Expatriate Owl

A politically-incorrect perspective that does not necessarily tow the party line, on various matters including but not limited to taxation, academia, government and religion.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

The ANWR Drill

I am ambivalent regarding whether or not drilling for oil should be permitted in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If I had to vote yes or no, one way or the other, it would now be "NO." This Republican environmentalist still has that oily taste in his mouth from 24 March 1989, when Exxon Valdez skipper Joe Hazelwood, with Jim Beam as his first mate, reefed the ship and did one big lubrication job on Prince William Sound.

But really, the people whose opinions should count are the residents of ANWR and its vicinity. Because it is they who will have to live with the consequences -- foul or fair -- of bringing the oil drilling industry to ANWR.

The following points, in no particular order, are noted:


1. We all know what the potential foul consequences of drilling in ANWR can be. See the first paragraph of this post.

2. Had Mr. Seward not arranged the purchase of Alaska from the Russians, then it is safe to say that oil would already be flowing from ANWR, and there likely would be several spill mishaps whose cumulative oil gallonage would probably exceed the 10.8 million discharged on account of Joe Hazelwood's aforementioned deviation from the designated sea lane.

3. There are many stable and prosperous communities where oil is drilled. Beverly Hills, California immediately comes to mind in that regard. The story of Jed Clampett has it all wrong -- Oil is drilled and pumped from underneath Beverly Hills (including an oil well on the grounds of Beverly Hills High School). The oil leases in the Los Angeles area, and Beverly Hills in particular, enhance the value of the real property and reduce the public tax burden, and thus contribute in no small way to the communities' prosperity and lifestyle.

4. The oil boom in Alaska has raised the standard of living for many residents. This includes running water and electricity, paved roads, better medical care, et cetera.

5. Unless the limousine liberals from places like Beverly Hills are willing to either (a) spend their own money to bring running water and electricity to the residents of the far outreaches of Alaska, and/or (b) give up their indoor bathrooms and poop in outhouses, then what right do they have to deny the Alaskans the opportunity to have indoor plumbing and electricity?


And so, while I personally oppose drilling for oil in the ANWR, that is a decision that should be made by the people in Alaska.

Labels: , , ,

2 Comments:

  • At 03 September, 2008 03:42, Blogger Me said…

    The area under proposal for drilling is less than 1/10th of 1% of the ANWR...and there's literally nothing there for the wells to disturb. (I've seen the area.)
    The oil could easily be shipped via new pipeline to the existing trans-Alaskan line so the risk of a spill would be no greater than it currently is, and when all is finally said and done, the whole pipeline (save for the buried sections) and all the structures associated with the drilling and flow can and will be removed just as they were designed to be, leaving little to no footprint behind.

    Bring up the oil and make Alaska prosperous and America less dependent on the foreign stuff.

     
  • At 03 September, 2008 04:01, Blogger Expatriate Owl said…

    Yes, getting more oil is certainly part of the solution. But we also need to develop alternative sources of energy.

    One energy source not widely explored: Fit stationary bicycles with generators. Install them in prisons, and connect the generators to the power grid. Instead of sentencing convicted criminals to time in prison, sentence them to kilowatt hours.

    And, for the nonviolent ones who pose minimal threat to society, let them do their kilowatt hours at home.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home