I know folks have been predicting peak oil for 50 plus years, but when the Permian basin starts rapid decline in 5-10 years and many other legacy areas continue to decline, I do not see any potential that new production elsewhere that can keep up with population growth, let alone meet expanding total energy demand. Conversely despite some impressive gains in alternative energy over the last decade, I don’t see any evidence that any thing can be developed at a scale that would have any significant impact on oil/gas prices for many decades into the future. So if so get laid off in near future do I work to get out of this industry because it is dying, or do I fight to stay in the game because projected reduced supplies relative to demand should make this industry very profitable.
8 replies (most recent on top)
@pqv. I agree generally, except for the last statement about declining industry. Declining volumes does not necessarily equate with declining profits because there are no alternatives positioned to replace energy demand. Wind and solar can only replace about of third of energy generation because there is a lack of electricity transmission and storage. Nuclear (fission or pie in the sky fusion) would take decades to develop even if there was the will to start building today. The potential of everything else remains small beans. The result of increasing demand and declining supply is NOT declining profits!
Conventional oil production peaked in 2006. What has prevented peak oil after that has been US tight oil production, which rapidly increased since 2008. The major US tight oil plays are expected to start to decline in about 5 years, and the decline rate of unconventional assets is much faster than for conventional fields. New conventional fields continue to be found, but added reserves do not keep pace with those depleted. While there is also potential for adding unconventional reserves (Mexico, Argentina), no prospects that match the US Permian have been identified. While there is potential to dramatically increase heavy production from Venezuela (if they ever become more stable for investment) and modest growth in the Middle East, Canada, Russia, and maybe the Arctic, I don't see much evidence that Chevron is positioned to grow through exploration. Predictions by most analyses suggest that peak oil will happen by 2030 with the start of the Permian decline (assuming no new technology advances with an impact of the scale of unconventional fracking methods). From there forward, new energy growth will depend on alternatives. Realistically oil and gas companies will be around for many decades to come, but will be a declining industry.
99% of GHG is from volcanoes.
ExxonMobil forecast for peek oil is different and not until 2040, the wild fire in Canada last year generated more co2 than all of the world except USA, China, and India and was in par with India, so go figure out that this green I itiative can back fire just because of natural disasters that will happen. Oil and gas will be part of human society, maybe we burn less but we will produce at same levels or more in coming decades.
The carbon foot print of a person in the Sub Sahara is orders of magnitude less than a person in the USA.
@ioa Tell that to the Sub Saharan’s. But then again it’s hard for people of that IQ to understand anything it’s like talking to a dog or primate.
Population growth is the key phrase here and there's no reason why it necessarily needs to be so high or constantly increasing. It does no good for humanity to intentionally accelerate it with no restraints. Most resources are finite. land, clean water, etc.
I am all in as I expect hydrocarbon demand to greatly exceed supply for the foreseeable future. It is not just energy, but also chemical manufacturing. By the time new energy supplies come online many will be asking “why the he-l did we burn all that stuff when there are so many more valuable uses!”.