| August 11, 2006 Editor’s Desk by Aaron Selbig, insurgent49  It's been
a suspicious week here at Insurgent Headquarters.Okay, if no one else is going to say it, I will. British Petroleum’s shutting down of Prudhoe Bay is yet another strong-arm tactic to get what they want out of the State of Alaska: a sweetheart gas line deal and a long-term tax arrangement that benefits them. It’s their ace-in-the-hole ... their “in case of emergency, break glass” ... their last ditch effort to convince Alaskans that, if we have the gall to demand a larger share of the petroleum pie, we’ll soon find out who the boss is when the oil industry is forced to pick up stakes and leave. They tried spending thousands of dollars on advertising. They packed public gas line hearings all over the state with their lobbyists and employees. They’ve used intimidation and fear as tools in getting what they want from day one. And, when a tax bill they didn’t like started to gain some steam in the Legislature, they completely lost it. They pushed the “nuke” button. Doesn’t it seem awfully coincidental that less than twenty-four hours after Ralph Samuels’ and Mike Hawker’s “produce or pay” plan passed the House, BP decided to pull the plug on Prudhoe? Throw in the fact that a sticky primary election is coming up, one in which their boy Frank Murkowski isn’t looking too hot, and it all makes sense. Conspiracy theory, you say? BP stands to lose too much money from the Prudhoe shutdown to have done it for political reasons? Isn’t it possible, though, that the number crunchers at BP have weighed the financial loss of this drastic action with the financial gain that may come from it? For one, they stand to recoup some of the loss from inflated oil prices. The price of a barrel of crude shot up over $2.00 on Monday alone, and the price at the pump is sure to follow suit. Also, the reward of a spooked Alaska Legislature caving in to their demands on oil and gas taxes and the gas line deal is obviously worth a lot to them. How much? Enough to be able to shoulder an extended shutdown of Prudhoe Bay? Perhaps. One thing is for sure: it’s going to hurt us a lot more than it hurts them. Remember that, just last week, BP announced a record quarterly profit of $7.3 billion. And, if anyone cares, the pressure from Outside is about to get turned up, as well. This gas pipeline debate has already prompted pressure on the Legislature from Congress and the White House. Now, everyday citizens in the Lower 48, who are already paying close to $4.00/gallon to fill up their vehicles, are going to start directing some of their anger North ... to the those “spoiled” Alaskans who are swimming in free oil money and selfishly stalling gas line construction. As for the replacement of their dangerously corroded transit lines on the North Slope, yes ... BP should take care of the problem and do it quickly. As a matter of fact, they should have done it years ago. It’s no surprise, however, that a company facing criminal charges for leaks and accidents here and elsewhere has done little about this problem except to stall and attempt to cover it up. One important question remains about their sudden decision to close down the entire field at Prudhoe Bay to replace the lines: Why can’t BP shut down Prudhoe section by section, as they have done before, keeping the oil flowing while they fix the pipes? The Alaska Legislature and the citizens of Alaska need to stand firm in demanding our fair share of oil and gas profits, regardless of BP’s shutdown of the nation’s largest oilfield. Now is the time to show BP, a company with a reputation for playing hardball, that we can play hardball, too. Now is the time to remind BP of a fact they seem to have long forgotten: It’s our oil. Aaron Selbig is an activist and media junkie who resides in an undisclosed location in downtown Anchorage. He is the winner of a 2006 Alaska Press Club award for Best Editorial Writing, host of KUDO 1080 AM's 'The Aaron Selbig Show' and a co-founder of Insurgent49. Aaron may be contacted at editor@insurgent49.com |
-
Columnists -
- column archive -
August 4, 2006 July 28, 2006 July 21, 2006 July 14, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 16, 2006 June 9, 2006 June 2, 2006 May 26, 2006 May 12, 2006 May 5, 2006 April 28, 2006 April 21, 2006 April 14, 2006 April 7, 2006 March 31, 2006 March 24, 2006 March 17, 2006 March 3, 2006 February 24, 2006 February 17, 2006 February 10, 2006 February 3, 2006 January 27, 2006 January 20, 2006 January 13, 2006 January 6, 2006 December 30, 2005 December 23, 2005 December 16, 2005 December 10, 2005 December 2, 2005 November 25, 2005 November 18, 2005 November 11, 2005 November 4, 2005 October 28, 2005 October 21, 2005 October 14, 2005 October 7, 2005 September 30, 2005 September 23, 2005 September 16, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 2, 2005 August 26, 2005 August 19, 2005 August 12, 2005 August 5, 2005 July 29, 2005 July 22, 2005 July 15, 2005 July 8, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 24, 2005 June 17, 2005 June 10, 2005 June 3, 2005 May 27, 2005 May 20, 2005 May 13, 2005 May 6, 2005 April 28, 2005 April 21, 2005 April 14, 2005 April 7, 2005 April 1, 2005 |
|||||||
| Copyright 2005
Insurgent Media.
All rights reserved. in-sur-gent (in sur'jent), n. 1. a member of a group which revolts against the policies of its leadership. |
||||||||
