶 摘譯自 伍德麥肯茲官網

????原文如下：

????Carbon pricing plans ‘could transform upstream oil and gas economics’

????At present, few countries require producers to either pay a carbon tax or participate in an emissions trading scheme (ETS). But as governments seek to meet decarbonisation targets, that could soon change.

????Carbon charges are likely to come, and they will transform the upstream sector, affecting both asset values and the industry’s economics.

????Graham Kellas, senior vice president, global fiscal research, said: “Governments have two options for imposing carbon charges on upstream operations. They can either levy a carbon tax, which is a fixed tax rate is applied to all carbon dioxide emissions, or implement an ETS.

????"Under both schemes, the financial impact on specific projects can potentially be mitigated by an emissions allowance.”

????More than 60 carbon charge regimes currently exist at international, national and subnational levels, but very few affect major oil and gas producing areas at a rate above US$20 per tonne.

????Norway is the standout country for upstream carbon charges: as well as having levied a tax on CO2 since 1991, it is a member of the EU’s ETS. The EU scheme, in which the UK also participates, is the world’s largest and most active.

????North America’s first carbon tax for large oil and gas producers was established by the Canadian province of Alberta in 2007. British Columbia implemented a similar tax in 2008, with the Canadian federal government introducing a levy in 2019. Last year, the Canadian government announced its carbon tax rate would rise to the equivalent of around US$135 per tonne by 2030. US President Joe Biden’s green agenda is making carbon charges for upstream operations in the US far more likely.

????Meanwhile, the Norwegian government’s proposal to almost triple its overall carbon tax rate on upstream oil and gas operations makes a bold statement, considering that E&Ps operating on the Norwegian continental shelf already pay the highest carbon taxes in the world.

????Norway’s new carbon plan aims to reduce emissions from sectors such as waste and agriculture, which are not already exposed to carbon taxes. However, oil and gas producers will be affected too.

????Kyrah McKenzie, from WoodMac’s upstream research team, said: “The proposals would see the combined Norway CO2 tax and EU ETS price reach US$262 per tonne by 2030 – nearly a three-fold increase compared to today’s price.

????“The changes will increase carbon taxes to almost US$2 billion per annum by 2030, and would make up around US$2 per barrel of opex, similar to transportation tariffs. This could increase up to US$10 per barrel of oil equivalent at more mature fields.”

????However, McKenzie said that Norway’s high tax rates, against which carbon taxes are deductible, would help offset the rise. Norway’s low carbon intensity also reduces exposure.

????She added: “As a result, the implications for asset and company value are minimal. We believe asset valuations would fall by about 1% (US$1.4 billion), though company value could fall by up to 5% for those with more mature, high-carbon portfolios.”

????While cessation of production may be brought forward at some Norwegian fields, the impact on recovery is limited. WoodMac’s research indicates less than 50 million barrels of oil equivalent would be left in the ground.

????McKenzie added: “Our analysis shows that the fiscal treatment of carbon taxes is arguably more important than pricing. A US$262 per tonne carbon price in other parts of the world would have more serious implications.”

????Kellas said producers have been including carbon pricing assumptions — usually between US$40 and US$100 per tonne — in their financial models for some time.

????His analysis indicates that at US$40 per tonne, most asset values are relatively insensitive to the carbon charge, although even that rate could wipe out the remaining value of some assets. But at US$200 per tonne – a lower rate than Norway is proposing for 2030 – a third of all assets would have at least 50% of their remaining value transferred in carbon charges.

????He said: “These figures assume all emissions are subject to any carbon charge. Actual exposure will be lower, depending on each government’s willingness to offer emissions allowances in the form of free emissions credits.

????"This is the most important measure governments can use to modify carbon charges, thereby safeguarding asset values and lessening the impact on investment in the sector.”

????The other principal instrument to soften the impact of carbon charges is the ability to offset these against other payments to government.

????“While mitigating the impact of carbon charges is possible, it will be complicated to achieve in many jurisdictions,” Kellas said.

????“Countries with fiscal regimes including royalty, which is levied on gross revenue and does not allow deduction of operating costs, will be at a disadvantage relative to those with tax-centric systems. And for upstream operations governed by production sharing contracts mitigation will be even more complex.”?

免責聲明：本網轉載自其它媒體的文章，目的在于弘揚石化精神，傳遞更多石化信息，并不代表本網贊同其觀點和對其真實性負責，在此我們謹向原作者和原媒體致以敬意。如果您認為本站文章侵犯了您的版權，請與我們聯系，我們將第一時間刪除。