油价达到200美元是有可能的，尽管可能性不大
可能的情况包括地缘政治冲突的严重升级或持续的投资不足导致供应减少
分析人士喜欢说，解决高油价的方法是高油价，这是正确的
据油价网4月23日报道，这本是去年的热门话题：贸易商押注到今年3月油价将达到200美元。对冲基金经理警告称，在2022年结束之前，甚至可能达到250美元。
所有这些都没有发生，事后看来，原因很容易理解：全球石油市场已经一次又一次地证明，它比贸易商所认为的更有弹性。但200美元的油价还有可能吗？在某些情况下，总有可能性。
地缘政治冲突严重升级
正是因为去年地缘政治冲突，人们才开始谈论200美元。皮埃尔·安杜兰德(Pierre Andurand)甚至更进一步，他警告称，油价可能会涨到250美元，因为“我认为我们将永远失去产能大国在欧洲的供应”。
事实证明，欧洲方面并没有失去供应，只是现在通过第三国获得了供应，这使全球经济免于油价引发的严重衰退。石油总能找到出路。
然而，冲突的重大升级(可能是通过北约更直接的介入)可能会推高油价。即使在升级的情况下，也不确定它们是否会达到200美元，因为市场在任何时间内都不太可能承受这个价格，但这并非不可能。
欧佩克+进一步减产
就机会而言，这种情况发生的可能性比第一种情况要小。为了使油价达到200美元，欧佩克+需要进一步减产，但更重要的是，该组织不得不减产。但事实并非如此。因为200美元的价格太高了，这会削弱需求。
欧佩克+在其最新举措中表示，其最佳价格点约为每桶80～90美元，因此正试图将价格保持在该水平附近。
生产中断也有可能会推高油价，即使生产中断导致停产的数量只有每天40万桶，就像我们最近看到的伊拉克出口争端所看到的那样。
投资不足
到目前为止，以上概述的情况更多的是一种心理锻炼，而不是现实场景。尽管至少有几种看起来很有可能让贸易商购买200美元的布伦特期权。
然而，还有一种情况是现实的。它不像战争那样夸夸其谈，但这让它变得更加危险。在这种情况下，持续的投资不足会严重缩减供应，导致价格只能上涨。
沙特阿拉伯一直在对此发出警告。美国页岩生产商一直在对此提出警告。七国集团刚刚宣布，他们将打击“有增无减的化石燃料”，这本质上意味着阻止更多的石油和天然气生产。
当然，这一宣言的价值并不比纸面意义高多少，如果可能的话，谁也不会希望油价很快达到200美元。如果这些国家的政府打击所谓的“有增无减”的化石燃料，世界石油供应将面临风险。
分析人士喜欢说，解决高油价的方法是高油价，他们是正确的。控制一种商品价格的一个非常有效的方法是让它上涨到足以扼杀需求的程度。
但如果这种商品和石油一样重要，会发生什么呢？不使用石油将把人们带回到一个更简单但不那么丰富、富裕的时代。
幸运的是，即使对新石油和天然气勘探的持续投资不足，也可能不足以将价格一路推高至200美元。因为在技术的帮助下，该行业总是会通过调整产量来应对需求。投资不足使这一目标更难实现，但并非不可能。即使是最雄心勃勃的七国集团(G7)政府也不准备对石油实施彻底禁令。
郝芬 译自 油价网
原文如下：
Four Scenarios That Could Send Oil Prices To $200
*Oil at $200 is a possibility, although unlikely to happen.
*Possible scenarios include a major escalation in the Ukraine conflict or consistent underinvestment leading to a reduction in supply.
*Analysts love to say that the cure for high oil prices is high prices, and they are correct.
It was the talk of the town last year. Traders bet on oil hitting $200 by March this year. Hedge fund managers warned it could even reach $250 before 2022 was over.
None of that happened, and in hindsight, it’s easy to see why: global oil markets have time and again proved they are a lot more resilient than traders give them credit for. But is oil at $200 still a possibility? It always is, under certain scenarios.
Major Ukraine escalation
It was because of the war last year that people started talking about $200. Pierre Andurand went even further, warning that oil could rise to $250 because “I think we’re losing the supply on the European side for ever.”
It turned out that the European side is not losing supply but is simply getting it through third countries now, so that’s saved the global economy from a major oil price-induced headache. Oil always finds a way.
Yet a major escalation in the conflict, possibly through more direct NATO involvement, could send prices flying high. It’s not certain they would reach $200 even in an escalation scenario because it’s highly unlikely the market could bear this price for any length of time, but it’s not impossible.
More OPEC+ cuts
As far as chances go, this scenario is less likely than the first one. To get prices to $200, OPEC+ would need to cut much deeper, but more importantly, the group would have to want it. It doesn’t. Because $200 is way too high a price, and it would sap demand.
OPEC+ has suggested with its latest moves that its sweet price spot is around $80-90 per barrel, so it is trying to keep prices around that level.
Production outages could push oil prices higher, as they invariably do, even when the outage is as small as 400,000 bpd, as we recently saw with the Kurdistan-Iraq export dispute.
Yet outages do not move prices so radically as to take them from sub-$90 to $200, so this is an even less likely scenario. An attack on Saudi production facilities could do the trick if it’s very successful, such an attack has become purely hypothetical.
Underinvestment comes to bite
The scenarios outlined so far are more of a mental exercise than realistic scenarios. None of them are particularly likely, even though at least a couple seemed so likely they made traders buy $200 Brent options.
Yet there is one more scenario that is a realistic one. It’s not as bombastic as a war, but that makes it all the more dangerous. It is the scenario where consistent underinvestment shrinks supply so much, that prices have nowhere to go but up.
Saudi Arabia has been warning about it. U.S. shale producers have been warning about it. And the G7 just declared they would fight “unabated fossil fuels,” which essentially means discouraging more oil and gas production.
Of course, that declaration is worth little more than the paper it was written on, and that is the world’s greatest hope that oil will not hit $200 anytime soon, if ever. If those governments get serious about what they call unabated fossil fuels, the world’s oil supply will be at risk.
Analysts love to say that the cure for high oil prices is high prices, and they are correct. A very efficient way to control the price of a commodity is to let it rise so much it kills demand.
But what happens if that commodity is as essential as oil? Not using oil takes people back through the ages to a simpler but a lot less abundant, wealthy time. Just ask a Kenyan farmer how he likes that.
Luckily for all, even the consistent underinvestment in new oil and gas exploration may not be enough to take prices all the way to $200. Because the industry, with the help of technology, will always respond to demand by adjusting production. Underinvestment has made this harder but not impossible. And even the most ambitious G7 government is not ready to impose an outright ban on oil.
免责声明：本网转载自其它媒体的文章及图片，目的在于弘扬石化精神，传递更多石化信息，宣传国家石化产业政策，展示国家石化产业形象，参与国际石化产业舆论竞争，提高国际石化产业话语权，并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责，在此我们谨向原作者和原媒体致以崇高敬意。如果您认为本站文章及图片侵犯了您的版权，请与我们联系，我们将第一时间删除。
