What did NO on Prop 1 do for Alaska . . . NOTHING.

SB21 brought industry commitments.
So say T.J. Presley and Nick Moe, the two who pushed the SB21 Prop 1 NO campaign.
Industry commitments?
 What industry commitments?
 What did Alaska trade with SB21? Another one-way deal brokered by Hawker and Chennault, Conoco's boys.
BP is laying people off.
The work being done is maintenance that was ignored for many years. Now, maybe, in 2016, there will be a favorable Congress elected and a President who just might open ANWR and allow offshore oil and gas development. Makes sense to spend the money, just in case.
How will offshore development help or benefit Alaska? Alaska does not get a cut of those royalties. Aside from whatever village becomes the staging area, there is no benefit.
Then, there is the idea of upping production in a time of 'glut'. How many tankers from Valdez full of Alaska crude are turned away from West Coast refineries, because of the wealth of shale oil being produced?
Is our oil wanted in the market right now?  No.  There is an excess of oil, with surpluses being produced in the Middle East as a hedge against any crisis that might cause a spike in demand.  
Saudi Arabia is trying to produce sufficient surplus oil to cause a downturn below $80/bbl as part of a plan between the Saudis and the Obama Administration to create financial stress on Putin's Russia.  At $80/bbl, Russia can pay for government, at $79.99/bbl, it cannot.  Now, you know why the price of oil has been declining lately.
What happened to the NG from Qatar that was supposed to supply the U.S. domestic needs for 25 years? The first LNG tanker was turned around and sent to Asia last May. That gas now supplies 60% of the Japanese LNG market.
Even though the Japanese are looking for new suppliers, Alaska's governor and Legislature are not interested.
 Our governor and Legislature could have cared less about the Japanese delegations that came to Alaska to secure LNG post the Fukishima meltdown.  The Gov and the Legislature evidently work for Conoco and Exxon. That is clear, otherwise, why would $3B in potential investment into an Alaska natural gas pipeline and LNG train have been allowed to walk to Kitimat and Chenier in LA? Alaska was not interested in the deal, so the money walked and was invested elsewhere.
What did NO accomplish? More money for the oil companies, less for Alaska.
I am a no tax kind of conservative. I believe that Alaska should have stuck with royalties and never bothered with taxes on the oil industry. We would have been much better off, and the oil industry would have thrived here with a vibrant oil and gas service industry instead of the few companies engaged in oil and gas anything in Alaska--fiscal certainty and all of that. However, we became greedy, allowed our gov't to milk the oil companies and now, we play stupid games. Our Legislature and governor studies and studies and studies and we languish wondering if there will ever be any new development in the oil sector and in the gas sector?
People move to Alaska hoping, only to find an expensive place to live with the economy largely being fueled by gov't money.  Eventually, those taillights will be headed south--sooner the better.
The oil companies promised nothing and that's what we received with SB21. Nothing.
There is no leadership in Juneau. The increasing spending is a demonstration that we have devolved from building infrastructure with our oil royalties largess to maintaining and keeping the plebes happy with social entitlements. No leadership, no direction, no commitment to do other than kiss the oil companies' corporate posteriors in the vein hope that they will pull the rabbit of economic prosperity out of the declining oil revenue hat before we use the entire PF to keep the illusion of fiscal solvency alive. That is the problem, has been the problem ever since Sarah Palin was elected, left Alaska, and the boy wonder, otherwise known as Captain Zero, became Governor six years ago. Yeah, six years, we've been blessed with . . . nothing.
Now, we have a $7M per day deficit spending with Governor Parnell's spending excesses.
 SB21 is still the law, meaning less money to the State.
Fine.
Now what?
November will be the 'what'. The Legislature will not change. The same "me toos" will be back in Juneau to do what Hawker and Chennault say.
Hopefully, Bill Walker and Craig Fleener will have their shot at running the State. At least we will have a governor who has a plan to move forward with economic prosperity and fiscal responsibility as the goals.




http://www.adn.com/article/20140825/defeat-oil-tax-referendum-puts-alaska-win-win-territory

Does TransCanada have a conflict of interest?

 
Through Canada or to Valdez?

When former Governor Sarah Palin took office in 2007, she turned her back upon her campaign’s support of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez, even though she spoke in support of the project and stood with those who supported the project during the campaign. Supporters included former Governor Walter J. Hickel who was an outspoken proponent of the Valdez LNG project and a vocal opponent of Murkowski’s give away to Canada. Undoubtedly, her rising popularity was in no minor part due to her support of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez alternative to then Governor Frank Murkowski’s "contract" with Exxon, Mobil, and BP to build a 4.5bcf/da pipeline through Canada to the Midwest. Palin then beat former Governor Tony Knowles in the General Election in November, becoming the first woman governor of the State of Alaska.

By 2006, it was obvious to most Alaskans that then Gov. Murkowski’s pipeline contract was nothing but a promise by the oil companies to consider building a pipeline after much study and consideration. Exxon spoke of 2025 as the time frame for Alaska North Slope natural gas to move to market. Palin beat Murkowski in the August, 2006 Primary Election. Palin then won the November General election against former Governor Tony Knowles.

The die was cast for the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act.

Upon taking office, Sarah Palin literally reset on her support of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline. Then Gov. Sarah Palin reappointed Tom Irwin as Dept. of Natural Resources Commissioner. Former Deputy Commissioner Marty Rutherford was also reappointed as Deputy Commissioner DNR. Both had been fired by by Gov. Frank Murkowski for disagreements regarding his actually having a contract with the oil companies to build a pipeline. However, both were firmly convinced that Alaska needed the large diameter 4.5 bcf/day pipeline through Canada to replace oil revenues from the Trans Alaska Pipeline Systems steadily declining volume transported to market. The North Slope oil production was about 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) at that time.

Irwin and Rutherford played a major role with legislative input in drafting AGIA. The project initially mirrored Murkowski’s project with one exception. The project did not rely solely upon the oil companies to build a gas pipeline. AGIA called for a competition with the best project as the winner. TransCanada became the sole competitor and was selected as the sole contractor under AGIA. The Alaska Gas Port Authority, a consortium of the cities of Fairbanks, Big Delta, and Valdez, submitted a proposal that was deemed late, incomplete and, therefore, not considered. By the gubernatorial election of 2010, the route was to the Alberta Hub, and not down through Alberta to the Midwest.

Since, AGPA has touted its route and LNG terminal plan as an alternative to AGIA. AGPA’s arguments have largely fell upon deaf ears in both the Paline/Parnell Administrations and the Legislature. Yet, the LNG market was demonstrating a major growth in Asia.

The contradiction in the volume of the planned pipeline projects, both Palin’s and Murkowski’s, was the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission limit of allowable production committed for export to market for North Slope Natural Gas. AGOCC set the amount at about 2-3bcf/da. This figure took into consideration the amount of natural gas necessary to keep the North Slope oil fields pressurized for continued production. Where Murkowski or Palin intended to come up with another 1.5 bcf/da between AGOCC’s limit and the 4.5 bcf/da capacity of their pipelines to Canada has to this day never been fully explained. Nor, has Governor Sean Parnell’s administration bothered to explain why his administration has continued to support TransCanada’s planned 4.5 bcf/da pipeline through Canada under AGIA in the face of the AGOCC’s limit on North Slope natural gas available for export.

In 2007, the Palin Administration announced the award of the AGIA contract to the sole applicant: TransCanada. TransCanada plans incorporated much of former Governor Murkowski’s pipeline. The volume was 4.5 bcf/da, the diameter a >=48 inch casing, the route through Canada to Alberta, then down to the Midwest. Later, TransCanada modifed its plan to use the Alberta Gas Hub distribution system to the U.S., thereby using existing pipelines to distribute gas to the U.S. from Canada. However, the price of the project continued to grow. The estimated cost for construction increased from $18B to over $40B by the gubernatorial election of 2010. From 2007 to today, little or no progress was made on the project. No permits for a route were issued in Canada or Alaska. No firm construction date was ever stated by TransCanada.

In 2008, Conoco and BP announced a competing natural gas pipeline project to Canada called Denali. The plan called for a 4.5 bcf/da natural gas pipeline to export North Slope natural gas to Canada. In May, 2011, Conoco and BP announced that the Denali project was no longer viable. About a week before that announcement, the Alaska president of Conoco’s Alaska operations stated that it was never the intention of Conoco or BP to bring Alaska’s North Slope to market, as they had intended to warehouse the natural gas indefinitely through reinjection back into the wells. Conoco and BP’s Denali proposal was intended to influence the course of Alaska’s legislative and gubernatorial policies pertaining to gas production and marketing of North Slope natural gas. The acts on the part of BP and Conoco amounted to fraud upon the State. The silence on the part of the Parnell Administration and the Legislature was deafening. (http://www.facebook.com/notes/alaskans-for-an-all-alaska-gasline/rebuttal-to-representative-les-garas-alaska-dispatch-opinion-piece-by-larry-wood/219621878075614)

On June 11, 2009, Exxon partnered with TransCanada. This partnership raised questions about the viability of just one producer on the North Slope participating in the project, when it was recognized that all three were necessary to any agreement to sell enough gas to move by pipeline. At that time, BP and Conoco were touting their "competing" Denali gasline project.

Since 1978, the completion of the TAPS oil pipeline, no discernible forward progress has been made towards actual construction of a natural gas pipeline in Alaska. Neither Denali’s nor TransCanada’s heavily publicized Open Seasons had produced any customers for their Alaska projects.

The reality of any natural gas pipeline from the North Slope, was that it took production from all three producers, Exxon, Conoco and BP, to provide sufficient natural gas to make a pipeline project viable. Further, the Point Thompson controversy between Exxon and the State also had to be settled.

The all-Alaska natural gas pipeline project first proposed by Yukon Pacific in the early 80s was for a 2.5 bcf/da pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez to be converted to LNG for export to the U.S. That was basically the same pipeline and volume intended in the plan voted on 2002. AGPA’s pipeline plan today is 3.0 bcf/da. Note that these volumes are within the AGOCC’s volume restrictions for North Slope gas export.

In mid-2011, Governor Sean Parnell finally awakened to the reality of the world LNG market. He suddenly decided that the only viable market for Alaska’s North Slope natural gas was as LNG to Asia. Since, he has tried to move AGIA in that direction. Under AGIA, TransCanada has the option to build a pipeline to a LNG terminus at Valdez for LNG export to market.

In October, 2011, Governor Sean Parnell called for a meeting with the North Slope oil producers to discuss a gasline and the LNG option. On January 6, 2012, Gov. Parnell met with Exxon’s CEO Rex Tillerson, BP Alaska’s CEO Bob Dudley, and Conoco’s Alaska operations CEO Jim Mulva in Anchorage. Gov. Parnell announced that he achieved a promise on the part of the producers to consider ways of getting Alaska’s North Slope gas to market. As promised, in a letter dated March 30, 2012, the oil companies outlined their intent to move forward on a gasline under AGIA. They updated their progress in another letter dated October 3, 2012. However, the progress was basically couched in terms declaring that ‘fiscal certainty’ was required for both a natural gas pipeline and any increase in oil production in Alaska. A position that the oil companies have steadfastly promoted for some time.

The first open season by TransCanada and Exxon ran from April 30-July 30, 2010. The second open season was conducted August 31-September 14, 2011. Both were apparently a bust with insufficient commitments to make any announcements regarding pipeline construction. Under AGIA, TransCanada has five years from the first open season before the project can be declared uneconomical and abandonment would be declared by either the State or TransCanada. (http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/285716809.shtml)

Today, Alaskans are still awaiting news of a natural gas pipeline project that will actually move North Slope natural gas to market.

Does TransCanada have a conflict of interest in its commitment to Kitimat?

Kitimat, British Columbia is the site of a proposed LNG terminal. In 2010, Apache Corp. announced the first agreements regarding LNG commitments with Korea. A 10 year commitment was made by Korea for Canadian LNG exported from Kitimat.

Since, the Kitmat development has expanded to include an additional LNG terminal and oil export capability to be built by a partnership lead by Shell to transport Alberta tar sands oil and LNG to Asia. The oil pipeline will be two parallel pipelines to be built by Enbridge. The pipelines would run 694 miles from Bruderheim, AB to Kitimat, B.C. with an estimated construction cost of $5.5B Canadian. Up to 1,000,000 barrels of crude per day would be transported by the pipelines.

TransCanada’s involvement and conflict of interest lies in its commitment to Shell to build a $4B (Canadian) 434 mile long natural gas pipeline from the B.C. shale gas fields to Kitimat. Kitmat’s LNG terminal will export approximately 1.2 bcf/da of LNG for Asian markets. Shell expects to export up to $10B in Canadian LNG to Asia through TransCanada’s pipeline. Shell is estimating a demand that will see up to 200 LNG tankers a year taking on LNG from Kitimat. The estimated completion date, given the environmental and indigenous lands rights of way issues, is expected by the end of the decade. The pipeline to be built by TransCanada is expected to measure over a meter (>39 inches) in diameter with an initial capacity of 1.7 bcf/da.

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/transcanada-wins-4-billion-pipeline-contract/article4231488/ ; http://www.transcanada.com/6054.html; http://www.coastalgaslink.com/ ; http://nwcoastenergynews.com/2012/06/05/2778/transcanada-build-shell-natural-gas-pipeline-kitimat/ )

Shell and its partners, Korean Gas, Mitsubishi, and PetroChina, are planning to build a separate LNG terminal from that planned by Apache Corp. back in 2010.

However, there may be a new wrench in the monkey works of the plans for any west coast LNG terminal, including Valdez.

TransCanada has an exclusive under AGIA. An exclusive normally implies a higher standard of commitment to the grantor than would an ordinary contract without an exclusive.

Given TransCanada’s commitment to Kitimat, should the State of Alaska move to declare breach to end AGIA?

Is there any basis in fact or common sense that would require the State to continue what is clearly a contract that is compromised by a conflict of interest by the grantee of the exclusive under that contract?

The latest cost estimate to construct a 3.0 bcf/da natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez is now estimated by TransCanada and Exxon to be $65B, including the LNG train at Valdez. The last estimate of the cost of construction for the AGIA Alberta Hub pipeline was approximately $40B. Compare the $65B cost of the AGIA LNG option to that the cost of the Kitimat 1.7 bcf/da >39 inch natural gas pipeline to be built by TransCanada under its agreement with Shell Oil. The cost of the Kitimat natural gas pipeline is just $4B Canadian.

(http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/exxon-bp-estimate-alaska-lng-export-project-at-65-billion.html)

Is the $65B price tag of the Alaska natural gas pipeline and LNG train under AGIA just hype to dissuade any protest at further delays?

Nothing like the obvious biting one in the butt . . .

The recent announcement by Governor Sean Parnell of his new found support for the LNG natural gas pipeline option was not a surprise. This is a guy who has been politically urinating into the wind for at least the last two years. He has stayed true to Palin’s AGIA in the face of industry trends that dictated an end to the big pipe south before AGIA was even enacted. Governor Parnell could not ignore LNG market trends and the impact of domestic U.S. and Canadian shale gas production any longer without looking like the proverbial village idiot.

Even the pols in the Legislature are getting on the LNG train.

You know something has become so obvious that it cannot be ignored when our legislators begin to mouth platitudes about something that they have ignored since, what, about 1984?

The proverbial handwriting was on the wall for all to see, but those in elected office.

Just before Conoco announced the end of the charade that was the Denali natural gas pipeline project, the president of Conoco in Alaska stated that the intent of Conoco all along was to warehouse North Slope natural gas into the foreseeable future. Why would Conoco conceal its intent to do nothing with its North Slope gas? Conoco and Exxon have a 25 year commitment to move LNG from Qatar to the U.S., where there is no longer a market. Asia is now that market.

Qatar represents a $22B USD investment on the part of Exxon and Conoco to upgrade the northern and southern LNG gas trains and production facilities to meet export obligations. The first LNG tanker with Qatar LNG docked at a U.S. LNG import terminal earlier this summer, where the gas was off loaded and then reloaded back onto a LNG tanker, and shipped to a foreign market. The gas was not used in the U.S.

The Wood-Mac Report on the Alaska Gasline Port Authority’s website supports the viability of exporting Alaska natural gas from Valdez. The estimated cost of delivery to an Asian market for Alaska LNG is $10 per million BTUs (mmbtu equals one thousand cubic feet). Cost of natural gas and shipping from the North Slope to Japan via the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez is estimated in the Wood-Mac report at $8.50/mmbtu total, delivered. Pipeline transport is estimated at $1.70/mmbtu, with shipping to Asia by LNG tanker estimated at $.59/mmbtu.

The All-Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline project would have a total volume of 2.7 billion cubic feet per with 250 million cubic feet going to south central via a spur line from Glenallen. It is the volume of gas shipped to Valdez that keeps the price of the 250mcf/day to south central low enough that our natural gas prices would not increase. Further, the gas liquids would be kept for use in-state to provide the resources for a new petrochemical industry in the Fairbanks area.

In 2010, the Japanese were paying up to $12/mmbtus for LNG. The highest price paid this year by Japanese LNG customers has been almost $17/mmbtu.

BG Group PLC of Great Britain has made a significant commitment with Cheniere Energy Partners, Sabine Pass, LA, to export shale gas as LNG to Asia. BG expects a sale price for the LNG at 115% of the Henry Hub price plus a $2.25/mmbtu premium.

Wood-Mac’s projections for a delivered price from Sabine Pass is $10.50/mmbtu, or $2/mmbtu more than delivered Alaska gas. LNG shipping costs to Asia from LA are about four times higher than from Alaska. BG is so bullish on LNG that BG has another LNG export project of its own underway at Lake Charles, LA.

Election year is coming up, and the pols up for election have to fool those idiots that vote once again into believing that they are really gonna do something about Alaska’s economic situation . . . this time, if only they are reelected! We are supposed to ignore bad decisions and the lack of initiative and indecision since about 1994.

Only the State of Alaska’s leadership seems to be incapable of grasping industry trends. Natural gas export by LNG is viable from the U.S. and is being aggressively pursued by all, but Alaska.

Alaska needs real leadership, not more of the same.

Parnell's Plight

Governor Sean Parnell has dug himself a hole that is deep and wide. Parnell has enough trouble brewing that would cause any sitting governor to start looking at the Help Wanted ads in the local papers. There are four primary areas of concern.

Parnell’s first problem is AGIA.

AGIA was pronounced as DOA by Parnell himself with respect to any expected success of the Open Season. Parnell’s refusal to answer rival Bill Walker’s FOIA request for disclosure of the Open Season is proof that Parnell is playing a delaying game without any expectation of success.

Against AGIA is the reality of the shale gas developments in Canada and the U.S. The Outside gas reserves are estimated to be enough for a 150 year supply of natural gas. The fact of the lack of any permitting to show in the 3 years since the passage of AGIA belie his current assertions that AGIA is alive and well.

AGIA, like Conoco/BP’s Denali project, takes our gas and gas liquids to Canada, thereby benefitting Canada, not Alaska.

Is Parnell acting in the best interests of Alaska by pushing AGIA?

Parnell’s second problem is his contempt for the law with the growing controversy over his appointments of Nancy Dahlstrom and Gene Therriault as his Military Advisor and Oil and Gas Advisor, respectively.

This situation would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that both Dahlstrom and Therriault were sitting legislators at the time of the creation of the positions to which they were appointed. As ‘advisors’ their appointments did not have to be approved by the Legislature. The problem for Parnell arises with the fact that both appointments were in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska:

“Section 2.5 - Disqualifications.
No legislator may hold any other office or position of profit under the United States or the State. During the term for which elected and for one year thereafter, no legislator may be nominated, elected, or appointed to any other office or position of profit which has been created, or the salary or emoluments of which have been increased, while he was a member. . . .”

There was little comment about former Sen. Gene Therriault’s appointment, except by yours truly and a few others. With the second appointment of Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom, the pundits and the press finally figured out that our governor was ignoring the law.

Is our Governor above the law?

Another indication of the contempt that his governor and his appointees have for the law is the conduct of Gov. Parnell’s MG Katkus in requiring a subordinate to appear in uniform to testify to the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in support of Katkus’ appointment as Commissioner DMVA and Adjutant General. This act was unprecedented, and constituted a blatant act of undue influence. This situation was akin to Gene Therriault filling in for the Governor at a campaign function in Fairbanks earlier this summer. Both situations constitute at the very least undue influence on the part of the Governor and by Katkus as Parnell’s appointee.

Parnell’s third problem is the contradiction to any claim that he is working to resolve the Cook Inlet gas supply crisis.

Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division refuses to timely renew expired Cook Inlet oil and gas leases to exploration and development companies. This failure by Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division is incredible in the face of the alleged purpose of the bullet line.

Is Governor Parnell playing politics with a critical gas supply issue to the detriment of Alaska’s largest population segment?

Parnell’s fourth problem that is indefensible and, perhaps, the least recognized by the media, is Gov. Parnell’s decision to virtually eliminate the Alaska State Defense Force as a viable emergency response asset under DMVA.

In 2006, many of the Army National Guard assets were called to federal active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, leaving the ASDF to perform disaster response. ASDF was called to State Active Duty three times in 2006.

How is reducing the State’s ability to respond to a disaster a showing of leadership?

Are we voters going to let Governor Sean Parnell’s open contempt for the law and his failure in leadership stand?

Concoco-Phillips Denali Project

The decision by BP and Conoco Phillips to build a pipeline to take North Slope NG to Canada is a definite change of heart for two out of the three Producers on the North Slope.

I believe the reason for this change is not because all of a sudden BP and Conoco want to get NG off the North Slope, but rather because the alternatives are lacking for another high priority project.

Between unstable tundra along the proposed route due to permafrost melting to legal challenges by Deh Cho and other Native groups, and as yet unsettled right of way regulatory issues, the NG from the MacKenzie River Delta that was intended to fuel the separation of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands is not going to be available within the time frames originally envisioned for the MacKenzie River Delta pipeline project. An alternative had to be found, and Alaska’s North Slope gas reserves is that alternative.

The increasing price of oil is driving the recovery of oil from Alberta Tar Sands at an ever increasing pace. A supply of cheap NG is necessary to the economic viability of the separation process.

The only long term viable source of NG without rights of way issues at least to the Canadian border is found on Alaska’s North Slope. The rights of way and other issues would still have to be worked out to get the NG to Alberta, but, undoubtedly, BP will wield considerable influence in dealing with the Canadian side, given the Crown’s interest in BP along with the imperative to get the Tar Sands oil to market.

It is unlikely that Exxon will seek its own means to transport NG off the North Slope, especially with the promises made regarding development of the Pt. Thompson NG reserves made in order to retain those leases. Exxon is in a market it or else situation with the Pt. Thompson NG reserves. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, that although unannounced, Exxon will eventually join with BP and Conoco Phillips.

Exxon was a player in the MacKenzie River Delta pipeline project, and a major advocate of taking Alaska’s NG over the top and plugging into the anticipated MacKenzie River Delta pipeline system.

Through a subsidiary, Exxon is also a major player in the Alberta Tar Sands project.

A major concern of those who live in the Mat-Su Valley is whether or not there will there be a provision for a spur line from Big Delta down to the Palmer Enstar NG Hub to provide NG for south central?

It is already a fact from the last round of this game under Murkowski that Alberta was all too willing to provide a ready market for Alaska’s NG liquids, such as propane and butane.

Will the Governor and the Legislature allow these valuable NG liquids to be transferred to Canada without proper consideration given to the long term benefits of value added processing in Alaska?

Stripping them out and using these gas liquids here would provide the building blocks for a petrochemical industrial base. A benefit with economic benefits far beyond just resource extraction that the pipeline represents.

Obviously, value added development of our NG resources would allow Alaskans greater opportunity beyond just the construction of a pipeline. Once the last pipe is welded into place, the pipeline jobs go away. Value added industrial development would be a lingering base upon which to ensure that the benefits from our NG resources go beyond fueling bloated, growing, and ever greedy state and local governments.

If the money goes directly to government, we all lose. If there is value added development, then we the people will benefit along with the Producers and government through jobs and infrastructure upon which to build industry.

The challenges for the Palin Administration, the Legislature and the Producers will be to balance the interests of all parties against the imperatives of the looming south central NG crisis, the economics of the proposed pipeline, and the constitutional requirement of the State to gain maximum benefit from the exploitation of this nonrenewable resource versus the interests of the Producers with respect to their profit motive.

Until there is a NG pipeline from the North Slope generating revenue, our responsibility as citizens will be to see that our elected officials do not spend revenue that is not there. And, to see that maximum benefit is exactly what is bargained for across the board.

Another blog dealing with this subject is to be found at http://www.blogged.com/about/denali-pipeline/