Mark Landin wrote (in part):
If I picked 100 Alaskans at random who held that view, approximately how
many could give me sensical reasons and evidence why they think so? My
opinion, that number would be very tiny. Out of those 100, how many would
stand to benefit financially from the proposed drilling? My opinion, a lot
higher than answer #1.
-----
Someone should do a poll, since we have so many in the election season. Out
of those 100, all would benefit if they qualify as Alaskan residents during
a specific "look back" period - all qualified residents receive a share of
the State's royalties from the oil pumped through the Alaskan Pipeline. A
few years ago it was about $2,000 annually per person, including adults and
children.
-----
Craig Lalley wrote (in part):
If Alaska was given a vote, the overwhelmingly popular vote would be to
drill in ANWAR.
Mark Landin replied:
Of course. The average Alaskan can smell the money. Again, I think that's a
vote informed mainly by greed, not thought.
-----
See above comment re royalties.
-----
Mark continued:
I agree that this does have some "states rights" issues tied to it. I don't
know much about how federal lands are identified, declared, and controlled.
I assume Alaska at some point had the option to deny granting federal status
to the area in question, but I could be wrong. But if it's federal land,
then it's federal control. Maybe Alaska could get ANWAR's federal status
revoked somehow? Then there would just be the environmentalists to fight,
and we would eventually find out if all those Alaskans who think that
environmentally sound drilling can be done are right.
-----
As I'm sure you know, Alaska was purchased from the Russian Czar for approx.
$7 million - at the time somewhere around $0.43 per acre, in what became
known at the time as "Seward's Folly" - after the name of the Secretary of
State that negotiated the deal. The intent was to remove the last vestiges
of European powers from the North American continent. It's been said that
the U.S. received a 100% return on it's investment within the first few days
of oil production that flowed through the Trans-Alaska pipeline when it
originally started operation.
So Alaska essentially has always been under Federal control, as it's
Federally owned. That is the case with most of the western states - the U.S.
government is by far the largest land owner, and there are constant issues
with water rights, grazing rights, development vs non-development, ad
nauseum. An attorney told me once that Texas was the last state to join the
union that wasn't required to surrender a majority of it's land to the U.S.
government as a condition of statehood. True or not, the Federal government
owns certainly less than say 3% of the land in Texas, while most western
states the percentage is more like 70-80%.
A while ago we had a group of people that insisted that Texas had the right
to withdraw from the union and was the only state that retained that right
as it joined the union. They had a compound somewhere around the Ft.
Stockton (very much extreme West Texas) area and we had ourselves a good old
Texas standoff between the group and the Feds. I don't know if their
assertion is true or not, but seeing as Texas still isn't on the national
electrical grid and we have enough oil for our own needs under our own soil
and Gulf of Mexico waters, I say "Fellow Texans, Unite! Independence! Bring
back the Republic of Texas!" Yeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwww!
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
