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.<p>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.
Gasoline is only one of the byproducts of oil products a modern economy requires. Lubricants, diesel, nitrogen, and the list goes on - these are still all needed even if we convert to 100% EVs.
All non-transportation fuel uses account for a total of only 33% of crude oil consumption. Of the other 2/3rd, gasoline accounts for 43%. So yes, switching to EVs would have a massive impact, and probably put unconventional sources of oil (eg. Venezuela and Alberta) out of business. As for diesel, EV truck sales are starting to take off too.<p><a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...</a>
<a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2025/trends-in-heavy-duty-electric-vehicles" rel="nofollow">https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2025/trends-in...</a>
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.
Why would the oil industry collapse? It seems to me that there is nearly an unlimited demand for energy on the planet. If there's extra energy somewhere, humans will find a use for it. Quality of life for humans is directly correlated with energy abundance (of all kinds, solar is included in that).
Does that mean the US won't try to annex Canada and Greenland, after all?
When they say "The Arctic", you can often read that as being within the borders of Canada.<p>When you have something, and you lack the means to defend and assert that right - do you really have it? Canada has so defunded its military, that it's effectively an undefended nation.
Do you know how much hard power credibility the US has lost from the Iran War failure?<p>The US couldn't defend our bases in the area or our newly less enthusiastic regional allies. It couldn't keep the Hormuz open. The US wasted years worth of advanced munitions inventory defending against relatively cheap missiles.<p>The US couldn't annex Canada if it wanted to. Canada doesn't even need a military to destroy the US via assymetric tactics.
"US couldn't annex Canada if it wanted to" - Truly, the state of our military is shockingly bad. The US Marines could annex Canada, and I honestly mean that.<p>I do agree that the US military's perceived preeminence has taken a big blow, but what you're saying is just outrageously false.
I do not think they could. It is not just a matter of seizing something as much as holding it, as everyone has plainly seen in Ukraine, or post-occupation Iraq or Afghanistan.<p>Neither of those latter countries had a large shared land border with the US and ethnically similar populations that would make it easy to attack unhardened infrastructure.
<i>Canada has so defunded its military</i><p>Not anymore.
I presume you mean the recent changes to finally get Canada up to 2% GDP for its military spending? (I'll put aside some of the accounting shenanigans going on there)<p>I disagree - literal generations of cutting to the bone and beyond cannot be turned around overnight. Defunding isn't just about the dollars, it's about the lost mindshare, training, culture, morale, equipment, stockpiles - everything.<p>It will take a generation of strong investment and actual commitment to get this force back to something it ought to be. And based on trends since the 80's, future governments will be quick to pull back on any recent allocations.
Nah, they are essentially irrelevant unless they are operating as part of a coalition. Last I checked they are still waffling on what 5th generation fighter jet to procure while the rest of the world are starting to plan for the 6th generation.
We're quite literally flying the "Legacy Hornet" that was phased out of the US arsenal in the early 2000's. We bought the ones Australia retired so we could keep flying these ancient planes. We had such poor capability and data link compatibility that we've been passed over on recent NATO exercises.<p>Their replacement has been a political football for the last ~20 years, extending so far beyond the rational lifetime of our original CF-18's that it boggles the mind. Those who've tried to keep rust buckets on the road know how high the cost can be for trying to keep something flying for so long.<p>This extends to basically every part of the Canadian military - extreme delays followed by politically motivated (and extremely bad) decision making.
Do you feel the same way about your personal property? Defend it at all times with force or it is effectively someone else’s?<p>What a horrible world you live in.
We're talking about nation states here, not houses in a policed region. That's not a valid analogy.<p>Say you're East Timor and your neighbour wants what you have - if you don't have the means to defend yourself, you're pretty much screwed (and they were). It's the main reason we have a military - this is a harsh and unforgiving world at that level, and you need to maintain a given level of capability. We are not at the "end of history" as some thought in the early 90's, and this has been doubly re-enforced after the invasion of Ukraine.<p>So what I'm saying is that by making such sustained and deep cuts to the Canadian military, that our political leaders have left the second largest nation in the world undefended and subject to the whim of its neighbours. And if you're paying attention, those are some pretty unsavoury neighbours.<p>"What a horrible world you live in" - what a snarky and hostile thing to say, why not try to understand my message before typing out such a barbed and dismissive statement?
A truly idiotic investment when renewables are already cheaper than existing fossil fuel infrastructure (much less new infra)
This attitude misses the realities of scale bottlenecks and sunk costs.<p>If we ignore climate externalities, it makes sense to build solar as fast as we can <i>and also</i> pump oil, preferably for export.
> If we ignore climate externalities, it makes sense to build solar as fast as we can and also pump oil, preferably for export.<p>I appreciate that "externalities" is a term from economics. But its also worth remembering that there are no externalities when it comes to the global climate and atmospheric system. There is precisely one planetary atmosphere and we <i>all</i> share it. When we degrade its ability to support life then that ultimately affects all life.
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.<p>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 <i>1986</i> [3] and the results of that have been kept secret.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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).<p>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 <i>$60 million</i> per well.<p>You need to recover that extra cost and the only way to do it is scale so there needs to be a <i>massive</i> amount of oil and it's unclear if that's the case.<p>My point here is not that expanded drilling <i>can't</i> 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.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4111" rel="nofollow">https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/9/4111</a><p>[2]: <a href="https://www.theenergymix.com/no-one-goes-to-war-over-a-solar-panel/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theenergymix.com/no-one-goes-to-war-over-a-solar...</a><p>[3]: <a href="https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-29-me-56952-story.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-apr-29-me-56952...</a><p>[4]: <a href="https://incorrys.com/energy/energy-cost/well-costs-by-play-basin/" rel="nofollow">https://incorrys.com/energy/energy-cost/well-costs-by-play-b...</a><p>[5]: <a href="https://www.upstreamonline.com/field-development/conocophillips-sees-1-billion-cost-surge-for-massive-willow-project/2-1-1897505" rel="nofollow">https://www.upstreamonline.com/field-development/conocophill...</a>
It's important to keep in mind the scale. The US is producing around 15 million barrels of oil per day.<p>The projects mentioned in the article, combined, would be less than 6 months of the US production.<p>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.
[dead]
What a truly amazing coincidence that failed Alaskan projects that can supply energy to Asian "allies" without maritime choke points become profitable again!<p>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.<p>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.
The Ember 2026 report[0] shows that 75% of new power generation in 2025 was from solar. Solar + wind were 99% of new generation capacity. Fossil fuel generation dropped for one of the first times ever (historical reductions were typically due to structural reasons like COVID or recession). In a first, renewable sources made more for the planet than coal.<p>Renewables are absolutely going to be powering the future. Recent events have done nothing but accelerate the transition as countries are going to run to reduce their petroleum dependencies.<p>[0] <a href="https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-review-2026/" rel="nofollow">https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/global-electricity-...</a>
Actually lately it's been Hydro and Solar.[0] A little of natural gas, and thankfully a ton less coal.<p>[0] - <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/soaring-solar-and-a-surge-in-hydro-push-more-coal-off-the-us-grid/" rel="nofollow">https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/soaring-solar-and-a-...</a>
Leveling up civilization and moving up the tech tree requires orders of magnitude more energy.
It's unlikely to be oil either. Sometimes it's natural gas.
It really ought to be solar+batteries. It'd be slightly more expensive to build up-front than oil-based solutions, but probably not much and the companies building these data centers have the money to pay for that.
not in a petrostate anyways