• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
  • 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
  • 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
  • 2 days Does Toyota Know Something That We Don’t?
  • 5 days OPINION: Putin’s Genocidal Myth A scholarly treatise on the thousands of years of Ukrainian history. RCW
  • 2 days World could get rid of Putin and Russia but nobody is bold enough
  • 21 hours America should go after China but it should be done in a wise way.
  • 5 days CHINA Economy IMPLODING - Fastest Price Fall in 14 Years & Stock Market Crashes to 5 Year Low
  • 4 days China is using Chinese Names of Cities on their Border with Russia.
  • 5 days Russian Officials Voice Concerns About Chinese-Funded Rail Line
  • 4 days CHINA Economy Disaster - Employee Shortages, Retirement Age, Birth Rate & Ageing Population
  • 10 days huge-deposit-of-natural-hydrogen-gas-detected-deep-in-albanian-mine
  • 5 days Putin and Xi Bet on the Global South
  • 5 days "(Another) Putin Critic 'Falls' Out Of Window, Dies"
  • 6 days United States LNG Exports Reach Third Place
  • 6 days Biden's $2 trillion Plan for Insfrastructure and Jobs
Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham is an independent journalist, covering oil and gas, energy and environmental policy, and international politics. He is based in Portland, Oregon. 

More Info

Premium Content

2019 Was A Pivotal Year For Energy

In the years ahead, 2019 could go down in the history books as a pivotal year in the energy transition.

This year may be a “tipping point when global capital markets accepted the technology-driven inevitability and grid parity cross-over from polluting thermal coal and the increased uptake of sustainable clean renewable energy,” Tim Buckley, Director Energy Finance Studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, wrote in a report.

It was the year in which the hype around U.S. shale finally burst, as debt-driven production growth finally lost its luster. Share prices for shale companies across the board were down sharply, and largely failed to rebound even as oil prices climbed. Coal has fared even worse, although the trouble for coal predated the latest downturn for shale.

Climate change became increasingly top-of-mind for the energy sector as well, even as governments continue their paltry efforts to arrest the rise of emissions. Various oil and gas companies have paid lip service to climate action, but are mostly just trying to stave off the backlash as they continue to search for new reserves.

The big change has been the shift in the capital markets. Investors are beginning to sour on fossil fuel stocks as they eye the clean energy transition. Renewable energy vastly outperformed fossil fuels in 2019, and “financial markets are not waiting to see if Paris targets might be met,” Buckley wrote. He singled out a handful of large renewable energy asset holders – NextEra Energy is up 38 percent year-to-date and Brookfield Renewable Partners is up nearly 80 percent, while the S&P 500 is up 24 percent.

Meanwhile, some notable fossil fuel companies did not fare quite as well. Peabody Energy is down 71 percent, Chesapeake Energy is down by 66 percent, Contura Coal is off by 91 percent, and even ExxonMobil is essentially back where it started at the beginning of the year, down 1 percent. They “have all destroyed shareholder value again in 2019,” Buckley wrote. Related: The 10 Most Important Oil Market Trends For 2020

Boosters of fossil fuels often note that the world will need coal, oil and gas for years to come. But consumption does not need to fall to zero for there to be significant upheaval in financial markets. The rate of growth only needs to slow.  

“As the capital flow moves to predominantly bank-rolling renewable energy, the capital market derates the incumbent stranded industry players owning now stranded thermal power plants,” Buckley said, noting that investment in coal at this stage amounts to investing in stranded assets. “It will take decades to play out, but the equity market isn’t waiting around.” The meltdown in the share prices for Peabody Energy and Chesapeake Energy are perfect examples.

Big banks are starting to make a shift, although to date it is very little, and it is also getting very late in the game as the climate crisis worsens. Goldman Sachs recently announced a policy shift, ruling out new financing for coal and Arctic oil. That makes it one of the more progressive banks in the U.S., even as it still keeps the spigots open for most other types of extraction.

As Bloomberg points out, “the steps Goldman and other big banks are taking can also be seen as minuscule compared with the $1.9 trillion in financing they’re estimated to have extended to the fossil-fuel industry in the three years following the 2015 signing of the Paris climate accords.”

JPMorgan Chase has provided $196 billion in financing to fossil fuel projects from 2016 to 2018, making it the top financier of the industry, according to Rainforest Action Network. Wells Fargo came in second at $151 billion. Goldman Sachs, despite taking credit for its recent announcement, extended nearly $60 billion in financing to fossil fuels over that three-year period.

In other words, big banks have not turned their backs on coal, oil and gas, but equity investors have already started to look elsewhere.


By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Seth D on December 26 2019 said:
    Nick Cunningham is a good writer and and I like that he's passionate about renewables. As a driver of a Chevy Bolt, I'm all for the future, powered by renewable energy.

    However, his relentlessly negative attack on U.S. Shale is strongly contradicted by basic, elementary facts, and by professional analysts. Cunningham writes:

    It was the year in which the hype around U.S. shale finally burst.

    Based on what? U.S. Government, EIA, and OPEC (OPEC!) analysts all predict continued growth in U.S. oil output for the foreseeable future. If Nick Cunningham does not want to believe any of these organizations, perhaps he should read his fellow OilPrice writer, Jude Clemente, who recently wrote:

    And even longer-term, the also just released International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2019 reports that the U.S. will account for 85% of global oil production growth through 2030.

    I posted to an earlier article and my comment was deleted despite not violating any rules.
  • Mamdouh Salameh on December 27 2019 said:
    2019 was a pivotal year for energy in the sense that a glut in the global oil market was widened by the trade war to a level enabling it to undermine OPEC+ production cuts, nullify the impact of geopolitics and outages on prices and absorb the loss of half of Saudi oil production. It was also pivotal by exposing the hype about US shale oil production.

    Still, global energy will continue to be governed by four principles well into the future.
    The first principle is that there will be no post-oil era throughout the 21st century and far beyond. The second principle is that that there will be no peak oil demand either.
    The third principle is that an imminent energy transition from hydrocarbon to renewables is an illusion. And the fourth principle is that oil and gas will remain the core business of the global oil industry well into the future.

    Therefore, nobody should be deluded by Goldman Sachs’ move not to bankroll future oil and gas projects. It is no more than a trendy attempt to burnish its environmental credentials. The world will not be short of funds to invest in oil and gas. Governments could lend to governments and oil companies could equally do the same.

    Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
    International Oil Economist
    Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
  • Lee James on December 27 2019 said:
    My comment is in response to Dr. Mamdouh Salameh's post. Sir, I regard you as a powerhouse of energy related information and opinion. I agree with much of what you say about U.S. shale oil. You've outlined weaknesses in U.S. geopolitics and the relative strengths of Putin.

    I'd like to ask if you believe our climate is changing as a result of rapidly dumping byproducts of combustion into the air and water? (We do this because it appears to us that there is no cost for doing so.) Are you really feeling good about dependency on burning stuff up to get the energy we need?

    Does it bother you that people fight over fossil fuel as much as we do? What is the full-cost of burning fossil fuel, if we include world conflict and oil-industry pollution in the equation?

    We have had an incredible ride on the back of fossil fuel, to date.. Do you really think that we can have business as usual, from here?

    I appreciate Nick Cunningham's voice because it includes more of the full picture on producing and using fossil fuel, as compared to alternatives. I'm not advocating taking unrealistic stances, but I am in appreciation of saying what needs improving along with lauding the benefit of burning up a remarkable resource. Fossil fuels have been incredible for an incredibly short blip in Earth history.

    I'd like to express my appreciation to Oil Price for taking a broad, comprehensive approach in reporting on energy. Best of luck to us all in the New Year!

Leave a comment

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News