Alaska Loses Jobs For 5th Straight Months (Anchorage, Fairbanks: 2014, house)

[Marty Van Diest]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

Oil production on the slope is declining at 5% per year. It's not a matter of price, but physics. At current rates of decline the Pipeline will reach 200,000 bbl/per day in about 10 years, at which point it becomes unfeasable to operate the pipeline from both an engineering and economic perspective. The only solution is bringing more supply on line, but the current administration has made it clear this will never happen - and it couldn't even happen in previous development friendly ones either.

The gas pipeline is dead because 150+ years of natural gas supply is now economically recoverable in the lower 48. Again, regardless of price, it will always be more economical to develop the gas down south than build a 2000+ mile pipeline through Canada to Chicago.

Driving away extreme environmentalism is wishful thinking. The lunacy is too deeply entrenched in the national psyche. The reality is there is nothing on the horizon that can alter the forces that are already in play. The Alaskan economy is like the Titanic. The iceberg has been struck. The ship is still afloat for now, in fact the band is still playing so things look okay from afar, but the outcome is inevitable.

Can I use this quote for my blog? It's a good analysis of the current situation. Basically, we need more oil in the pipeline or we are going downhill. That is my belief as well. Of course, I lived here before the oil days...that is a long ways from where we are today.

[Barkingowl]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Tourism is hit hard because of the lower 48's problems, and I doubt it will come back until things are better in the lower 48.

What might save the tourism industry is promoting Alaska as a travel destination for the rest of the world.

[Barkingowl]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

Oil production on the slope is declining at 5% per year. It's not a matter of price, but physics. At current rates of decline the Pipeline will reach 200,000 bbl/per day in about 10 years, at which point it becomes unfeasable to operate the pipeline from both an engineering and economic perspective.

Moose is it possible to convert the pipeline to carry natural gas instead?

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Marty Van Diest

Can I use this quote for my blog? It's a good analysis of the current situation. Basically, we need more oil in the pipeline or we are going downhill. That is my belief as well. Of course, I lived here before the oil days...that is a long ways from where we are today.

Sure, post away! Though I can hardly claim it as an original thought of my own.

You also bring up an interesting point - obviously life in Alaska existed before the oil days, and would continue after. However the infrastructure and societal dynamics have changed so much that a transition back would likely be devastaing in too many ways to imagine.

[Moose Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Barkingowl

Moose is it possible to convert the pipeline to carry natural gas instead?

I'm not a pipeline engineer, but I'm pretty sure the answer is no. Besides, you have to have liquid pipeline in place to carry the oil away from the field before you start removing the gas anyway.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

Oil production on the slope is declining at 5% per year. It's not a matter of price, but physics. At current rates of decline the Pipeline will reach 200,000 bbl/per day in about 10 years, at which point it becomes unfeasable to operate the pipeline from both an engineering and economic perspective. The only solution is bringing more supply on line, but the current administration has made it clear this will never happen - and it couldn't even happen in previous development friendly ones either.

The gas pipeline is dead because 150+ years of natural gas supply is now economically recoverable in the lower 48. Again, regardless of price, it will always be more economical to develop the gas down south than build a 2000+ mile pipeline through Canada to Chicago.

Driving away extreme environmentalism is wishful thinking. The lunacy is too deeply entrenched in the national psyche. The reality is there is nothing on the horizon that can alter the forces that are already in play. The Alaskan economy is like the Titanic. The iceberg has been struck. The ship is still afloat for now, in fact the band is still playing so things look okay from afar, but the outcome is inevitable.

Well there is one solution to the problems: secession. This weak administration might be the right one to try it on too...

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

Sure, post away! Though I can hardly claim it as an original thought of my own.

You also bring up an interesting point - obviously life in Alaska existed before the oil days, and would continue after. However the infrastructure and societal dynamics have changed so much that a transition back would likely be devastaing in too many ways to imagine.

The higher taxes would also drive other business away too.

[tigre79]

What kind of potential is there for transitioning (at least to an extent) to geothermal and/or tidal energy as oil production declines?

[DannyL]

Originally Posted by Barkingowl

What might save the tourism industry is promoting Alaska as a travel destination for the rest of the world.

The rest of the world is suffering along with us, in fact there is some resentment out there growing because of it.
Also the "head tax" is doing us any good also, the cruise industry is turning that into a weapon against us.

[DannyL]

Originally Posted by tigre79

What kind of potential is there for transitioning (at least to an extent) to geothermal and/or tidal energy as oil production declines?

Because the oil giants see those as more of a novelty than serious energy projects.