Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Is Anwar as important as the Hoover Dam Project?

After viewing the above video and hearing George Will's comment, the first thing that came to mind, was the controversy over drilling in Anwar. It is obvious that the Hoover Dam was responsible for bringing energy to the west on a large scale. Looking at the importance of that project and how it affected the lives of so many Americans since being built, would we do it again? I'd like to think we would, but is George Will right?

Did the need to bring energy to west outweigh any environmental impact that the Hoover Dam may have caused? So there were a few species of fish that bit the dust. Are they missed? I would never have known about them if I hadn't looked up that information.

Is the drilling for Oil in Anwar in the same league as the Hoover Dam? It certainly would help America become energy independent at least for the short term while other forms of energy were being developed.

Should we allow environmentalists to dictate policy that would benefit the greater good? I'm sure these same environmentalist would condemn the Hoover Dam project if it were proposed today.

Is Anwar our modern day Hoover Dam?

Click on Photo for More information on Anwar:

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.


Anonymous said...

I don't know if Anwar is as important but it sure is up there.

With conservative estimates of 65 billion barrels of oil, it would put us on par with the Mid-East.

larry said...

Excellent post Rev.

It certainly needs to be addressed.

I also believe that the bleeding heart environmentalists would have tried to block the Hoover Dam today. If they back then, look at all the benefits we would have missed out on.

I think the oil in Anwar would also reap similar benefits.

DanL said...

Anwar isn't nearly as important, but it also much, much less impact on the environment than Hoover dam did. Hoover dam provides renewable energy for as long as it stands. Not only does it provide electricity, it also provides water to very arid desert cities.

It makes me sick to think about ANWR and the DECADES that we have lost already by not drilling there. Clinton refused to drill when he was president. And one of the biggest reasons why, because it would take 10 years for the oil to start being harvested, or so he claimed. That was 1996. Geez, even if we used the inflated and false schedule that Clinton cited, we'd have been getting oil for the last 5 years from ANWR.

Ann said...

I agree that we need to get that oil while still developing alternate sources of energy.

What are we waiting for?

Anonymous said...

We absolutely need to develop our own oil reserves; being dependent on foreign sources for one of our most important resources is not only embarrassing but stupid.

The craziest environmentalists want to take out both the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams now. My dad has been a water engineer in the West for over 30 years. He has spoken with some of these people and said this, "If you take out those dams, you lose Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and other cities. How would you like to have all of those displaced person move to New York, and try to meet all of their basic needs?" It usually shuts them up and gives them some food for thought. If there were no dams, the Salt River here in Phoenix could probably support a population of about 200,000 or so, at least that's what I heard. Where would everyone go?