This question has crossed my mind as well.  Just as Confessions normally require jurisdiction, but due to the emergency state of the Church, that's supplied by the Church, so too one could make a case for Confirmation.  With Confirmation, however, it's a bit more than just jurisdiction, something which theologians have described as the activation of a latent power of orders.  I would consider that doubtful, perhaps something that could be requested in extremis but otherwise avoided if at all possible.  There are as of now a fair number of bishops floating around, and even Eastern priests.

Under certain circuмstances, a bishop can give a priest permission to Confirm.  This was done mainly on the mission field in the past, lest there otherwise be no reasonable hope for anyone being confirmed.  If the situation is now nearly the same, ie. No reasonable hope to be confirmed, then I think the confirmation is probably valid.  Can one be spiritually confirmed?  But don’t take my word for it.  I’m no theologian.  Ask a priest or a bishop.

No, you cannot be "spiritually confirmed".  Confirmation is a sacrament.

Whether the power of the priest to confirm is something that exists in and of itself, or is a case of potestas ligata (requires a bishop to "give the go-ahead", similar to receiving faculties for hearing confessions), is something I haven't had enough coffee this morning, to render any kind of useful comments.  One might check Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.  I do know that Ott refers to father-abbots, who were not sacramental bishops, ordaining other priests in medieval England, and "Pope Pius XIII" (Father Lucian Pulvermacher, not Jude Law) used this as the linchpin of his argument for restoring holy orders in a kind of "jumper cables" fashion.  It was similar to the hypothetical situation of only one priest being left on the face of the earth, with the question then being "can he ordain more priests?".  Father Pulvermacher then stretched this out to being elected pope by a remnant of the faithful, then him ordaining priests, then consecrating them bishops, then having one of them to consecrate him as a bishop... again, not enough coffee to deal with that further, it's too early in the morning.

Hey, if there's Baptism of Desire, why not Confirmation of Desire also?

Charles Coulombe actually made a similar argument for the other six sacraments besides baptism, though I suspect he was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, as he is wont to do from time to time.  He can be quite puckish when the occasion arises.

More seriously, I am not willing to limit the Holy Ghost's ability to confer His gifts upon someone outside the sacrament of confirmation, but such bestowal of gifts (whether all seven of them, or just one or more of the seven) would not be the sacrament of confirmation.

I'm sure rivers of ink have been spilled on this, but is BOD regarded as an alternate version of the sacrament of baptism, or something else, perhaps an extraordinary means of conferring the effects of baptism outside of the sacrament proper?

What about an SSPX or independent Bishop who was validly consecrated? Would his Confirmations be valid like his ordinations or would he technically speaking lack jurisdiction/faculties to do so like the confession issue? I'm assuming they'd be valid..

Gotcha. Makes sense.