Alaskan oil?

Question

i remember reading once that if we ignored all the whining tree-huggers and tapped into alaska for all it was worth, the U.S wouldnt have to import another barrel of oil for the next 700 years. IS THIS TRUE?

Answer 1

Close enough. Problem is that environmentalists also refuse to let us build refineries to turn the oil into gas. It's insane.

Answer 2

I say go for it and lets see.

Answer 3

No, alaska only has maybe 10-25% of the imported oil we would need.  Have to drill other places too.

Answer 4

it is a difficult question to answer.  One aspect of mineral deposits (including oil) that most people fail to appreciate is the relationship between the amount of recoverable resource in the ground and the price of the material.  For example: lets say you have an oil field and you are able to take 10 million barrels of oil out at a cost of $50/barrel.  Due to underground hydraulic and associated geologic conditions, the next 6 million barrels costs you $75 per barrel.  As it gets harder and harder to extract the oil (as you extract more and more), the oil gets more expensive to extract.  So: 10 Million @ $50, 6 Million @ $75, say the next 4 Million at $100, the next 2 Million at $150, the next 1 Million @ $200.  If your geologists are worth their diplomas, before you started any oil extraction, you would have a document that tells you the estimated reserve.  If the price was $50/barrel, your reserve (the amount of oil you have) is 10 Million Barrels, if the price is $200, your reserve is 23 Million Barrels.

This is the reason that back in the 1970-80s the media kept saying that we were going to run out of oil by 2000--they didn't bother to understand the operational realities of resource management and economics.