Dear?Editor

I’m sure we can all agree that the oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico is an unmitigated environmental disaster. When drilling in deep water, the technological problems are formidable and mistakes are unforgiving. One failure can spell disaster as we can all see. BP created this problem but certainly they had systems in place to prevent something like this. The people who make up BP are the last in the world that would want something like this to happen. They don’t want a dirty environment any more than you and I. Also, one occurrence of this nature can completely destroy the company, the same as one canned food death can destroy a canned food company. Unfortunately there are times when the worst happens despite whatever care was taken to prevent it. We all know that risk can be minimized but it can not be eliminated.

The problem of stopping the leak is compounded exponentially by the depth at which it is happening. On land, it would have been stopped quickly. I asked myself, “Why are we drilling in such deep water?” There is oil under shallow water and on land. ANWR in Alaska comes to mind but there are other places as well, where should there be a problem, it could be remedied and cleaned up in an instant as compared to what we have ongoing now. These easier and environmentally safer areas are closed to drilling so oil companies drill where they are allowed. Why were these areas closed? Over the years, environmental activists have lobbied congress and had them set aside. ANWR is a good example. I remember how the activists said that the Caribou would not migrate and die if the Alaska pipeline was built. This did not happen and the Caribou are doing very well there. Apparently the Caribou knew more about it than the activists.

When thinking about this, it suddenly struck me that the Gulf disaster was set up to happen by the environmental activists! If the safer areas were not closed, the oil companies would be there instead, where the cost is much less and the technological hurdles are much smaller.

BP accepted the risk, so I am not trying to absolve them from blame. The spill was unintended but they still did it. I am simply explaining how the environmental activists and congress set the stage for this to happen. It is an unintended consequence of their actions, but that doesn’t absolve them of responsibility any more than it does BP. They own this mess as well. The difference is that BP will admit it and they won’t.

The obstacles against stopping the oil flow are formidable and we should all be praying that the oil can be stopped. We should also pray that the people in congress, and the president, learn from this and allow drilling in places where a problem can be quickly addressed.

Charles Melchiori

Barnesville