• 3 minutes e-car sales collapse
  • 6 minutes America Is Exceptional in Its Political Divide
  • 11 minutes Perovskites, a ‘dirt cheap’ alternative to silicon, just got a lot more efficient
  • 8 days The United States produced more crude oil than any nation, at any time.
  • 1 day e-truck insanity
  • 7 days How Far Have We Really Gotten With Alternative Energy
  • 7 days China deletes leaked stats showing plunging birth rate for 2023
  • 9 days The European Union is exceptional in its political divide. Examples are apparent in Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Netherlands, Belarus, Ireland, etc.
  • 5 days Bad news for e-cars keeps coming

Breaking News:

Asia Coal Imports Remain Strong in June

Bank Sees U.S. Shale Growing for Another 4 Years

Bank Sees U.S. Shale Growing for Another 4 Years

U.S. shale oil production has…

New Mexico Struggles To Balance Oil Output Boom with Climate Goals

New Mexico Struggles To Balance Oil Output Boom with Climate Goals

The second-largest oil-producing U.S. state,…

Irina Slav

Irina Slav

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

More Info

Premium Content

What Happens If We Stop Pumping Oil Tomorrow?

Oil well

In a traditionally slow news month such as August, any event of relative significance gets abundant coverage. Yet the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not just an event of relative significance. It was, based on media coverage, an event of huge significance. This significance lay in a stark warning: quit fossil fuels or ruin the planet. The report basically said that if we don't act immediately, we would never be able to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times. It also noted that some of the changes human activity has inflicted on the planet are already irreversible.

In comments on the report, UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said, "This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet," adding "Countries should also end all new fossil fuel exploration and production, and shift fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy."

The world must urgently wind down fossil fuel supply in an orderly and transparent way and halt high-risk high-cost oil and gas exploration today," said the founder and executive chair of Carbon Tracker.

These reactions—especially the UN's Guterres' call to end all oil and gas exploration—sound quite familiar. The reason is that they echo a call by the International Energy Agency for an end to all new oil and gas exploration before the end of 2021. The IEA made the call in its Net-Zero Roadmap, which saw demand for oil and gas decline fast because of the availability of alternative energy sources.

Soon after the report was released, however, the same International Energy Agency that called for the end of all oil and gas exploration made another call, this time to OPEC. The agency asked the cartel to start pumping more oil as demand for fuels was rebounding faster than expected, pushing prices higher.

U.S. President Joe Biden, who has set a goal to make the U.S. economy net-zero by 2050 and slash emissions by 50 percent by 2030, this week also called on OPEC to boost production. The reason: prices at the pump were too high for American drivers.

The messages coming from IEA and the White House might seem confusing, at best, and hypocritical, at worst. But let's say it was possible for every oil company in the world to decide at the same time to stop the pumps. What would happen then?

The short answer is, of course, chaos. The longer answer covers pretty much every part of any and every economy on the planet and virtually every industry. It will be a while before the full effects begin to be felt because there are stockpiles of oil, gas, and petrochemicals, but even before these begin to dwindle, prices will skyrocket because of the impending supply outage. And this means prices of everything.

“If there was no oil, iPhones, technology, computers, plastics, all manufactured products, food and medicines would not be able to be produced," says Jay R. Young, CEO of King Operating Corporation, an oil and gas investment firm. "So the people in the United States living the Amish lifestyle would be impacted the least.

"We as a society have lost the ability to survive without the food chain and delivery of products. Coal would continue to increase and the CO2 and pollution would increase at a dramatically increasing rate. Billions would die, societies would fail, and the migration to a clean future would be over," Young says.

Related: Visualizing The Gradual Death Of EU Coal Production

It would be difficult to argue with such a vision, regardless of whether it comes from the oil industry or not. Payal Rastogi, founder principal at CarbonFixers, an Indian company working with businesses to make them more environmentally sustainable, shares Young's opinion.

"If we stop consumption and drilling for oil and gas; as of today all the global products and life will come to stand still," she says.

Before this standstill, however, there is bound to be a lot of action, none of its friendly or peaceful. Right now, a price rise of about $1 per gallon of gasoline is prompting the President, who has made it clear he is not a supporter of the oil industry or gasoline, to call on the world's oil-producing cartel to increase oil production as unhappy drivers make for unhappy voters. Now imagine what would happen if the price per gallon of gasoline rose by not $1 but $5 in a matter of days. You don't even need to imagine it: we've seen what happens when fuel shortages hit in Venezuela, for example.


The U.S. has only a month's worth of oil supply, says Dr. Jerry Bailey, chief executive of Utah-based oil company Petroteq Energy Corp. if production stops, the country would be plunged into an immediate depression because a vast amount of U.S. industries depend on the commodity.

Since this is true of all economies and not just the United States, multiplying the effect expected for it by the number of countries in the world should provide the full picture, which will not be pretty.

One might perhaps argue that these are the opinions of people from the oil industry but it would be difficult to counter these opinions in any rational way. The truth is that modern civilization is dependent on hydrocarbons. A transition away from this dependence cannot happen overnight and it cannot happen forcibly because of the fallout: quitting cold turkey is the hardest way to kick a bad habit and not always successful. Maybe we have a better chance of weaning ourselves off oil and gas if we approach the transition in a calmer, less alarmist manner.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Leave a comment
  • Mamdouh Salameh on August 16 2021 said:
    One doesn’t need to have the brain power of Albert Einstein, only common sense, to realize that if we stop pumping oil tomorrow resulting in the total depletion of available supplies, the global economy comes immediately to a standstill with the world facing starvation, plagues, nuclear wars, destruction of the human race and the end of civilization as we know and enjoy.

    Oil is the blood of the global economy. Depriving it of oil is like draining the human body of blood thus ending in certain death.

    If this is the case, then why don’t we stop this nonsensical talk about ditching oil and natural gas and focus instead on reducing the emissions occurring during the production of oil and gas.

    Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
    International Oil Economist
    Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
  • Bill Simpson on August 23 2021 said:
    Anyone who believes that oil and gas can be replaced with electrification anytime soon should hop on a plane and fly to Lebanon. They will get a taste of what an energy shortage is really like, as they try to live with little mobility or electricity. Soon, the Lebanese will need to rely on the charity of others to give them some fuel, if they are to avoid hunger on a mass scale, because their central government is running out of money to purchase fuel from elsewhere. Things do not operate for long without diesel or gasoline. You can survive with diesel generators, but living with zero electric power in cities is virtually impossible without outside assistance. Outside assistance does not work for an entire planet.
    If political leaders attempt to shift away from oil and gas too quickly, be prepared for an economic crisis far worse than the Great Depression. They seem to want to try and force decarbonization by making it harder, and more expensive to explore for oil and gas. They calculate that a shortage of oil products and natural gas, along with a higher price for them, will speed the shift to battery and hydrogen powered transport. Thing is, that before that could happen, the global economy will be wrecked by fuel shortages and very high inflation, just like happened during the Oil Embargo and Iranian Revolution. Only this time, it will be far worse, due to the record level of debt throughout the entire financial system. It will not take too much of an economic contraction to bring the entire debt bubble down. If I can figure it out, so can the central bankers. Instead of watching the system melt down, they will throw trillions and trillions of dollars at the problem. Double digit inflation will soon follow.
    What should be done is to begin a program of climate control, in order to give us time to build the necessary green infrastructure to allow a reduction in fossil fuel use on a time scale that will not destroy the economy. That transition will take the remainder of this century, not a couple of decades.
    The US government has already has studies performed which found that a program of high altitude aerosol dispersion, costing about $4 billion a year would cool the planet just like the eruption of Mount Pinatubo did after it erupted. Fossil fuel use cannot end anytime soon without killing billions of people through mass starvation. So without some steps to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the ground, it will keep getting hotter for decades to come. The risk of letting that warming continue is the start of a positive methane release feedback loop. Methane is so efficient at trapping heat, that should such a positive feedback loop get going, it might be impossible to halt, even with aerosol spraying. Then we are toast because the planet might get too hot for human survival. Earth will never get as hot as Venus, but it might get too hot for us, at least for a few hundred years, until all the methane released from the permafrost and ocean floor has been released and destroyed by sunlight.

Leave a comment

EXXON Mobil -0.35
Open57.81 Trading Vol.6.96M Previous Vol.241.7B
BUY 57.15
Sell 57.00
Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News