Summary:
MulƟple outlooks project impending decline in oil and gas demand. BP’s strategy assumes rising demand. In the last major demand contracƟon, the Company cut dividends by 50%. This resoluƟon asks BP to clarify how it would create shareholder value under credible scenarios of declining oil and gas demand. With this transparency, investors can beƩer judge how BP’s porƞolio might perform under all circumstances.

Declining demand
Many trusted analysts increasingly predict that the world will soon enter a structural decline in oil and gas demand.

STEPS and APS consƟtute credible scenarios, as they correspond to idenƟfiable policies and market developments. STEPS represents the energy sector’s current direcƟon of travel, based on the latest market data, technology costs, and in-depth analysis of the prevailing policy seƫngs globally. APS anƟcipates the implementaƟon of addiƟonal policies pledged by governments. These scenarios warrant investor concern, as they reflect ongoing and planned implementaƟon of regulaƟon, poliƟcal
support, and technological uptake, as well as market and economic realiƟes. Both see an impending peak in demand for oil and gas. In STEPS, oil demand peaks by 2030 and gas by 2035. In APS, both peak before 2030 and fall 17% by 2035 compared to 2023 (99–82 mb/d; 4186– 3493 bcm).1
The IEA’s June 2025 oil forecast predicts reduced demand by the end of the decade; this is noteworthy as it seems to align with the oil demand projecƟons indicated in both STEPS and APS.2

Regarding gas, the IEA states: “The period of LNG surplus in the STEPS makes it difficult for some exporters to fully recover their long-run marginal cost of supply, creaƟng risks that project sponsors write off the value of the assets.”3

Other analysts also show outlooks divergent from BP’s. Rystad’s analysis shows oil peaking in theearly 2030s, with gas plateauing soon aŌer. The US Energy InformaƟon Agency (EIA) expectsoverproducƟon to push oil prices down to $51 in 2026, well below the $70 to $74.4 BP expects. 4,5,6 This convergent view on a potenƟal decline by a broad array of market analysts warrants serious
concern from investors.

BP’s reset strategy is based on growth in oil and gas demand:
At its Capital Markets Update 2025, BP projected a growth for oil and gas producƟon to 2.3–2.5 mmboed by 2030. The Company promises to grow its adjusted cash flows by 20% annually over the next three years, but the plans beyond this short-term horizon are not transparently disclosed.7
Company scenarios assume that oil demand grows to 103.4 mb/d into the early 2030s, with gas demand growing above 4,800 bcm by the 2040s.8 In their reporƟng, BP disaggregates its operaƟons into 11 sub-segments, disclosing stress-tesƟng for each sub-segment along a single variable. This approach does not demonstrate how shareholder value would be created under scenarios with declining demand. Further, the stress-tesƟng horizon extends only to 2030. Investors would benefit from disclosure that addresses value generaƟon beyond this limited Ɵme frame, parƟcularly with respect to the Company’s prospecƟve response to a potenƟal global peak in oil and gas demand during the 2030s.9 Historical precedent across mulƟple industries suggests that prolonged demand contracƟon puts downward pressure on prices. Further, most oil majors plan to raise producƟon, creaƟng oversupply. Revenue could be affected; only the most cost-compeƟƟve producers would deliver value to shareholders in a declining market.
BP does not disclose capital spending, producƟon mix, or dividends in the event that demand falls. Even the Company’s projected growth would require significant gains in market share relaƟve to compeƟtors. Ongoing shareholder trust depends on answers to these quesƟons. In 2020, with oil demand down 9% and prices at an average of $42 per barrel, BP cut its dividend by
50%; this was aŌer the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in 2010. BP has since raised its dividend, but the current $0.0832 quarterly payout remains 21% below pre-2020 levels. This was only a brief drop, yet the Company struggled. A sustained decline portends much higher risks for the Company and its shareholders.

Conclusion
BP’s current fossil fuel growth assumpƟons visibly diverge from IEA APS and STEPS scenarios and other analyst projecƟons that foresee sustained demand decline.