When considering autonomy in buses and both light and freight trucks, the EIA sees lower demand compared to its base case in all scenarios.
The market’s initial reaction on Monday and its losses of about $7 since the beginning of March indicate that OPEC members can’t use verbal intervention to lift prices as easily as they did last year.
The reasons for the positive demand revisions come from every region of the global oil market, with stronger economic activity the main reason for the more optimistic outlook.
Critics of the EIA's long-term projections can cherry-pick through the different scenarios to justify almost any outlook that suits their bias.
The past two years have reminded many observers that black gold is tough to beat, no matter what commitments countries make, and that countries like China still have a lot of room to grow.
Although shifts are taking place with EVs, autonomy, and more stringent fuel economy, it is not inevitable that we’ll shortly be in a post-oil world and that demand will peak sooner rather than later.
In order for prices to break out of the current range of $40-$50, there needs to be a sharp drawdown in crude stocks, but so far that hasn't happened.
Historically high oil output obscures the fact that OPEC is also experiencing some of its worst-ever unplanned outages. Combined, the volumes lost to violent conflict, political disputes and other setbacks add up to almost 3 mbd.
The fight over territory is less about a scramble for resources in the South China Sea than it is about asserting sovereignty and hegemony in the region. Control over oil and gas reserves happens to be one component of that objective, but is not necessarily central to it.
The contradiction of proposed increases in fuel efficiency standards for large trucks is that although they will reduce oil consumption, they will also discourage the adoption of alternative vehicles that run on natural gas and make them less competitive in the trucking sector.