Market analysis: US energy companies in the spotlight

Donald Trump may have been ignoring market dynamics that were probably more instrumental in changing America’s energy balance away from polluting coal to cleaner burning natural gas and renewables.

Oil producers in the US may be cautiously optimistic about looser environmental regulations that allow for more drilling and greater output. Above, workers at a fracking site in North Dakota. Andrew CShow more

President Donald Trump has announced the United States will withdraw from the Paris Agreement to combat global climate change. Mr Trump’s decision, while fulfilling a campaign pledge, will create further divisions with America’s allies, many of whose leaders have expressed disappointment about the US withdrawing from a leadership position on this critical global issue.

Mr Trump claims that the deal would hurt American industry and lead to job losses in the US while other carbon emitters, notably India and China, would be dealt with less harshly. Indeed, throughout the campaign, Mr Trump criticised the Obama administration for taking steps to weaken America’s coal industry, and has said pulling out of the Paris Agreement means other countries won’t be “laughing at the US any more”.

However, he may have been ignoring market dynamics that were probably more instrumental in changing America’s energy balance away from polluting coal to cleaner burning natural gas and renewables. Coal’s share of America’s power generation has fallen from nearly 50 per cent as recently as 2005 to barely a third in 2016. It has largely been displaced by natural gas, now around a third of total power generation, as the shale technology that is catalysing growth in the US oil industry was pioneered in natural gasfields. But renewables have also made a dent in coal’s use, accounting for more than 7 per cent of total power generation in 2016, compared with just over 2 per cent in 2005. This shift away from coal was already under way before president Barack Obama was elected and before his administration introduced the Clean Power Plan, which placed the onus on individual states to cut carbon emissions.

Natural gas and renewables are becoming cheaper sources of power and consumer awareness of the origin of their electricity means that coal’s share of US power demand is probably not going to recover to its historic levels.

Surveys of American opinions on pollution and climate change show overwhelming support to limit carbon emissions – 75 per cent of all Americans according to a recent Yale University study – although there is a lack of concern about how climate change directly affects individuals.

But even if the US walks away from its Paris Agreement commitments there may not be a sudden spike in carbon emissions in the US, as companies have spent heavily to accommodate sustainability and pollution issues. As recently as last week, ExxonMobil accepted the need to address carbon emission regulations more seriously as a threat to their business under pressure from shareholders.

America’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement won’t happen for at least four years, but in the interim the significant impact will be further marginalisation of the US’s role on the international stage. The Paris Agreement brought together enormously disparate economies, and already China and the European Union are highlighting their support in fighting climate change in response to the US withdrawal. The US decision to walk away from a hard-fought diplomatic achievement will make it all that more difficult for the US to be seen as a reliable foreign partner, even among its closest allies. While it is fair to be sceptical about China’s ability and seriousness in cleaning up its economy away from heavy polluting industries, China is currently winning the communications battle of appearing to be the pro-globalisation and pro-diplomacy candidate for global leadership.

There will be pockets in the US that will be celebrating the walkaway from the Paris Agreement, the coal industry most obviously. But with a domestic market that may not be prepared for an immediate switch back to coal-fired power, coal companies will need to rely on export markets. Most of the coal the US ships abroad ends up in Europe, hardly a fast-growing market for the fuel, and to states which are more likely to tighten rather than loosen their environmental regulations.

But oil producers in the US may also be cautiously optimistic about looser environmental regulations that allow for more drilling and greater output. Oil prices fell in response to Trump’s statement as the market anticipates an even greater increase in US production. If Mr Trump was serious about wanting to support the oil and gas industry in the US, encouraging greater production at a time when the market is only tentatively in balance may not be the best way of going about it.

Tim Fox is the chief economist and head of research at Emirates NBD and Edward Bell is a commodity analyst at the bank.

Follow The National's Business section on Twitter