Arctic oil drilling: Beyond the myths

Boston Herald ^ | 2/28/02

[Looking for Diogenes]

"Who the hell made the 'lower 48' gods of Alaska?" Maybe you should try asking an Alaskan (or former Alaskan) if they want to drill? Of every dollar in Alaska, 80% comes from oil.

Alaska state citizens can do whatever they want with the land they own. The Alaskan State Government can do anything it wants with the land it owns. The ANWR belongs to the whole U.S., including those living in the 'lower 48.'

I live in California. I gather you live in Washington. We both get a portion of our oil from the North Slope. We both also use nuclear power.

Just out of curiousity, do you believe the citizens of Nevada should have a veto in the placement of a nuclear waste disposal site in their state?

[Issaquahking]

I have over 40 years in Alaska....it was a territory when I was born there. When Alaska came into the United States as a state, there was a lot of things wrote into the contract.....such as all revenues such as oil - 90% to go to Alaska. The land hasn't even been divided up into who gets what yet. The fed's still hold over 86% of Alaska, the citizens in Russia own more land per capita than Alaskans do! Alaska has twice voted to sucede(sp) from the US and was voted down both times. If it ever comes to pass that they do get out....I'm moving back in a heartbeat!

Your a Californian who has never been to Alaska, nor do understand the state as a seperate entity from the rest of America. Some people get ti right away...others never do. That oil belongs to Alaska and it's citizenery, and they should be able to do with it what they want....not what you think should happen.

[Issaquahking]

ANWR belongs to Alaska, not to America....see states rights.

[Looking for Diogenes]

When Alaska came into the United States as a state, there was a lot of things wrote into the contract.....such as all revenues such as oil - 90% to go to Alaska.

I'm sure you must know know that that deal has been abrogated in the current energy bill, which sets the level for ANWR oil at 50% to Alaska, the same deal given to every other state for oil extracted from federal land.

You're a Californian who has never been to Alaska, nor do understand the state as a seperate entity from the rest of America.

Yes, that is right- I don't understand. The Territory of Alaska was bought by the federal government from the Czar of Russia. Whatever it hasn't given away or sold it retains.

Alaska has twice voted to secede from the US and was voted down both times. If it ever comes to pass that they do get out....I'm moving back in a heartbeat!

Have you mentioned this on the Civil War threads? Some folks are so much in favor of secession that they would probably move too, even if it is to the North rather than the South.

.

Alaska has the oil, which will be drilled and piped and loaded by Alaskans (native or temporary). The question is not if, but when.

[Issaquahking]

When Alaska came into the United States as a state, there was a lot of things wrote into the contract.....such as all revenues such as oil - 90% to go to Alaska.

I'm sure you must know that deal has been abrogated in the current energy bill, which sets the level for ANWR oil at 50% to Alaska, the same deal given to every other state for oil extracted from federal land.

So do you jump for joy everytime a state's rights are violated? I call it being sold out. I can only assume that you live in the city...because you have seem to have absolutely no regard for 'country common sense'. If you are from the city, please stay there.

[Puppage]

Understood. However, my fellow Freeper was trying to make the argument that because of the pipeline, THAT was the only reason that the caribou were thriving. They'd be doing just fine regardless of it, or not.

[Looking for Diogenes]

So do you jump for joy everytime a state's rights are violated? I call it being sold out.

I never said I agreed with the new plan. I don't think it is fair to change the deal after it has been agreed. I was pointing it out to remind you that there has been a sell out.

If you are from the city, please stay there.

No, raised in the country, though living in the city now. Hope to get back to the country, despite your suggestion.

[Issaquahking]

Maybe the big difference between the way we see the world is I have been free in Alaska, I have never been free here in the states.....but I refuse to lay down and be ran over. I would just as soon see a civil war here in America with the "problem children" that are here, so we could get back on track; I wouldn't be shooting Americans - far from it. Would make my day to start by doing away with the commie's and tree huggers for a start. So I don't believe we will ever share the same view.

When you live in the back country and don't see anybody for weeks at a time, you don't have to put up with the BS. We fought for six year's with the government, and never received any compensation from the government for stealing our mining claims. It is now a U.N. bioshere in Alaska, called the Wrangell St. Ellias preserve or some such title. What it really is part of the U.N. "corridor" they are trying to tie together from Alaska through Canada and the United States all the way to Mexico.

I guess though if you've never tasted freedom you couldn't understand. From where I stand though, leave the city behind you if you do come out to the country.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Let's use an analogy. Suppose that the US had some nice farmland but the federal government wouldn't let anyone farm there. Meanwhile, the US was required to buy a significant portion of its food from...say...Ukraine (you know, cuz it's the world's "breadbasket"..). As a result the US kowtows to Ukrainian warlords and US soldiers protect Ukrainian high rollers on their trips to see prostitutes and whatnot. A tiny neighboring country to Ukraine is invaded, and the US goes to war against the invader. Ukraine funds, and Ukrainian youths become, terrorists who kill Americans, but the US basically bites its tongue. And so forth.

All this time there is perfectly good farmland right here in the US but the government won't let anyone farm there. Why? Well, crtain critters are mentioned, odes are composed to "pristine land", Birkenstock wearing coffee shop denizens who never leave the big city gaze longingly at postcards with photographs of this land reproduced on them as they sip their espressos, etc.

Now someone suggests letting people farm this land. And you come along saying, "no way, food prices are too low. Let's hold out for higher food prices! That's just good business sense!"

I think you're missing the point. Who will be paying these higher prices you crave so much? Prices which, by the way, are paid not only in money but in a loss of political freedom, and in blood as well.

We should encourage our government to use semi-monopolistic protectionist practices to squeeze every last penny from... ourselves?

Heck, why stop there. Why not have the federal government shut down any and all domestic energy production whatsoever, so that the prices go sky high and we're even more dependent on the whims of foreign warlords. That'll show...uh, us!

[Hajman]

Understood. However, my fellow Freeper was trying to make the argument that because of the pipeline, THAT was the only reason that the caribou were thriving. They'd be doing just fine regardless of it, or not.

Actually, from what I read, it seemed our fellow Freeper was making the point that the pipeline was helping to increase the survival rate of the caribou, and thus the 'thriving' comment (if one considered pre-pipeline population as not so thriving). Just imho.

-The Hajman-