IEA’s Delayed Peak Oil and Gas Demand Forecast and Strategic Shift of Industry Giants: In-Depth Analysis of Investment Logic Reconfiguration

Based on the latest data and in-depth analysis, the following is a complete investment research report on the IEA’s delay of peak oil and gas demand to 2050 and the impact of major oil and gas players’ strategic shift on investment logic:

---

The International Energy Agency (IEA) made a major revision to its forecast for the peak of global oil and gas demand in its World Energy Outlook report released in November 2025 [1][2]:

Forecast Scenario	Previous Forecast	New Forecast	Change Magnitude
Current Policy Scenario	Peak in 2030	Peak in 2050	Delayed by 20 Years
Announced Policies Scenario	Peak in 2030	Peak in 2035	Delayed by 5 Years
Global Crude Oil Demand in 2050	—	11.3 million barrels per day	Sustained Growth Trend

More critically, the IEA projects that by 2050, the world will still need

, a figure that completely overturns the radical forecast made five years ago that “no new investments in oil and gas sectors are needed” [1].

The strategic adjustment of major oil and gas players actually began prior to the revision of the IEA’s forecast:

2020 ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────►
   │                                                            │
   │  "Radical Transition Period" │  "Return to Oil and Gas Period"
   │  • BP announced the end of the oil era │  • ExxonMobil acquires Pioneer ($59.5 billion)
   │  • Shell/Total significantly increased renewable energy investments │  • Chevron acquires Hess ($53 billion)
   │  • Target: 40% reduction in oil and gas production by 2030 │  • BP cuts renewable energy investments by 60%-70%
   │  • Low-carbon investment share: 15%-25% │  • Equinor raises production target by 10%
   │                                                            │  • Low-carbon investment share reduced to 3%-10%

---

Based on the 2025-2026 capital expenditure guidance of various companies, major oil and gas players exhibit the characteristic of

[3][4]:

Company	2026 Capital Expenditure	Share of Oil and Gas Investments	Low-Carbon Investment	Strategic Characteristics
Chevron	$18-$19 billion	90%	$1 billion (less than 6%)	Focus on U.S. shale oil
Shell	$20-$22 billion	75%-80%	$5-$6 billion	Stable framework, equal emphasis on traditional business and transition
BP	$13-$15 billion	Approx. 77%	$1.5-$2 billion (down $5 billion)	Strategic reset, scaled-back transition
TotalEnergies	$16 billion	70%-75%	Retains 25%-30% of investment in power sector	Natural gas-centered transition
Equinor	Adjusted as appropriate	10% production increase	Sustained losses	Return to oil and gas

are forward-looking signals of the strategic shift [1][2]:

• ExxonMobil’s Acquisition of Pioneer Natural Resources
  : The transaction is valued at $59.5 billion (including $64.5 billion in debt), strengthening its U.S. shale oil and gas layout
• Chevron’s Acquisition of Hess Corporation
  : The transaction is valued at $53 billion (including $60 billion in debt), expanding into Guyana’s deepwater oil and gas sector

The total scale of the two transactions exceeds

, making it the most intensive M&A wave in the international oil industry in the past decade, signifying the major players’ re-recognition of the value of traditional oil and gas assets.

The four major European oil and gas companies (BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni) were once leaders in low-carbon investments, allocating an average of 15%-25% of their budgets to renewable energy [1]:

Company	Change in Low-Carbon Investments	Specific Measures
BP	$5 billion → $1.5-$2 billion	Abandons renewable energy targets, returns to oil business
TotalEnergies	50% target → abandoned	Renewable energy installed capacity target reduced from 12-16 GW to 10-12 GW
Shell	Exits new offshore wind power investments	Integrates new energy with retail network
Equinor	Sustained losses	Long-term poor performance of renewable energy division

---

The capital expenditure layout of major players collectively points to the core demand of

[4]:

Investment Logic Transformation Framework
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
   Old Logic (2020-2023)                    New Logic (2024-2026)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
  • Radical transition                            • Prudent growth
  • Increased share of low-carbon investments                    • Priority on core oil and gas business
  • Production reduction targets                        • Focus on high-return core assets
  • ESG-driven                            • Shareholder return-driven
  • Long-term vision                            • Short-term cash flow
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Based on the new industry trends, the risk-return characteristics of various energy investments are being reshaped:

Asset Category	Expected Return	Risk Level	Change in Investment Attractiveness
Traditional Oil and Gas	8%	Low	↑ Increased
Shale Oil and Gas	12%	Medium	↑ Significantly increased
LNG	10%	Medium-Low	→ Stable
Renewable Energy	6%	Medium-High	↓ Decreased
CCUS	5%	High	↓ Decreased
Hydrogen	4%	Very High	↓ Significantly decreased

• United States
  : Has become the most active region for oil and gas investments, with concentrated investments in core shale oil producing areas (Permian, Denver-Julesburg)
• Guyana
  : Representative of high-potential global offshore projects, with key layouts by ExxonMobil/Chevron
• Eastern Mediterranean
  : A growth area focused on by Chevron and other companies
• Europe
  : Significant investment contraction, with the largest cuts to low-carbon projects

---

Forecasts from think tanks under CNPC and Sinopec show [5]:

Indicator	China’s Forecast	Global Forecast
Peak Oil Consumption Time	2027	2040
Peak Volume	770-780 million tonnes	4.8 billion tonnes
Driving Factor	Transition from fuel to raw material	Sustained growth

China’s oil consumption will exhibit the characteristic of

, with refined oil consumption projected to decrease by 45 million tonnes, while chemical oil use will increase by 63 million tonnes.

:

• The 20-year delay in peak oil and gas demand provides long-term demand support
• Major players return to traditional business, improving cash flow
• Improved expectations for shareholder returns (dividends + share repurchases)
• Policy support for increased U.S. oil and gas production

:

• Slowdown in renewable energy investment growth (only 7.3% in 2024, compared to 32% the previous year) [1]
• Weakened narrative of low-carbon transition
• Policy uncertainty (e.g., U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement)

---

Strategy Direction	Specific Recommendations	Logical Support
Overweight Oil and Gas Upstream	Focus on U.S. shale oil and Guyana deepwater	Concentrated capital expenditures, high return rates
Focus on Shareholder Returns	Select oil and gas companies with high dividend yields	Cash flow priority, accelerated share repurchases
Avoid Pure Low-Carbon Targets	Reduce exposure to renewable energy projects	Decreased investment share, returns below expectations

• Core Allocation
  : Large integrated oil and gas giants (ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell)
• Satellite Allocation
  : U.S. independent shale oil explorers
• Hedging Allocation
  : Retain a small amount of renewable energy/natural gas assets

1. Policy Risk
   : If global carbon emission reduction policies tighten more than expected, it may once again impact oil and gas investment logic
2. Price Risk
   : Oil price fluctuations will directly affect the performance and investment returns of oil and gas companies
3. Technology Risk
   : The rapid development of AI may change the structure of energy demand
4. Geopolitical Risk
   : Geopolitical events in the Middle East, Russia-Ukraine region, etc., affect supply and prices

---

The IEA’s forecast of delaying the peak oil and gas demand to 2050 marks the entry of the global energy transition into a

.

The strategic shift of major oil and gas players is not a short-term expedient measure, but is based on the following core judgments:

1. Sustained Demand Growth
   : Global crude oil demand will maintain a growth trend until 2050
2. Returns Below Expectations
   : Renewable energy investments have failed to deliver the economic returns required by shareholders
3. Energy Security Priority
   : Geopolitical uncertainty has strengthened the strategic value of traditional energy sources
4. Underestimated Transition Costs
   : Daniel Yergin pointed out that the $115 trillion global economy cannot be completely transformed within 25 years

For investors,

is replacing “radical transition, ESG-driven” as the new investment paradigm for the oil and gas industry. It is recommended to moderately increase allocations to traditional oil and gas assets in investment portfolios, while maintaining the ability to track and adjust to the long-term trend of energy transition.

---

[1] Huaxia Energy Network - IEA Delays Peak Oil and Gas Demand by 20 Years, Major Oil and Gas Players collectively “Turn Back” (https://caifuhao.eastmoney.com/news/20260112090131367426450)

[2] The Paper - IEA Delays Peak Oil and Gas Demand by 20 Years, Major Oil and Gas Players collectively “Turn Back” (https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_32366131)

[3] Carbon Lab - Focus on Upstream Business! Oil Giants Clarify 2026 Capital Expenditure Directions (http://www.pmweb.com.cn/news/11405.html)

[4] Sina Finance - Differentiated Rhythms of Peak Oil Consumption: China Approaching, Global Delay (https://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2026-01-09/doc-inhfsnix0690249.shtml)

[5] Caixin - Exclusive Interview with Daniel Yergin: UN’s 2050 Net-Zero Emission Target is Unrealistic

---

Note for Chart 1: Shows changes in the IEA’s peak oil and gas demand forecast timeline, capital expenditure allocation of major oil and gas companies, global oil demand forecast curve, and the timeline of investment logic transformation for energy transition

Note for Chart 2: Comparison of energy investment risk-return matrix and investment strategy shifts, showing the risk-return characteristics of various assets and strategy differences between 2020 and 2025