I normally don't use this blog as a way to promote any political party or candidate. During this heated election, I was pretty much silent except for promoting Chamber events or advocating why it is important to support pro-business issues. But I was catching up on some reading today and came across a copy of a speech Governor Sarah Palin gave to Hillsdale College friends and supporters during the College's "North to Alaska" cruise posted in the September 2008 issue of Imprimis.
With the election over, I think it is pretty safe to write this, but some may disagree. I am only going to post a small portion of her speech. I found it interesting and I hope some in Washington will take a serious look at this perspective:
"Alaskans find it incredibly frustrating that others - many of whom have never even set foot in our state, much less lived here - dictate how and when we can best use our own resources. Whether over the barren tundra or in our majestic mountains, we have a strong history of responsible development. To date, Alaska has sent more than 15 billion barrels of oil, safely and efficiently, to the lower 48. One look at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System illustrates that development and wildlife can and do coexist.
I've heard it said by some politicians that Alaska doesn't have enough oil to make a difference. I can tell you honestly that we DO have enough. And while consultants and experts debate the current energy crisis, Alaska is already preparing for its next role - providing American consumers with a safe and secure domestic source of crude oil and natural gas. In fact, if energy imports were curtailed completely, Alaska could provide our nation with seven years of crude oil independence and an eight-year supply of natural gas. These are numbers that reflect known and recoverable oil and gas deposits.
To repeat, Prudhoe Bay has produced 15 billion barrels of crude oil, and there's more where that came from in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), which is home to more than ten billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I know this is a controversial issue. But most Americans do not realize that of the 20 million acres that make up ANWR, we are asking for the right to access just 2,000 of them - a mere 1/10,000th of the total area. Opening up just that sliver of ANWR - which would create a footprint smaller than the total area of Los Angeles International Airport - could produce enough oil (an estimated one million barrels per day) to ease America's fuel crisis and greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
Controversial - yes. But should it be off the table for consideration - no.
With the election over, I think it is pretty safe to write this, but some may disagree. I am only going to post a small portion of her speech. I found it interesting and I hope some in Washington will take a serious look at this perspective:
"Alaskans find it incredibly frustrating that others - many of whom have never even set foot in our state, much less lived here - dictate how and when we can best use our own resources. Whether over the barren tundra or in our majestic mountains, we have a strong history of responsible development. To date, Alaska has sent more than 15 billion barrels of oil, safely and efficiently, to the lower 48. One look at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System illustrates that development and wildlife can and do coexist.
I've heard it said by some politicians that Alaska doesn't have enough oil to make a difference. I can tell you honestly that we DO have enough. And while consultants and experts debate the current energy crisis, Alaska is already preparing for its next role - providing American consumers with a safe and secure domestic source of crude oil and natural gas. In fact, if energy imports were curtailed completely, Alaska could provide our nation with seven years of crude oil independence and an eight-year supply of natural gas. These are numbers that reflect known and recoverable oil and gas deposits.
To repeat, Prudhoe Bay has produced 15 billion barrels of crude oil, and there's more where that came from in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), which is home to more than ten billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I know this is a controversial issue. But most Americans do not realize that of the 20 million acres that make up ANWR, we are asking for the right to access just 2,000 of them - a mere 1/10,000th of the total area. Opening up just that sliver of ANWR - which would create a footprint smaller than the total area of Los Angeles International Airport - could produce enough oil (an estimated one million barrels per day) to ease America's fuel crisis and greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil."
Controversial - yes. But should it be off the table for consideration - no.
2 comments:
I'm glad you wrote about this. As you can see from my screen name I live in Texas and am a native Texan. I understand all too well the restrictions put on drilling. Even when there are safe and enviromentally safe ways to produce oil, big government can and has made it impossible for American to become oil independent. In the 90's I worked for a small oil company. An independent who went out and drilled for oil. Even though they struck oil 85% of the time, the company eventually went out of business. Why? Because big government put too many limits on an already over-regulated business. It's well know in Texas anyway, why the United States doesn't want to use any, or as little of our natural resources as possible. The old but familiar expression is "he who holds all the gold, makes all the rules." Basically, use the resources of the rest of the world then be the last one holding the bag of gold (in this case, oil). Actually, makes sense but at what expense? To drill or not to drill?
Very well said. I'm for drilling.
Post a Comment