Global Oil and Gas Field Decline Rates Are Increasing, IEA Says
What does this mean for investors? Without trillions invested in oil, we will see huge spikes in oil prices.
In a stark admission that underscores the fragility of global energy supply, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has revealed that decline rates in mature oil and gas fields are accelerating, putting unprecedented pressure on the industry to ramp up investments just to keep production steady.
This report comes amid growing scrutiny of the IEA's forecasting credibility, particularly following U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright's recent threat to withdraw American funding from the agency unless it refocuses on realistic energy security rather than aggressive green agendas.
The IEA's analysis, detailed in its latest insights on upstream dynamics, paints a picture of an industry where natural depletion is outpacing new discoveries and developments. After fields reach their peak, conventional oil output declines by an average of 5.6% annually, while conventional natural gas falls by 6.8%.
Without sustained capital inflows, the world could lose the equivalent of Brazil and Norway's combined oil production—about 5.5 million barrels per day (bpd)—every single year, a sharp increase from the 4 million bpd lost annually back in 2010. For natural gas, the shortfall would hit 270 billion cubic meters per year, up from 180 billion in the same period.IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol didn't mince words: "Decline rates are the elephant in the room for any discussion of investment needs in oil and gas, and our new analysis shows that they have accelerated in recent years."
He added that nearly 90% of annual upstream oil and gas investments are funneled into merely offsetting these losses at existing fields, leaving precious little for expanding supply to meet rising global demand.
U.S. Pressure Forces IEA Reckoning?
The timing of this report raises eyebrows, especially in light of Secretary Wright's pointed criticisms. In a recent statement, Wright, a vocal proponent of American energy dominance and a former fracking executive, warned that the U.S. could pull out of the IEA—established in 1974 to safeguard oil supplies during crises—if the Paris-based agency doesn't abandon its "biased" pivot toward net-zero evangelism.
The U.S. currently foots about 18% of the IEA's $5.8 million annual budget, making Wright's threat a potential gut punch to the organization's operations.
Wright has lambasted the IEA for morphing from a neutral forecaster into a cheerleader for renewables and rapid decarbonization, contrasting its pessimistic oil demand projections with OPEC's more bullish outlook. This comes as the Trump administration doubles down on fossil fuels, viewing the IEA's 2021 report—which advised against new oil, gas, and coal projects to hit climate targets—as a direct assault on investment.
OPEC has echoed these sentiments, accusing the IEA of creating market uncertainty that discourages the very investments now deemed essential.
Whether Wright's saber-rattling prompted this "awakening" to decline rates is speculative, but it highlights a broader geopolitical rift: Western policymakers pushing net-zero fantasies while the realities of supply constraints loom large.
Trillions Needed to Stem the Tide
The IEA's math is sobering. To merely maintain flat global oil and gas output amid these escalating declines—and before accounting for any demand growth—the world would need trillions of dollars in upstream investments over the coming decade.
That's not hyperbole; it's the cost of drilling deeper into challenging shale plays and offshore frontiers to replace what's inevitably lost. A halt in new spending today would cascade into massive supply shortfalls by the late 2020s, potentially spiking prices and disrupting economies worldwide.
This revelation flips the script on years of IEA narratives downplaying fossil fuel futures. As Birol noted, "Only a small portion of upstream oil and gas investment is used to meet increases in demand while nearly 90%... is dedicated to offsetting losses."
In a rare moment of candor from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the organization has admitted that global oil and gas field decline rates are accelerating, putting the spotlight back on the harsh realities of energy supply. This comes amid growing pressure from the U.S., where Energy Secretary Chris Wright has put the agency's funding on the chopping block, signaling that the IEA's days of prioritizing green fantasies over hard data might be numbered.
It's about time the IEA woke up—after all, accurate forecasting isn't optional when trillions of dollars and global energy security are at stake.
The IEA's latest report paints a stark picture: after fields reach peak production, conventional oil fields are declining at an average annual rate of 5.6%, while conventional gas fields are dropping even faster at 6.8%.
This acceleration is fueled by the industry's heavy reliance on tricky shale plays and deep offshore developments, which are notoriously short-lived compared to the giants of yesteryear.
The implications?
If upstream investment grinds to a halt, the world could lose 5.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil supply annually—equivalent to the combined output of Brazil and Norway. That's a jump from just 4 million bpd back in 2010, and for natural gas, the annual shortfall has ballooned to 270 billion cubic meters from 180 bcm.
Nearly 90% of all upstream oil and gas investments today are funneled into simply offsetting these declines, leaving precious little for actual demand growth. To maintain even current production levels—let alone meet rising needs—the world will require trillions in capital expenditures over the coming decade. We're talking about sustaining a delicate balance where underinvestment isn't just a risk; it's a ticking time bomb for supply crunches and price spikes.
This IEA pivot feels suspiciously timed. Just months ago, Secretary Wright, a no-nonsense fracking veteran, went on the record threatening U.S. withdrawal from the IEA unless it ditches its "net-zero by 2050" cheerleading and returns to objective analysis.
The U.S. foots about 18% of the agency's budget—roughly $5.8 million annually—and Wright has called the IEA's demand peak predictions "total nonsense." His administration's fossil-fuel-first agenda, including boosting coal and slashing clean energy subsidies, has already rattled the Paris-based bureaucracy. Discussions with IEA head Fatih Birol haven't yielded much, so withdrawal is "on the table." If the U.S. pulls out, it could gut the agency's credibility and force a reckoning on data-driven reporting.
But here's where the crude truth gets interesting: while Western policymakers chase Net Zero mirages, the real action is in the East. India and China, the twin engines of global demand, show no signs of slowing down anytime soon. India's oil consumption is projected to surge by a steep 1 million bpd by 2030, making it the undisputed leader in global demand growth—nearly double China's pace in 2025 and 2026.
The IEA itself forecasts India adding 8.2 million bpd between 2024 and 2050, with combined growth from Asia's emerging markets hitting 22.4 million bpd over that span.
China, though plateauing on gasoline demand around 2025-2026, will still drive significant overall increases, contributing to a global demand rise of 2.5 million bpd from 2024 to 2030—front-loaded in the next couple of years before tapering.
Contrast that with the deindustrialization gripping the UK and EU, courtesy of aggressive Net Zero policies. Sky-high energy prices—UK industrial electricity costs now exceed those in the U.S. and much of Europe—have hammered manufacturing, with policies pushing for 90%+ cuts in industrial GHG emissions by 2050 accelerating the exodus of energy-intensive industries.
The UK's new Tory leader, Kemi Badenoch, is pledging to scrap Net Zero commitments and ramp up North Sea oil and gas to stem the bleeding, but the damage is done: weakened policies are already spooking investors and contributing to output declines.
In the EU, net-zero manufacturing strategies are reshaping landscapes, but at the cost of competitiveness and demand for traditional fuels like oil in heavy industry.
Expect oil demand from these regions to flatline or shrink as factories shutter or relocate to less-regulated shores.
So, will Asia's voracious appetite outpace the West's self-inflicted wounds? Absolutely. With India's fuel frenzy and China's steady (if maturing) needs overwhelming any Net Zero-induced drop in Europe, global demand looks resilient—potentially adding pressure on supplies already strained by those accelerating field declines.
For oil investors, this dynamic screams bullish. Forecasts are aligning on Brent crude holding in the $65-75 range through 2025, with J.P. Morgan pegging it at $66/bbl and Goldman Sachs lifting their second-half outlook to $66 on falling investments, scant new non-OPEC projects post-2026, and robust demand from places like India.
Geopolitical tensions, OPEC+ discipline, and the ever-present risk of underinvestment could push prices higher, especially if U.S. policy keeps the heat on global supply chains. A temporary glut might dip prices early in 2025, but by mid-year, the bull case strengthens—rising demand meets declining fields, and Western deindustrialization becomes someone else's opportunity.
The IEA's wake-up call is a reminder: oil isn't going anywhere soon. Investors, take note—this isn't the end of the hydrocarbon era; it's just the next chapter.
The Crude Truth is that without trillions invested in oil and gas, we will see a huge spike in oil prices rather than a gentle, controlled increase. Spikes cause inflation, panic, and problems.
Buckle up, we are about to see the tide turn, and people are investing where they can get returns.
The Deafening Silence of Ivory Tower Gatekeepers: Where Are the American Deans Now?
By Stephen Heins, The Word Merchant
As I sit here, still reeling from the gut-wrenching news of Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, one question burns hotter than the Utah sun: How can the deans of America’s universities—those self-proclaimed guardians of intellectual freedom—remain so utterly, insultingly silent? Charlie wasn’t just a Christian conservative but a relentless champion of open debate on campuses that have increasingly become echo chambers of ideological conformity.
He dragged uncomfortable truths into the light, forcing students and faculty alike to confront and discuss ideas they might otherwise dismiss from the safety of their prejudices . And now, gunned down mid-sentence during his “Prove Me Wrong” tour—an event literally built on inviting challenge—Kirk’s blood stains the very ground where free speech should be sacrosanct. Yet from the marbled halls of Harvard to the sun-baked quads of UCLA, the deans are nowhere to be found. Their collective hush is not just deafening; it’s damning.
Let me be clear: While I’m not naive about American politics, I never really saw behind much of right wing catcalls from the major media about Kirk . However, thanks to the many tributes about him after his assassination, I learned more about his campaign to bring open debate and discussions of conservatism and Christianity to campuses and the youth of America.
After Kirk’s death, there were a smattering of statements trickling out major media, mainly from the epicenter of the tragedy. Utah Valley University’s President Astrid S. Tuminez issued a boilerplate message of “shock and sadness,” urging “peace and resilience.” High Point University’s president followed suit with a vague nod to the horror. Southeastern University’s Dr. Kent Ingle even praised Kirk’s push for “civil political debate.” And St. Bonaventure’s Dr. Jeff Gingerich called for “unity” in the face of “senseless violence.”
These are crumbs, not convictions. Where’s the outrage from the Ivy League? Where’s Yale’s dean decrying the assassination of a man who exposed campus antisemitism and encouraged open debates? Where’s Berkeley’s administration rallying against the chilling effect this murder will have on conservative voices daring to show up?
Even at the University of Chicago, where President Paul Alivisatos rakes in over $2 million a year, there’s radio silence on a faculty member who celebrated Kirk’s death, while the president himself spews unrelated vitriol. Boston University’s students are left begging for a response via an open letter because their president can’t be bothered.
This isn’t oversight; it’s omission by design. Kirk built Turning Point USA into a youthful movement precisely because universities had become fortresses of the left, where speakers like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson need armed escorts to utter a dissenting word, if they are allowed to speak at all. In response, Kirk sued schools for censoring conservative events, won landmark cases affirming First Amendment rights, and turned apathetic Gen Z kids into debaters who could hold their own against tenured radicals.
Remember the 2019 UCLA riot over a TPUSA chapter? Or the deplatforming attempts at Ohio State? Kirk was there, microphone in hand, saying, “Prove me wrong.” He embodied the messy, vital clash of ideas that John Stuart Mill called the lifeblood of truth. And for that, he was assassinated by a 22-year-old ideologue, possibly tied to transnational gangs, in a hit that reeks of the political violence we’ve seen from Trump attempts to the UnitedHealthcare CEO slaying.
So where are the righteous American deans right now? I suspect that they are hiding behind diversity statements and grant proposals. Afraid that condemning this murder—framed by some as “justice” for Kirk’s “fascism”—might alienate their progressive donors and professors and trigger a Twitter storm from the faculty lounge. Or worse, admitting that the toxic rhetoric they’ve tolerated (if not amplified) on campuses—from calls to “punch Nazis” to glorifying “resistance” against conservatives—has real-world consequences.
An associate dean at Middle Tennessee State University got fired for a post that “celebrated” the killing, but that’s reactive damage control, not proactive leadership. The Chronicle of Higher Education calls Kirk’s death a “catastrophe for higher ed,” warning it could further erode trust in universities already hemorrhaging enrollment from families tired of indoctrination over education. Yet the deans? Crickets.
From my vantage point—as someone who’s watched energy friends shouted down at guest lectures, seen the closed political debate skewed to one worldview of fascism, and cheered Kirk’s unapologetic pushback—this silence betrays everything universities claim to stand for. You’re not just failing Charlie; you’re failing the students who deserve forums where ideas duke it out, not safe spaces where discomfort is a hate crime.
While President Trump nailed it: This was a “heinous assassination”: He blew a chance to adopt a diplomatic tone and speak for all Americans. On the other hand, Utah Governor Cox echoes the call for unity against political violence. Even global leaders like the UK’s Keir Starmer have condemned it. But America’s academic elite? They’re treating this like yesterday’s op-ed.
American Deans, step up if you’re reading this (and you should be—your PR teams are probably fact-checking me as we speak). Issue those Freedom of Speech statements not as perfunctory press releases, but as thunderous defenses of the open debate Kirk died defending. Host the vigils, the panel discussions, the unedited forums.
Prove your ivory towers aren’t just gated communities for groupthink. Charlie’s gone, but his fight isn’t. Honor it, or admit you’re part of the problem. The eyes of a grieving American nation—and a generation of students—are on you. Speak now, or forever hold your complicity.