Parnell is having fun as Gov

(One has to wonder why Todd is laughing during Parnell's swearing in ceremony. Could it be that it is because Sarah is off the hook and into the money?)

Gov. Sean Parnell is having more fun as governor than the proverbial fly on fly paper.

First, Parnell’s Gas Pipeline Czar, Harry Noah—see, Obama’s not the only one with Czars, but then this was Sarah’s appointment, Parnell just went with what was there—decreed that the cheapest construction for a natural gas bullet line to south central was down the Parks Highway. What was not disclosed was the cost of the gas at the delivery end. 500 mcf per day stand alone will carry a hefty price tag by the time it gets to Anchorage. The portent in this is what? An admission that any construction on any big pipe project will not come soon enough, or not at all?

Parnell went to D.C. to lobby for off shore drilling. This effort failed in the face of Obama’s BLM Secretary, Salazar, deciding, nah, we don’t need no stinkin’ offshore drilling! Screw any rational energy policy! Let them ride bicycles! No fault of Parnell’s. At least he tried. Loss to Alaska, around $100,000,000 in services and labor to the effort by Shell and others. Shell had previously abandoned its offshore plans in the face of a hostile resource development federal administration.

Parnell is also lobbying Congress against a bill that would bar aerial predator control. A stupid, shortsighted bill on the part of politicians who do not understand Alaska and the needs of her people.

Try paying $11 for a quart of milk, sometime. That’s the Bush cost because Alaska cannot build roads to connect our communities. ANILCA. Gee thanks, Pres. Carter.

I wonder if the feds want Alaska back? I mean, thus far, they have taken away our management of all lands and offshore as granted in the Statehood Compact, imposed new land use restrictions under ANILCA and now the offshore drilling restrictions, and refusing to allow drilling onshore or offshore of ANWR.

Congress recognized that providing Alaska the infrastructure that the rest of the State’s enjoyed in 1958 would break any future federal treasury several times over. That’s why the Congress gave Alaska a 90% royalty off of all mineral and hydrocarbon development. Oh, wait, Congress reneged on that with the Petroleum Reserve 4 lease sale in the late 1990s. What Statehood Compact?

Parnell and coming Alaska Recession

Alaska has thus far avoided the immediacy of the impact of the recession arising from the outrageous mismanagement of our financial sector. The reason for this is that most of the money in this State from oil revenues goes to the State, and then is trickled down to the communities through welfare and public works projects. A process where the governor and the Legislature compete for dwindling funds to promote their respective reelections through oil revenue largess to their constituency.

In his endorsement of offshore drilling, Gov. Sean Parnell mentioned that he wanted the ‘billions’ in wages and services for Alaska’s economy that would be generated by private sector companies which would be supporting companies like Shell in pursuing offshore oil and gas deposits. This is a radical departure from the ‘it must all come to the State first’ approach of the post TAPS construction era: 1978-present.

The question during the Jay Hammond Administration was ‘how best to benefit Alaskans from the oil wealth from the royalties and taxes’ on the North Slope development. It was decided that to give Alaskans the most benefit, the mechanism of a Permanent Fund was created. This fund was to accomplish two goals. One was to distribute a benefit to Alaskans from the oil wealth through the mechanism of the earnings of the Permanent Fund through a dividend program paid out yearly based upon a percentage of the earnings of the Permanent Fund. The Permanent Fund itself was established to provide for a time when revenues from oil production fell to such a level that State and local government would need help in meeting services. The PF was a rainy day fund.

The revenues that did not go into the Permanent Fund were used to fuel a State government that quickly demonstrated that it was incapable of restraining itself when it came to overspending. This tendency was adopted by local governments.

Former Gov. Jay Hammond and the Legislature at the time never intended for the Permanent Fund Dividend checks to individual Alaskans to go on forever. It was intended that the program would be terminated when revenue from oil fell to such a level that ending the PFD program would be necessary. The alternative was to tax the PFD so that government gave and then recouped that benefit through taxes.

Since Hammond’s administration in the late 1970s, the largess from oil revenues fuel a growth of State and local government that is unparalleled elsewhere, given the low population of the State of Alaska—approximately 650,000.

With this program, revenues were no longer generated at the local level; everything came from the State to the communities. This new super welfare state mentality soon extended itself beyond oil and gas into the mining sector.

The Mining Law of 1872 provided for a requirement for $200 in development and exploration to be accomplished on the mining claims, state or federal, each year. Congress and the State amended the law in the mid-1980s to allow a payment per acre in lieu of the development work. The $200 was something spent directly to the benefit of many Alaska communities for services and labor. Now, a company or individual with mining claims pays $2 per acre per year for each mining claim directly to the State without having to do anything as far as developing or “proving’ the claims as being viable. This has led to big companies coming into Alaska and simply claiming all around a promising prospect and eventually, through water rights issues, and other mechanisms freezing out the small claimholder.

Payment directly to the State bypassed the community benefit and is slowly eliminating the little guy in Alaska’s mining industry.

The picture is now of a State government from which all monies from resource development flows downward to the localities from the State. Yearly state budgets are upwards of $8 billion with federal sharing funds.

What are the indicators of any recession in Alaska?

For the last 5 years, residential and commercial construction have slowed by as much as 30% per year for new construction starts.

Alaska’s entry into the recession has been relatively slow compared to other States, because of our oil revenues. Oil production is declining, however, and sooner or later even high oil prices will not produce the revenue that was once enjoyed by the State government from North Slope oil development.

Parnell’s speaking of direct benefits from wages and business reflects an awareness of the potential impact of oil and gas offshore exploration and development to Alaska’s economy and communities. Obviously, the communities closest to the development will benefit the most. It is these Alaska coastal communities that are in need of such development. One only has to look to Kotzebue and its relationship with the Red Dog mine to see potential benefit.

It is even possible that Alaska might see a rise in oil field support businesses to support increased oil and gas exploration offshore. This gives Alaska the opportunity to benefit in much the same manner as have the western Canadian provinces from the oil and gas development there. Alaska would be in the position to redevelop a bottom up economy, reducing the focus on the current top down, mother state.

What is it that can accelerate Alaska’s descent into an economic depression, the likes of which has not been seen since the post TAPS construction ended? Alaska’s tax structure on the oil industry.

With the completion of TAPS back in late 1977, people working on the project left. Property values plummeted. Unemployment in the Matanuska Valley where I grew up peaked at 26%.

Most of our Legislators are post that experience and lack the perspective that those of us where there and experienced this time possess. Hence, they act as if there is not derogative to Alaska’s economy with their oil and gas tax policies.

The harbinger of what’s to come is British Petroleum’s very recent announcement of serious cutbacks on the North Slope amounting to a major slow down of activity for this company. It has reported that the decrease in spending by BP is going to be $100,000,000 or greater this year. BP has given notice to its subcontractors that they will have to reduce their contract costs or risk losing their work.

Gov. Sean Parnell needs to change the paradigm of taxing the oil companies in Alaska, if there is to be any real “black gold rush” for Alaska’s offshore potential. To do that, he needs to give the Legislature a reality check that the good old days of 1.2 million barrels per day flowing down the Trans Alaska Pipeline to market are gone forever if something does not change and change quickly.

Parnell has the lesson to be learned from Albert, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia with respect to envigorating Alaska’s oil and gas development.

Parnell has a valuable tool in the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority. Hopefully, he will not let his predecessor’s rhetoric and open hostility towards the oil companies in Alaska guide his policy decision. Otherwise, Alaska’s economy will “tank” and make post TAPS look like a picnic by comparison.

Shell and Sean Parnell--oil and gas development offshore

Governor Sean Parnell announced today that his administration will seek to expand oil and gas exploration and development offshore on Alaska’s coastal continental shelf.

This announcement follows the August 28th 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that the 2007 oil and gas lease sale in the Beaufort Sea did not violate environmental laws.

In testimony given on August 20th to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Gov. Parnell outlined areas in which Alaska can play a major role in helping the U.S. obtain energy independence and security for Arctic resources. I’ve included the text of his testimony to the Senator.

“Introduction
Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for this opportunity to address the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on one of the greatest challenges facing the Nation and the State of Alaska – the changing Arctic and the national policies necessary for its understanding, its protection, and its responsible development.
Before I begin my remarks, Madam Chair, I would like to take a few moments to recognize and thank Admiral Thad Allen, Commandant of the United States Coast Guard, and all the members of the Coast Guard for their bravery and hard work in Alaska.
Just this week, the Coast Guard helped save the lives of nine people in Alaska. A Coast Guard helicopter found two missing adults and a child near Ketchikan. With help from Alaska State Troopers, family and friends, the Coast Guard rescued another six people when a 20-foot pleasure boat overturned at Tee Harbor near Juneau. Unfortunately, one person lost their life in that incident. My thoughts and prayers are with his family, and we deeply appreciate the men and women who keep America’s coastlines safe and secure.
As you know Senator Murkowski, Alaska is America’s Arctic – it’s our home, our history, our heritage, and our future. And Alaska is the only national link to the Arctic and the only state that shares a border with two other Arctic nations. Arctic policies affect every state and every citizen – Alaskans most of all, not just because of our strategic location on the globe, but because of what we have to offer. The Arctic’s abundant resources – human and natural – and our strategic location for national security demand our attention. The people of Alaska understand and eagerly accept our role in the examination and development of national Arctic policy.
We worked closely with the previous Administration on national and homeland security directives outlining broad policies on the Arctic. We hope to continue that collaboration with this Administration and Congress.
Today, I present Alaska’s view of U.S. Arctic policies in five areas: resources, national and homeland security, science, and foreign policy. In the Arctic, these policies are inextricably linked. And, while I describe these issues individually, it is vital that this committee and the Administration understand and act on them jointly. Domestic energy supplies support national and homeland security. Security enables development and protects the environment. Foreign policy enables international participation in scientific research. This must all be discussed in the context of climate change and how Alaska is adapting in light of Arctic policy.

Resources
Let me begin by focusing on Alaska’s resources – most of all, our human resources: Alaska’s people. Make no mistake, Alaskans have been adapting for years. Changes in the Arctic affect us directly, every day. No one is more vested in Arctic policy than the people who subsist from the land – hunting, fishing and gathering, not just for food, but for the survival of their culture. Collaboration with our Arctic residents and local governments is a must. Alaskans understand the need for balance.
Any conversation about the Arctic must also include Alaska’s natural resources – coal, gold, zinc, silver, copper, natural gas and oil. These resources make the Arctic vital to American energy security. Alaska is America’s Arctic energy breadbasket. We have traditional and renewable sources of energy in staggering volumes here. Alaska can play an even greater role in reducing the amount of oil and gas we import from abroad. And we can be America’s test-bed for renewable and alternative energy sources.
The onshore Arctic areas, such as the NPR-A and the coastal plain of ANWR, hold great promise.
Alaska is home to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, which carries 685,000 barrels of oil a day to the lower 48 states. This major supply of oil is key to our national energy security.
Offshore Alaska … the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas can be explored safely in the near-term, producing oil and gas for decades. Without these known, traditional sources of energy, we risk higher cost energy, higher taxes, and greater dependence on foreign oil. We can do this on our own soil. Let us not be led down the easy path to investing America’s foreign aid dollars in exploration abroad. Let’s keep it here – where Americans can get the jobs, and where environmental laws safeguard our land, seas, and wildlife.
Putting the brakes on domestic energy production does not prevent global warming or end threats to species. Instead, delaying responsible exploration and development increases the problem by shifting resource extraction to less environmentally preferred fuels and locations.
Turning to cleaner fuels, the State of Alaska is also pursuing the construction of a pipeline to bring the North Slope's abundant, clean natural gas to American markets. We have two competing private sector groups working diligently to permit a natural gas pipeline that can deliver 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to the continental United States. Again, if we can turn on the supply of clean, American natural gas – from Alaska – we will reduce our dependence on imports and bring less expensive energy to homes across America.
Unfortunately, current language in proposed climate change legislation would likely make the project uneconomic and would lead to the use of higher cost fuel sources before technology catches up.
Alaska remains fully committed to alternative and renewable energy, as well. This is the place to field test every alternative. From wind turbines to hydro-electric, to chip-fired systems that burn wood for fuel – Alaska is America’s alternative energy center.
I am confident that together we can bring traditional, renewable and alternative energy to market and increase Alaska’s contribution toward our nation’s energy independence for years to come.
Homeland Security Alaska is America’s Arctic Guardian. Our strategic location, resources and people compel strong funding for homeland security. The Department of Homeland Security and its agencies have been strong partners in providing for the safety and security of Alaskans and our economy.
Melting sea ice and increased military and commercial activity require a greater Coast Guard presence. The Coast Guard needs to move north and improve its capability — our heavy ice-class icebreakers are on their last legs. To provide homeland security the Coast Guard must have new Arctic-class icebreakers equipped for search and rescue missions, border protection, law enforcement, fisheries enforcement, infrastructure and environmental protection.

Support for funding for those icebreakers is up to this committee. We need to fund a new Coast Guard duty station or port on Alaska’s coast between Nome and Barrow to meet the new challenges of the Arctic.
The Coast Guard needs to keep the promise of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and establish a research program for the Arctic. With information in hand, we can continue to work with the Coast Guard to improve our ability to prevent and respond to oil spills in the region.
In addition, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have authority to act on disasters we can predict, not just those looming around the corner or the one we currently face. In western and northern Alaska, the sea ice no longer shields the coast from fall storms. The resulting erosion threatens the sustainability of some communities. The federal law was not written with such hazards in mind and does not provide the large-scale response these small communities need.
Exploration and development will bring more coastal and maritime infrastructure, such as ports, repair facilities, fuel depots, pipelines, and transportation. These assets will need effective, enforceable security buffer zones to ensure continuity under all hazards.
National Security As the summer ice retreats, opportunities for commerce, tourism and transportation advance. Already we see more mineral, oil and gas exploration – more vessel traffic and science missions. As we have seen throughout the world’s oceans, increased maritime traffic elevates both risks and threats. Currently, the North Slope Borough and oil and gas producers on the slope fill much of that void. We need the federal government to step in. We can no longer assume that the threat from the north to our oil production fields is not real. We can no longer assume that the Arctic is an impenetrable barrier.
The United States must increase national focus on the Arctic, add resources to collect scientific data, and increase Coast Guard presence to address these new challenges and opportunities. This will provide the ability to develop the American Arctic’s vast natural resources and is critical for the protection of strategic national infrastructure and assets.
Alaska’s strategic position as the northern crossroads also places us squarely in line between potential adversaries and the rest of the United States. I urge the Congress to support the ground-based missile defense system in Alaska and reconsider the proposal to scale back the placement of interceptors at Fort Greely. We play a critical role in national security and in the security of American allies.
Science Despite centuries of exploration and study, much about the Arctic remains a mystery. Standard weather and climate models are not sufficient for understanding and predicting trends and patterns. New models require fresh data and up-to-date research.
The State of Alaska strongly supports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and its initiatives to improve its observations and research across the Arctic and to develop innovative forecasting models for next week’s weather and next century’s climate.
I encourage scientific collaboration among the academic world, the Arctic nations, and non-governmental organizations to improve our understanding of fisheries, marine mammals, land animals and vegetation in the Arctic ecosystem. This research must be open and rigorous.
The State continues its support of the use of unmanned aerial systems for Arctic operations and research. The Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation and NOAA are working on a plan for how best to make that happen. The technology exists; the stakeholders are ready; but the current regulations are inflexible and outdated.
And the Arctic, literally, needs to be put on the map. Scientific research and economic exploration are set back by low-quality, decades-old mapping data. There is no accurate baseline to measure change, to

identify trends and patterns, or to predict potential outcomes. We need high-quality maps of the Arctic – both land and sea. Funding for such priorities should not be based on population density, but instead on current and future strategic economic and environmental values.
Foreign Policy For much of its history, the Arctic has been both ungoverned and ungovernable. Even as the eight Arctic nations have increased economic activity, the Arctic climate has impeded economic and social development, transportation, and research. That era must end.
I strongly urge the Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Once ratified, the treaty will allow us to claim jurisdiction over the offshore continental shelf behind the 200-mile limit. U.S. boundaries could grow into areas that may hold large deposits of oil, natural gas and other resources. Russia, Canada, Denmark, and Norway have claims to Arctic territory under the auspices of the Law of the Sea. Without ratification, the U.S. cannot fully participate in adjudication of these claims.
Climate change Alaskans have extremely close ties to the land and the sea and are sensitive to their subtleties and variability. The changes in the Arctic ice – their timing, extent, and nature – give us cause for concern.
To define and address these concerns, Governor Palin formed the Climate Change Subcabinet to respond to immediate needs in rural villages, plan for the long term and determine research needs. The subcabinet has turned recommendation into action. We’re now working on coastline stabilization, emergency and evacuation planning, hazard mitigation planning, training and exercises for the communities most in need.
The climate change strategy is in the final stages and will be presented to me this fall. We’ve had noteworthy partnerships with several federal agencies in this process, and we look forward to continued work with the federal government as we address climate change.
Conclusion In conclusion, I applaud you, Senator Murkowski, on bringing to Alaska this hearing on the strategic importance of the Arctic in U.S. policy. These policies, whether long-standing or emerging, will have a profound effect on the nation and on Alaska for generations. We must take a balanced approach to protect our food sources, thousands of jobs and the energy security provided by Alaska’s oil and mineral development.
Alaska and the U.S. government share a policy that is balanced and recognizes the diversity the Arctic offers. And it highlights the Arctic’s unique characteristics and consequent need for unique treatment.
I urge the Congress and the federal Administration to continue the good work on Arctic policies and encourage the development of a National Arctic Doctrine that includes all stakeholders in the future of the Arctic. Alaska will participate and Alaska will contribute. We are eager to work with Congress to manage all our resources.
On taking office last month, I asked Alaskans and myself several questions: In the next 50 years, will Alaska move forward, or will time pass us by? Will each of us be a vital player, or will we stay on the bench? Will we just survive, or will we choose to thrive?
Today Alaskans join me in stating that our state – and our nation – must not be idle and passive; that we must not drift; that we must choose our destiny and work hard to achieve it.
The Arctic is our future. We choose to move forward, and we choose to thrive.
Thank you for your leadership and your service to our great State and to our Nation. “

Commentary:
This is a good policy statement reflecting Alaska’s role in the energy future of the U.S. and emphasizing the importance of Alaska in the looming rush to the Arctic for resources by those nations bordering the Arctic. The request for a Coast Guard presence in Western Alaska is long overdue.

The Russians have been very aggressive over the last several years in establishing a military and geographical basis for their claims to resources under the Arctic Sea. It is imperative that the U.S. establish its claims and moves to develop off shore oil and gas opportunities before others do so.

Unfortunately, Parnell’s words will fall on deaf ears in Washington, as we have a President set on the path to appeasement and apology, and a Congress sold to the environmental lobby. I doubt there is anyone with a strategic vision in the Obama cabinet. Plenty of idealogues, but few with vision with respect to protecting the strategic interests of the U.S. in the Arctic.

I have written on Governor Palin’s Climate Change Strategy Sub-Cabinet before, and the fact that Parnell continues to give lip service to this waste of money, not to mention federal incursion into the State’s domain, is not good. However, in his favor, Parnell is in a situation of slowly divorcing himself from Sarah’s lack of governance. If he makes a break too soon, he admits to any potential competition for the governor’s job that the Palin Administration was a failed administration, and that he supported failure. As it is, there are now 4 candidates who have announced for governor. Unfortunately, Parnell will have to defend the previous administration before he can put his stamp on policies he can call his own. This testimony is a good start for his administration.

In announcing his administration’s support for offshore drilling, he will now endure the storm of the environmental lobby’s wrath, both in Juneau and in Washington. It will not be long before the ads start on TV and the radio decrying the damage to the environment.

BP just completed a 7 MILE (35,000 ft) well offshore for Mexico. The estimated reserves are greater than 3 billion barrels. If BP can drill successfully at that that depth, safely, and without harm to the environment, then drilling in Alaska’s relatively shallow coastal waters should be a piece of cake.

I spent 5 months in Canada working on an oil field services related R&D project. I have seen the impact of energy development on the communities in Alberta to B.C. Alaska is pathetic when it comes to energy development policy. Gov. Parnell’s move to support offshore drilling is progress in reversing the adversarial position of most of Alaska’s administrations to oil and gas development, including that of former Governor Sarah Palin.