Coal started it's decline in the early 1920s. The long slow decline of coal is a good argument for oil and gas to still be profitable for another 80 years.
IMO these are slightly different cases.
Oil played a role in the decline of coal, but many uses of coal remained viable until recent times.
Oil companies make the bulk of their income from petrol and diesel sales, EVs are capable of driving a large reduction of that income in a relatively short period of time, The change in value starts when the trend is apparent.
While there are some replacements for gas, that are not as mature or absolute, gas remaining relevant after oil has substantially declined is possible. it is also possible that petrol and diesel can use used as replacements for gas.
Will someone like the Saudis ramp up oil production when it becomes apparent that market demand is declining?
When holding back supply no longer is sufficient to achieve high prices, or support spending commitments, there is a temptation to turn the tap on slowly.
More generally energy itself should become more abundant and cheaper, gas has to compete against solar, wind firmed with batteries. That should reduce the demand for gas, and the price of energy..
This is unchartered territory in terms of the pace of change and the scope of change. Not only should energy be cheaper it is more universally available, a solar panel will work just fine in most locations worldwide, when solar doesn't work, wind typically works.
In contrast, coal, oil and gas are only found in a few locations and the energy source can be owned by a small rich powerful minority, ultimately the wealth and power comes from energy. When energy is available to all, the wealth and power balance shifts.
quotableliberal.blogspot.com
