Alaska's oil revival sparks a new energy rush Into the Arctic (opens in new tab)

It's not a widely known fact that sales of new combustion engine cars peaked in 2017 and has been on a downward trend since then, while global EV sales have ~10x in the same time period.

So it seems like these new investments are in a race. Will they pay off before they become stranded assets? The Saudis and other middle east countries have the lowest production costs, so unless Alaska can somehow keep costs to ~$20/barrel, I would not bet on it.

I can guarantee that when the oil industry collapses these companies won't take the last million in their bank accounts and use it to properly cap wells and clean up dead and soon to be decaying infrastructure. We throw money at them to destroy the environments they drill in (practically giving them the land for free). We throw money at them when they sell it (by giving them tax breaks). We throw money at them for producing the products from it (by not charging for the externalized costs of global warming and pollution in general) and we will throw money at them as they are dying (by not forcing them to pay for cleanup before starting drilling). The golden parachutes of oil execs are already being packed and everyone can see it but, shocker, nobody is stopping it.

Does that mean the US won't try to annex Canada and Greenland, after all?

A truly idiotic investment when renewables are already cheaper than existing fossil fuel infrastructure (much less new infra)

The oil industry is dying and we are destroying the planet and a delicate ecosystem to harvest non-renewable energy. It should stay in the ground and be saved for future generations for an emergency, not to just power grossly oversized vehicles and social media content generation to manipulate people into buying things.

What we should be doing is reducing our dependence on fossil fuels but nobody gets rich that way. Mines (including oil wells) are incredible wealth concentrators eg [1]. Also, nobody goes to war over a solar panel [2] and weapons are the ultimate product. They get used once and need to be replaced.

But there's a lot of fearmongering and misinformation here. For one thing, it's been nearly 20 years since drilling has been allowed in ANWR and, to date, zero commercial drilling has taken place. In fact, the only exploratory drilling I'm aware of is Chevron's KIC-1 effort in 1986 [3] and the results of that have been kept secret.

Now, if the results were spectacular, wouldn't you think Chevron would've started drilling? Even if there are, there are lots of reasons why it wouldn't happen.

First, just look at a map. Look at where the highways end. Depending on what you count as a road, that's either Fairbanks, Alaska (in the middle of the state) or Delta Junction (SE of Fairbanks). You would need to build massive road infrastructure all the way to ANWR. It can't be done any other way. This is above the Arctic Circle and only usable several months of the year. I've seen estimates that this alone is like $5-10 billion in investment.

Second, you need to house a lot of people up there and get them in and out. All of this is expensive. Building anything up there is expensive. You need workers for that. Those workers need housing. Everybody needs to be fed. Food needs to get in. You need water. It goes on and on and on. This is likely a $10-20 billion project (complete guess).

Third, you actually have to drill up there. In West Texas, it goes ~$8 million to drill a well [4]. How much does it cost in Alaska? Well, we have some comparative data, namely the Willow Project [5]. The costs for this are spiralling. We don't seem to have individual well costs but they say 150 wells and $9 billion. If that's true, it's $60 million per well.

You need to recover that extra cost and the only way to do it is scale so there needs to be a massive amount of oil and it's unclear if that's the case.

My point here is not that expanded drilling can't happen in Alaska. Instead it's that there are significant economic barriers to such a project and it's not as inevitable as any president just signing an executive order.

[1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4111

[2]: https://www.theenergymix.com/no-one-goes-to-war-over-a-solar...

[3]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-29-me-56952...

[4]: https://incorrys.com/energy/energy-cost/well-costs-by-play-b...

[5]: https://www.upstreamonline.com/field-development/conocophill...

It's important to keep in mind the scale. The US is producing around 15 million barrels of oil per day.

The projects mentioned in the article, combined, would be less than 6 months of the US production.

It's important for the locals in Alaska, but it's not going to change anything globally. Except maybe killing off a few endangered species and damaging the fragile ecosystem. But that's a small price to pay for oil companies' profits.

What a truly amazing coincidence that failed Alaskan projects that can supply energy to Asian "allies" without maritime choke points become profitable again!

Just as the Hormuz double blockade is implemented and extended. The current peace talks are just theater. Expect new "peace talks" every two weeks for years to come.

Putin, Trump and the fracking mafia will be very happy.

Something's gotta power all those new AI data centers with massive capacity and it isn't wind and solar.