Will We Ever See 100$+ OIL?

[D Coyne + 305]

With an assumption of $70/b up to 2025 we have the scenario below which assumes a slow transition to battery electric vehicles and/or NGVs. In this scenario Brent oil prices rise from $70/b to $100/b from 2026 to 2031 and remain at $100/b (in 2019$) until 2045 when demand for oil falls below available supply at that price. We would expect oil prices would fall to below $70/b (2019$) from 2045 to 2065, beyond that will depend on whether alternatives to oil are developed for air and water transport, possibly natural gas or hydrogen.  The extraction rate in this scenario is for conventional oil (excludes oil sands and tight oil) producing reserves, there is a separate model used for oil sands and lto independent of this "shock model", though the lto and oil sands output from the separate models are included in the World C+C model shown here.  Peak is in 2027 at 87.9 Mb/d.

See http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-shock-model-scenarios-2/

Edited July 11, 2019 by D Coyne

[D Coyne + 305]

26 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Spot on.

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/6751-predatory-green-capitalism-is-monetizing-the-air-and-its-going-to-cost-you/

... If we measure the full lifecycle costs and environmental burdens of the Good Things (all electric vehicles, etc.), we find that replacing all the existing stuff on the planet will actually increase CO2 immensely--the reduction is trivial while the CO2 emitted in the extraction, processing, manufacture, transport and maintenance of the replacement stuff (i.e. "Growth") will vastly increase CO2, as will all the green capitalists' private jets.

 

 

Tom,

The EVs, solar, and wind  etc will release less CO2 over there useful lives than the fossil fuel infrastructure that they replace.  In addition the costs of all of these are decreasing and soon fossil fuels will no longer be able to compete especially as fossil fule depletes and becomes more expensive.  For those that prefer nuclear, it is a very expensive option compared to wind and solar, though small modular reactors may be a good backup for wind and solar, if they are approved by the NRC.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

34 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Spot on.

https://community.oilprice.com/topic/6751-predatory-green-capitalism-is-monetizing-the-air-and-its-going-to-cost-you/

... If we measure the full lifecycle costs and environmental burdens of the Good Things (all electric vehicles, etc.), we find that replacing all the existing stuff on the planet will actually increase CO2 immensely--the reduction is trivial while the CO2 emitted in the extraction, processing, manufacture, transport and maintenance of the replacement stuff (i.e. "Growth") will vastly increase CO2, as will all the green capitalists' private jets.

 

 

That is factually untrue.

A BEV has about 20% more CO2 in its manufacturing than a comparable ICEV.

It takes 3 to 5 years to pay back the extra CO2 on the difference between CO2 from electricity generation and gasoline at current electricity generation mixes at the location being charged.

But grids everywhere are getting cleaner every day so that number will go down as the car ages.

And for the remaining 15 or so years the car is on the road, it will be making much less CO2 than a comparable ICEV.

I have provided you references on this very subject before. Why do you have such a hard time accepting reality?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles

https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE - draft report v04.pdf

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

4 hours ago, nathan_john said:

Globally, oil makes up only 4% of the fuel used for power generation, majority is nat gas (26%) and coal (41%). So even with wind and solar making up 64% of the planned new generation, that doesn't displace oil hardly at all. Renewables and nat gas will mainly displace coal. Nat gas has already been displacing coal in the US over the last 20 years since it burns twice as clean and is cost effective. This is how the US has reduced it's carbon dioxide emissions by 12% since 2000 (nobody talks about this though).

Furthermore, I assume you're correct in saying that EVs show very strong growth. But globally only 20% of liquids demand goes to cars. The rest is plastics, heavy duty transportation, marine, aviation, etc.  You said yourself that you don't see oil getting over $70 a barrel which means gasoline will stay cheap keeping ICE vehicles cheap. So even if by 2040 EV technology is cheap enough for it to have 25% of the car market, liquids demand stays over 95 MBOED.

I agree with you 100% that renewable power and electric vehicles are part of our future. I just think your timeline is a little aggressive. It will continue to be a transition keeping oil demand high. Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread, reserves are not a good indicator of available oil. Per SEC rules, oil companies can only project 5 years of reserves and technology keeps improving that makes reserves continue to increase. 

To answer the question in the thread though, barring anything crazy, I don't see oil over $100 in the next 5 years. Not with US shale capacity and OPEC able to bring production back online.

A lot of info listed above comes from the BP and Exxon Energy outlooks (links below). Highly recommend for anyone and everyone.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/Energy-and-environment/Energy-resources/Outlook-for-Energy/Energy-supply#testUncertaintyProjections

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/energy-outlook/demand-by-fuel/oil.html

http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions

Well, according to Statisa, and in line with your own Exxon reference, 50% of oil is used for road transport, which is under threat from BEVs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide/

EVs will be cheaper than ICE by 2022, and take the new car market by 2028, that mean 1/3 of the global passenger car fleet will be BEV by 2030. For freight trucks, the changeover will happen faster and will likely have 50% by 2030. That is 1/3 of oil demand gone by 2030 and we haven’t even gotten into electrification of aviation (underway now for small aircraft), marine (solar and hybrid boats are being built), and electrification of industrial processes. 

The 15% that petrochemicals is of the current market is not going to save it.

BP’s outlook is way too rosy fuels growth. Peak oil demand is more likely around 2025 but could be sooner.

Here is what is coming for the oil industry and why. Oil is specifically addressed at the 45:45 mark of the video. Everything previous talks about the basis of that.

https://tonyseba.com/portfolio-item/clean-disruption-of-energy-transportation/

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

14 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Even if climate legislation is thrown out, renewable energy is now cheaper putting oil into a structural decline. 

We are almost certainly in a long term well supplied market.

How's that "renewable energy" jet working out for you? Long extension cord? 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

That is factually untrue.

A BEV has about 20% more CO2 in its manufacturing than a comparable ICEV.

It takes 3 to 5 years to pay back the extra CO2 on the difference between CO2 from electricity generation and gasoline at current electricity generation mixes at the location being charged.

But grids everywhere are getting cleaner every day so that number will go down as the car ages.

And for the remaining 15 or so years the car is on the road, it will be making much less CO2 than a comparable ICEV.

I have provided you references on this very subject before. Why do you have such a hard time accepting reality?

https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles

https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE - draft report v04.pdf

Careful in your responses.  I am losing patience with your blatant and persistent anti - oil & gas agenda on this forum.

If you wish to start your own anti - oil & gas forum elsewhere, you are free to do so.

You coming here to an oil & gas forum and denigrating anyone who is pro - oil & gas is getting old.  I have previously said that I consider you as spam.  You continuously imply that anyone who supports the oil & gas industry is stupid and / or evil.  

I had previously warned the Oil Price staff that as this forum grows larger, that activists from Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, etc. may come here to try to disrupt and shout down this forum.  As a moderator, I will not allow this.

Be careful in any reply here, because if you continue to denigrate oil & gas supporters on this oil & gas forum, I will suspend your posting privileges for a few days.

 

When I was a moderator on the now defunct Oilpro forum (which had over 1 million registered members) at the time, I could not really understand why the site owner would simply delete / ban any member who consistently posted anti - oil & gas comments.  His reasoning was that while he strongly supported freedom of speech, he set up the forum to be a professional networking site for oil & gas professionals, and he would not tolerate attempts by people who hated the Oil & Gas industry to continuously disrupt conversations about the industry.

You are free to complain about me to the Oil Price Community forum admin.  I have already voiced my frustration to Oil Price staff about a few members here who try to disrupt and shout down pro - oil & gas discussions.

I am proudly pro - oil & gas, and will not apologize for supporting the oil & gas industry.

Perhaps you would feel more at home on a Greenpeace forum.

 

Meantime:

Why Calling Electric Cars 'Zero Emission' Is Blatantly False Advertising

Environment: If truth-in-advertising laws were properly enforced, any company that labeled a battery-powered car as "zero emissions" would be guilty of breaking the law. A new report, in fact, shows that electric cars can be worse than conventional cars when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

...

[James + 30]

12 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

I think the conformation bias is on your side. Even the EIA shows that wind and solar make up 64% of planned new generation in the US this year and battery electric vehicles continue to show very strong growth in a shrinking car market. China and Europe are following similar paths. Some important people, not just me, think wind, solar, and BEVs are the near future. All of which eat into oil demand.

With new wind and solar contracts coming in at $20/MWh, it is getting very hard to argue that any fossil fuel is cheaper even on just marginal cost.

I would love to see the anti-oilers live in a world without oil. Fossil fuels go into your favorite forms of alternative energy, you consume it every single day regardless of how much you try to stay away from it. The AGW messiah crowd will shunned when people realize how much damage they have done to the worlds economy. Your confirmation bias rides on pure hysteria and emotion. 

Edited July 11, 2019 by James

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

6 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

How's that "renewable energy" jet working out for you? Long extension cord? 

Working out rather well so far.

https://www.geekwire.com/2019/eviation-unveils-electric-airplane-plans-flight-tests-central-washington-state/

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

5 hours ago, James said:

I would love to see the anti-oilers live in a world without oil. Fossil fuels go into your favorite forms of alternative energy, you consume it every single day regardless of how much you try to stay away from it. The AGW messiah crowd will shunned when people realize how much damage they have done to the worlds economy. Your confirmation bias rides on pure hysteria and emotion. 

Really, and you don’t see how much damage that oil use has already done to the world’s economy?

It is true that we live in a system that is dependent on fossil fuels at the moment, but that absolutely does not need to be the case for much longer, and will cease to be true much faster than most people believe possible.

And my views are backed by the best science humanity has ever conducted.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Careful in your responses.  I am losing patience with your blatant and persistent anti - oil & gas agenda on this forum.

If you wish to start your own anti - oil & gas forum elsewhere, you are free to do so.

You coming here to an oil & gas forum and denigrating anyone who is pro - oil & gas is getting old.  I have previously said that I consider you as spam.  You continuously imply that anyone who supports the oil & gas industry is stupid and / or evil.  

I had previously warned the Oil Price staff that as this forum grows larger, that activists from Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, etc. may come here to try to disrupt and shout down this forum.  As a moderator, I will not allow this.

Be careful in any reply here, because if you continue to denigrate oil & gas supporters on this oil & gas forum, I will suspend your posting privileges for a few days.

 

When I was a moderator on the now defunct Oilpro forum (which had over 1 million registered members) at the time, I could not really understand why the site owner would simply delete / ban any member who consistently posted anti - oil & gas comments.  His reasoning was that while he strongly supported freedom of speech, he set up the forum to be a professional networking site for oil & gas professionals, and he would not tolerate attempts by people who hated the Oil & Gas industry to continuously disrupt conversations about the industry.

You are free to complain about me to the Oil Price Community forum admin.  I have already voiced my frustration to Oil Price staff about a few members here who try to disrupt and shout down pro - oil & gas discussions.

I am proudly pro - oil & gas, and will not apologize for supporting the oil & gas industry.

Perhaps you would feel more at home on a Greenpeace forum.

 

Meantime:

Why Calling Electric Cars 'Zero Emission' Is Blatantly False Advertising

Environment: If truth-in-advertising laws were properly enforced, any company that labeled a battery-powered car as "zero emissions" would be guilty of breaking the law. A new report, in fact, shows that electric cars can be worse than conventional cars when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

...

No Tom, you not liking the content does not make it spam.

Arguing with facts and references in no way meets the definition of spam.

And no, I do not denigrate people for having a positive view of fossil fuels.

The only thing I do is provide information where I see people have bought into the lies and misinformation spread by those interested in protecting fossil fuel investments.

You however are a different story. You consistently dismiss any evidence contrary to the views you want to hold and you denigrate those who disagree with your views. 

‘And yes, I am going to complain to the administrators because your actions meet the definition of trolling and you are abusing your power as an administrator to suppress views rather than encourage discussion.

You might want to be carefree how you treat me and others who hold similar views, I am certainly fed up with your behavior.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

3 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

No Tom, you not liking the content does not make it spam.

Arguing with facts and references in no way meets the definition of spam.

And no, I do not denigrate people for having a positive view of fossil fuels.

The only thing I do is provide information where I see people have bought into the lies and misinformation spread by those interested in protecting fossil fuel investments.

You however are a different story. You consistently dismiss any evidence contrary to the views you want to hold and you denigrate those who disagree with your views. 

‘And yes, I am going to complain to the administrators because your actions meet the definition of trolling and you are abusing your power as an administrator to suppress views rather than encourage discussion.

You might want to be carefree how you treat me and others who hold similar views, I am certainly fed up with your behavior.

@CMOP

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

12 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

@CMOP

So just what does “@CMOP” mean?

[Edward Quilas + 1]

what is your highest prediction for oil and would it drop to 50?

 

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

15 hours ago, James Regan said:

Oh dear another thread about to be hijacked by another AGW messiah. This is happening too much on these threads.

AGW is the scientific stance on the subject. In other words - get used to it. It's similar to flatearthers complaining that their discussions are being "hijacked by spherist messiah". 

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,223]

3 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

So just what does “@CMOP” mean?

It means your getting the boot ya dumb Sh*t!! 

Your disrespecting a Moderator after told to stop the propaganda gets you the boot. The majority in this forum tolerate some bull-crap lies but blatant ones and mis-info on PRO-OIL site isn't the place for you.

4 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

The only thing I do is provide information where I see people have bought into the lies and misinformation spread by those interested in protecting fossil fuel investments.

 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 minute ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

It means your getting the boot ya dumb Sh*t!! 

Your disrespecting a Moderator after told to stop the propaganda gets you the boot. The majority in this forum tolerate some bull-crap lies but blatant ones and mis-info on PRO-OIL site isn't the place for you.

 

That particular moderator is intentionally offensive to those he disagrees with. I doubt I am the one who will “get the boot”

Thank you for your support of me on getting rid of blatant lies and general misinformation. It is and effort some times to debunk the propaganda that often shows up here.

[James Regan + 1,776]

2 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

AGW is the scientific stance on the subject. In other words - get used to it. It's similar to flatearthers complaining that their discussions are being "hijacked by spherist messiah". 

Flatearthers and spherists! Your analogy is typically radical and leaves no room for rebuttal. So you win 👌🏻👌🏻

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 minute ago, James Regan said:

Flatearthers and spherists! Your analogy is typically radical and leaves no room for rebuttal. So you win 👌🏻👌🏻

You could rebut with published research disputing his stance.

[James Regan + 1,776]

18 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

You could rebut with published research disputing his stance.

Haha then I would be showing signs of Stockholm Syndrome, no thanks 🙏🏻 

[nathan_john + 26]

13 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Well, according to Statisa, and in line with your own Exxon reference, 50% of oil is used for road transport, which is under threat from BEVs.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/307194/top-oil-consuming-sectors-worldwide/

EVs will be cheaper than ICE by 2022, and take the new car market by 2028, that mean 1/3 of the global passenger car fleet will be BEV by 2030. For freight trucks, the changeover will happen faster and will likely have 50% by 2030. That is 1/3 of oil demand gone by 2030 and we haven’t even gotten into electrification of aviation (underway now for small aircraft), marine (solar and hybrid boats are being built), and electrification of industrial processes. 

The 15% that petrochemicals is of the current market is not going to save it.

BP’s outlook is way too rosy fuels growth. Peak oil demand is more likely around 2025 but could be sooner.

Here is what is coming for the oil industry and why. Oil is specifically addressed at the 45:45 mark of the video. Everything previous talks about the basis of that.

https://tonyseba.com/portfolio-item/clean-disruption-of-energy-transportation/

 

This is what everyone said about nat gas vehicles. When there's not enough infrastructure though it doesn't take over quickly, regardless of a cheaper upfront cost or savings in fuel. This stuff makes sense for city fleets who all fill/charge up at a central hub, like garbage trucks, buses, city employee vehicles, etc. But why would companies pay for a brand new electrical freight truck when they can just maintain their original fleet, and know for a fact that they can fill up on any highway? 

Again I don't disagree  with your EV takeover, just disagree with your timeline. You seem confident in your assertions though. Are you shorting oil futures out in 2030 since you think demand will be 2/3 of what it is today? Not being sarcastic, genuinely curious if you think that's a good idea.

 

Also, cars saying they are zero emissions is definitely false advertising. It is on par with Fiji Water saying they were zero emissions because the water they shipped from Fiji was on barges that would have been making those trips anyway.

[D Coyne + 305]

14 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Careful in your responses.  I am losing patience with your blatant and persistent anti - oil & gas agenda on this forum.

If you wish to start your own anti - oil & gas forum elsewhere, you are free to do so.

You coming here to an oil & gas forum and denigrating anyone who is pro - oil & gas is getting old.  I have previously said that I consider you as spam.  You continuously imply that anyone who supports the oil & gas industry is stupid and / or evil.  

I had previously warned the Oil Price staff that as this forum grows larger, that activists from Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, etc. may come here to try to disrupt and shout down this forum.  As a moderator, I will not allow this.

Be careful in any reply here, because if you continue to denigrate oil & gas supporters on this oil & gas forum, I will suspend your posting privileges for a few days.

 

When I was a moderator on the now defunct Oilpro forum (which had over 1 million registered members) at the time, I could not really understand why the site owner would simply delete / ban any member who consistently posted anti - oil & gas comments.  His reasoning was that while he strongly supported freedom of speech, he set up the forum to be a professional networking site for oil & gas professionals, and he would not tolerate attempts by people who hated the Oil & Gas industry to continuously disrupt conversations about the industry.

You are free to complain about me to the Oil Price Community forum admin.  I have already voiced my frustration to Oil Price staff about a few members here who try to disrupt and shout down pro - oil & gas discussions.

I am proudly pro - oil & gas, and will not apologize for supporting the oil & gas industry.

Perhaps you would feel more at home on a Greenpeace forum.

 

Meantime:

Why Calling Electric Cars 'Zero Emission' Is Blatantly False Advertising

Environment: If truth-in-advertising laws were properly enforced, any company that labeled a battery-powered car as "zero emissions" would be guilty of breaking the law. A new report, in fact, shows that electric cars can be worse than conventional cars when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

...

Tom,

I guess you will have to take it up with the EPA.  Typically ZEV refers to tailpipe emissions.  No tailpipe on my Tesla as far as I have seen. 

The claim that BEVs are worse than ICEVs depends on an assumption that all the electricity is supplied by coal.

Generally that is a false assumption.  Of course any product will require some CO2 emissions in its production.

In your view CO2 emissions don't matter and perhaps other emissions resulting in smog or particulate emissions (such as those form coal fired power should also be ignored.

If you are only interested in an echo chamber where everyone shares the same point of view, maybe you should moderate somewhere else.

The reality is that BEV sales have been growing rapidly, better to discuss than to run and hide.

For an alternative perspective on electric vehicles try

https://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/gasoline-vs-electric-global-warming-emissions-953

From cradle to grave, battery-electric vehicles are cleaner. On average, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) representative of those sold today produce less than half the global warming emissions of comparable gasoline-powered vehicles, even when the higher emissions associated with BEV manufacturing are taken into consideration. Based on modeling of the two most popular BEVs available today and the regions where they are currently being sold, excess manufacturing emissions are offset within 6 to 16 months of driving.

For a quote from the article you referred to EVs are certainly better than the average US vehicle sold in 2016 which gets and fuel economy of 25.2 MPG.

The U of M researchers calculate that, given the energy mix in the U.S., the average plug-in produces as much CO2 as a conventional car that gets 55.4 miles per gallon.

So as far as CO2 emissions a battery vehicle does twice as well as the average ICEV, based on the article you cited.

Edited July 11, 2019 by D Coyne

[Falcon + 222]

On 7/9/2019 at 9:06 AM, James said:

Fundamentals win in the long run. Fundamentals say that US shale peaks soon, OPEC keeps fighting and takes back market share, the global economy perks up (being very conservative with that), climate legislation is thrown to the side/ignored, and and total world oil production falls short of demand due to current factors becoming more prominent. Permabears are wrong when they say we are in a long-term well supplied market. My prediction is for oil to stay above 60 for H2 of this year and above 70 for next year. 

Sounds like the opening chapter of a Fiction Novel.  Destin for NewYork Times " Best Seller" list. Fiction of course.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

 

That's a prop plane, not a jet. 8900 pounds of batteries vs takeoff weight of 14k, and no engine yet, but I'd fly it for sure. Thanks for the link. 

PS jets are a much tougher proposition, specifically because of how the turbine functions. The only way forward I see there is replacing the jet fuel with bio jet fuel and compensating for the lost horsepower with shorter range. Not the end of the world, but my first flight wouldn't be to Hawaii

[Falcon + 222]

On 7/11/2019 at 12:02 PM, Falcon said:

Sounds like the opening chapter of a Fiction Novel.  Destin for NewYork Times " Best Seller" list. Fiction of course.

Only chance for $100 oil is if Sunni Arabs start a 10 year Mideast war.  But that is highly unlikely since Trump just put UAE and Saudi Arabia on notice that U.S. will no longer spend billions fighting THEIR WARS. 

He should tell Israel the same thing. Oh, and NATO while he's at it, unless NATO decides to contribute in a meaningful way. 

Angela Merkel refuses to honor her commitment to Obama's " Coalition of the Willing" recently to which she is signature.  US asked for a couple of hundred German troops to help train soldiers in Syria.  Angela said no. 

US spends btw $26 to $31 Billion on European bases that's above and beyond the separate NATO $6 Billion budget that US pays a majority of.

Edited July 14, 2019 by Falcon

[Bert 0]

I believe the question should be "will we see $200 oil" since we have already seen about $150 oil last time the economy got hot.