Oil from Alaska. Yes or no?
"Oil from Alaska--Yes or No?" is a question which has been debated since well before the determination was made that something that had been suspected for over 100 years had been proven to be fact. The North Slope of Alaska contained a massive deposit of oil.
Prudhoe Bay, where the oil field centered was one of Alaska's coldest and most inhospitable places. The nearest open port was at Valdez over 800 miles away across three mountain ranges and rivers streams and lakes as well as areas where there was no road.
In addition, great portions of the route were across areas with permafrost. It was believed by environmentalists that the melting of the permafrost layer in the soil caused by construction and by the oil moving through the pipeline would irreparably damage the delicate balance of life in the Arctic.
Add to these concerns the worry over the fact that earthquakes in Alaska were not that unusual and the potential for pipeline leakage which would devastate the pristine landscape and be harmful to the animals of the area as well.
The first red flag to the project was thrown down within months after the discovery when the geologists were still busy surveying and determining the best route for a pipeline. Lawsuits intended to stop the project in its tracks were filed by environmental and conservationist groups and ultimately heard in both state and federal courtrooms.
These were just some of the strong "no" responses to the question "Oil from Alaska—Yes or No?"
On the "yes" side of the equation were many factors as well. This was a proven field; oil was located there in large enough amounts to make the multimillion dollar pipeline project worthwhile. The geologists and engineers after almost 3 years surveying and planning were convinced that a pipeline could safely be completed across 800 miles of very inhospitable territory. The companies which found the oil were prepared financially to foot the cost of the project.
Economically, the work and jobs made available by such a massive project would benefits not only the residents of Alaska, but almost anyone looking for a job in times which were stressful economically. The boost to the economy of Alaska for a period of several years, both during the building of the pipeline and in the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay until the production slowed was incalculable.
Another "Oil from Alaska—Yes or No?" positive response was the problem of finding enough domestic oil to fuel the increasingly hungry demand for industrialization and automobiles in the United States. The U.S. needed that oil production pumping black gold into the factories and fuel tanks of America.
So ultimately the question "Oil from Alaska—Yes or No?" came down to an issue between environment and automobile and the automobile won. This is not to say that the environmentalists were wrong, just that most problems encountered during the construction and since have been worked out without much apparent damage to the landscape. After many years in operation, the Alaska pipeline is no longer pumping at full strength and may eventually be just another oil pipeline.
Prudhoe Bay, where the oil field centered was one of Alaska's coldest and most inhospitable places. The nearest open port was at Valdez over 800 miles away across three mountain ranges and rivers streams and lakes as well as areas where there was no road.
In addition, great portions of the route were across areas with permafrost. It was believed by environmentalists that the melting of the permafrost layer in the soil caused by construction and by the oil moving through the pipeline would irreparably damage the delicate balance of life in the Arctic.
Add to these concerns the worry over the fact that earthquakes in Alaska were not that unusual and the potential for pipeline leakage which would devastate the pristine landscape and be harmful to the animals of the area as well.
The first red flag to the project was thrown down within months after the discovery when the geologists were still busy surveying and determining the best route for a pipeline. Lawsuits intended to stop the project in its tracks were filed by environmental and conservationist groups and ultimately heard in both state and federal courtrooms.
These were just some of the strong "no" responses to the question "Oil from Alaska—Yes or No?"
On the "yes" side of the equation were many factors as well. This was a proven field; oil was located there in large enough amounts to make the multimillion dollar pipeline project worthwhile. The geologists and engineers after almost 3 years surveying and planning were convinced that a pipeline could safely be completed across 800 miles of very inhospitable territory. The companies which found the oil were prepared financially to foot the cost of the project.
Economically, the work and jobs made available by such a massive project would benefits not only the residents of Alaska, but almost anyone looking for a job in times which were stressful economically. The boost to the economy of Alaska for a period of several years, both during the building of the pipeline and in the oil fields of Prudhoe Bay until the production slowed was incalculable.
Another "Oil from Alaska—Yes or No?" positive response was the problem of finding enough domestic oil to fuel the increasingly hungry demand for industrialization and automobiles in the United States. The U.S. needed that oil production pumping black gold into the factories and fuel tanks of America.
So ultimately the question "Oil from Alaska—Yes or No?" came down to an issue between environment and automobile and the automobile won. This is not to say that the environmentalists were wrong, just that most problems encountered during the construction and since have been worked out without much apparent damage to the landscape. After many years in operation, the Alaska pipeline is no longer pumping at full strength and may eventually be just another oil pipeline.
