Survival of Oil and Gas industry.

[Anisha fatima + 8]

Will Oil Price Recover and Oil Industry Survive?

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

oil price will soar due to increased demand and a lack of investment over the last 7 or 8 years

The oil industry is here to stay!

Edited June 21, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Anisha fatima + 8]

Ya, that's interesting! Hope oil and gas industries survive longer.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

The oil industry will survive in some form until the The last customer for oil quits buying it. Similarly for NG.

Oil is mostly consumed by internal combustion engines in cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft. They will remain customers until they are replaced by other engines, (EVs, hydrogen-powered engines) or until non-fossil fuel replaced oil-derived fuel. Oil is also used for petrochemicals. This will continue until cheaper substitutes are available.

NG is used primarily to generate electricity, but a very large amount is used directly for heating, and a large amount is used to produce ammonia and hydrogen. It will continue to be used until cheaper alternatives are available. Costs for alternatives continue to decline.

Alternatives to oil and gas will inevitably become cheaper, and the cost of oil will probably increase. It will surely increase if the world's governments continue to impose the "external" costs of the consequences of global warming on the oil and gas industries. (Whether or not global warming is in fact a consequence of fossil fuels is not relevant here, only whether or not the fossil fuel industry must bear these costs).

I think the real question you wanted to ask is "how long, and in what form, will the oil and gas industry survive?"  My personal guess: gradual but bumpy decline, ending at a very low level of production sometime between 2050 and 2060. This would become an abrupt decline if cheap nuclear fusion is deployed.

[turbguy + 1,545]

50 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I think the real question you wanted to ask is "how long, and in what form, will the oil and gas industry survive?"  My personal guess: gradual but bumpy decline, ending at a very low level of production sometime between 2050 and 2060. This would become an abrupt decline if cheap nuclear fusion is deployed.

"Cheap" nuclear fusion?

Don't hold you breath.

Unless a SIGNIFICANT discovery comes about.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

"Cheap" nuclear fusion?

Don't hold you breath.

Unless a SIGNIFICANT discovery comes about.

I'm not holding my breath. I think a Nobel-prize-level breakthrough would be needed to get to cheap quickly-deployable fusion. Fusion is 20 years away, Fusion has been twenty years away since 1960 when I first became interested in the subject, and I see no improvement in the timeline. Fusion is what would be needed to kill the oil and gas industry faster than the slow bumpy decline that will end between 2050 and 2060.

[turbguy + 1,545]

8 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm not holding my breath. I think a Nobel-prize-level breakthrough would be needed to get to cheap quickly-deployable fusion. Fusion is 20 years away, Fusion has been twenty years away since 1960 when I first became interested in the subject, and I see no improvement in the timeline. Fusion is what would be needed to kill the oil and gas industry faster than the slow bumpy decline that will end between 2050 and 2060.

It's still gonna need oil to build and operate.

If it ever arises I predict it will be cavitation-induced.  There's plenty of stuff going on with cavitation collapse that has people still scratching heads.

Such as ionizing radiation found in hydroturbine tailraces...

Edited June 29, 2021 by turbguy

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 minutes ago, turbguy said:

It's still gonna need oil to build and operate.

Frankly, it's easier to plan based on fusion never becoming cost-effective. Oil dies as EVs replace ICE, and NG dies as wind, solar, and batteries replace NG generators, heat pumps replace gas furnaces and boilers, and "green" hydrogen replaces NG for ammonia and "gray" hydrogen. If fusion ever happens, it replaces wind, solar, and batteries.

The non-fossil electric infrastructure, whether or not it included fusion,  needs oil (and NG) to build and operate today, but as more and more non-fossil electricity becomes available, the energy needed to build and operate the infrastructure needs less and less oil and gas.  I'm thinking ahead 30 to 40 years.

[markslawson + 1,058]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I think the real question you wanted to ask is "how long, and in what form, will the oil and gas industry survive?"  My personal guess: gradual but bumpy decline, ending at a very low level of production sometime between 2050 and 2060. This would become an abrupt decline if cheap nuclear fusion is deployed.

Dan - you do say "my best guess" so I understand that its just a stab in the dark but readers must also understand that almost all forecasting efforts in oil and gas have proved to be wrong, even on short forecasting period of a few years - or if they've been proved right its just been a coincidence.

Forecasts of events 30-40 years out are suspect right from the start, but in any case there is simply no indication on current figures that that the oil and gas industries are going to dwindle to nothing at any stage.. Look at the EIA Short Term Energy Outlook  oil consumption is going up not down - admittedly by less than 2 per cent since 2019 (figures at right) but the industry has just been through a Covid-induced slump.

As for NG, again there is no current decline .. look at this EIA graph  gas is pushing out coal in several markets (although that does not mean coal production is slumping either) - a major reason for the increases, especially in the US.. 

Adoption of EVs, in and when it happens in anything like the numbers required to make a series dent in oil consumption figures would probably increase the need for gas powered plants.. after all the power for the cars has to come from some where.. and only so many ineffective PVs and wind turbines can be built in time..  

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

22 minutes ago, turbguy said:

It's still gonna need oil to build and operate.

If it ever arises I predict it will be cavitation-induced.  There's plenty of stuff going on with cavitation collapse that has people still scratching heads.

Such as ionizing radiation found in hydroturbine tailraces...

I started looking at sonofusion in 1995 and like you I think that there must be something in there somewhere. Maybe hit the bubble with a ring of lasers, all timed to the nanosecond. But getting from lab to production would take at least a decade.

[turbguy + 1,545]

42 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I started looking at sonofusion in 1995 and like you I think that there must be something in there somewhere. Maybe hit the bubble with a ring of lasers, all timed to the nanosecond. But getting from lab to production would take at least a decade.

Any low-input energy event that can produce localized temperatures in excess of 10,000K, hundreds of atmospheres of pressure, pulses of light, and ionizing radiation has to be further investigated.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

On 6/21/2021 at 5:23 AM, Rob Plant said:

oil price will soar due to increased demand and a lack of investment over the last 7 or 8 years

The oil industry is here to stay!

Have to agree, Despite what the cleb’s and EU-DC nut jobs say it’s going to outlast it’s critics! To many uses that people don’t really understand..

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

11 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

This would become an abrupt decline if cheap nuclear fusion is deployed.

Thats not happening in our lifetime

Yes they MAY solve the fusion riddle in a decade or two but it is incredibly expense compared to renewables or fossil fuels so wont be the energy of choice for a very very long time.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Adoption of EVs, in and when it happens in anything like the numbers required to make a series dent in oil consumption figures would probably increase the need for gas powered plants.. after all the power for the cars has to come from some where.. and only so many ineffective PVs and wind turbines can be built in time..  

I agree zero emission gas plants are the way forward, satisfies the greens, cheap initial build cost in comparison to competing energy sources (no large boilers for example), has additional income streams in selling its Co2 and Nitrogen, quick start up times, and reliable (you dont need the sun to shine or the wind to blow).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2021/01/08/net-power-ceo-announces-four-new-zero-emission-gas-plants-underway/?sh=140d9550175b

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

12 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

I'm not holding my breath. I think a Nobel-prize-level breakthrough would be needed to get to cheap quickly-deployable fusion. Fusion is 20 years away, Fusion has been twenty years away since 1960 when I first became interested in the subject, and I see no improvement in the timeline. Fusion is what would be needed to kill the oil and gas industry faster than the slow bumpy decline that will end between 2050 and 2060.

The breakthrough on cheap efficient fusion could take place today, and it wouldn't affect the projection of an end to the hydrocarbon era in 2050-2060.  No matter how big the breakthrough is,  you still have to build out the facilities and infrastructure to use it,  and that won't happen on a timescale so fast that it can wipe out hydrocarbons faster than 30 years.  It would affect what replaces hydrocarbons (more fusion, less renewables) but not the timing or the rate of change.  

[hemanthaa@mail.com + 64]

I will believe in the feasibility of fusion when superconductors are available on Amazon to buy or sell! Very unlikely even in decades.

[Jimc + 83]

So…….all you prediction gurus…..if I give you $1,000 to invest where is it going …..into fossil fuel stocks or solar stocks???

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

23 minutes ago, Jimc said:

So…….all you prediction gurus…..if I give you $1,000 to invest where is it going …..into fossil fuel stocks or solar stocks???

Neither

[Jimc + 83]

Not a choice…..

Have to choose in order to flush out true feelings 

 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Jimc said:

So…….all you prediction gurus…..if I give you $1,000 to invest where is it going …..into fossil fuel stocks or solar stocks???

Wind energy or copper mining.  I don’t think oil is a winner any time soon and solar isn’t competitive with wind in most places.  
 

if I have to choose, solar - it’s got a lot more upside potential.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

19 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

Have to agree, Despite what the cleb’s and EU-DC nut jobs say it’s going to outlast it’s critics! To many uses that people don’t really understand..

NG and especially oil each have many uses, but the overwhelming percentage of these are as fuel: maybe 80% for oil and 90% for NG. Therefore, even if there were no cost-effective substitutes for all of those non-fuel uses, the oil and gas industries will decline as new  energy technologies replace petroleum fuels and NG generators. But many of the non-fuel uses of oil and gas already have non-petroleum substitutes. furthermore, I suspect that a lot of the non-fuel products are only cost-effective because they are side-stream byproducts of petroleum fuel refining, so as fuel use declines, their costs will rise, making non-petroleum substitutes more attractive.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

Oil use will decline as a percentage of the total energy market, but will continue to grow in absolute terms. We live in a dynamic marketplace whose contours change from year to year. 

Therefore, the energy market is not a zero-sum game where one source of energy displaces another source of energy, rather, the overall market demand for energy is a continuously evolving and growing entity.

To attempt to suppress carbon-related forms of energy sounds almost like a competitive ploy, designed to enhance a competing source or sources. That would explain the shrill trumpeting of discredited "climate" studies purporting to require a noncarbon future to prevent a world disaster. Panic-creation is a method to stop and conceal the research and evaluation of genuine possibilities for forward development.

The strategy of panic-creation will only work so long as genuine research is kept in the background. When the panic stops, reality sets in, and the market forces favoring oil and natural gas will become predominant.

Edited July 1, 2021 by Ecocharger

[MrGreat + 7]

The Western plan is to choke oil at the supply side (Dutch court, KXL, carbon taxes, govt abetting green benefactors via crony capitalism resulting in things like the the partial Exxon board takeover , mass fear propaganda on existential threats. etc). This should cause oil prices to spike, which in turn will increase operation costs of ICEs. People will shift to EVs but  EVs prices will also increase as the cobalt/lithium elements will be in short supply. The planned outcome will be the next 3 billion people born ,all in the third world,  will never own robust EVs/ICEs vehicles and ownership in the West will be reduced. This result could see big profits from the surviving oil companies, which could lead to envy, massive taxation and expropriation by govts. OPEC+ will laugh.

[turbguy + 1,545]

On 7/1/2021 at 1:22 AM, MrGreat said:

The Western plan is to choke oil at the supply side (Dutch court, KXL, carbon taxes, govt abetting green benefactors via crony capitalism resulting in things like the the partial Exxon board takeover , mass fear propaganda on existential threats. etc). This should cause oil prices to spike, which in turn will increase operation costs of ICEs. People will shift to EVs but  EVs prices will also increase as the cobalt/lithium elements will be in short supply. The planned outcome will be the next 3 billion people born ,all in the third world,  will never own robust EVs/ICEs vehicles and ownership in the West will be reduced. This result could see big profits from the surviving oil companies, which could lead to envy, massive taxation and expropriation by govts. OPEC+ will laugh.

That might be seen as a reasonable outcome, particularly when Insurance companies either refuse to issue economic coverage to fossil fuel firms, and investors refuse to issue any economic credit.  Prices for fossil fuels will rise to the point of harming the as-built economy for a decade or three.

Many USA firms already find themselves involved in firmer and more frequent lawsuits.  Particularly if those firms were well aware of what could happen by their own internal investigations.  This behavior did not work out well for Tobacco, Inc. or Asbestos, Inc. 

In the interim, perhaps we can fuel some vehicles with waste plastics? 

In the end, an EV recharged with fossil fuel resources might make a small dent in emissions.  It's a move in the right direction.  It ain't enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crimes-oil-and-gas-environment?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Edited July 3, 2021 by turbguy

[markslawson + 1,058]

6 minutes ago, turbguy said:

That might be seen as a reasonable outcome, particularly when Insurance companies either refuse to issue economic coverage to fossil fuel firms, and investors refuse to issue any economic credit.  Prices for fossil fuels will rise to the point of harming the as-built economy for a decade or three.

This is a lot of conspiracy out of not much.. sure there's a lot of noise at the moment and sure there are organisations refusing insurance and credit but there are always other organisations willing to lend or insure. Oil prices and consumption are down at the moment, but that's because of Covid. Otherwise its very difficult to see any clear trend. Maybe come back to it in about a decade or so..