Dan Fagan, commentator and pundit with an afternoon radio show went into a screaming hissy fit today that was one for the record books. Dan is a showman, first of all, and an alleged conservative—or so he says. He called Bill Walker’s supporters commies and socialists. Those are exactly the terms that he used.
Why did this otherwise, articulate, experienced, and knowledgeable reporter go off the deep end?
Apparently, Dan Fagan reacted to the yes or no requirement put to the candidates by the moderator at the Resource Development Council forum held today. The candidates could only answer yes or no.
Fagan billed his revelation as proof positive that Walker was a socialist and union schill who could not possibly be a conservative.
Apparently, unbeknownst to Fagan at the time of his hissy fit, Bill Walker followed up on the answer in an interview by ADN report Sean Cockerham post the debate at the Resource Development Council Governor’s Forum today. What Fagan did not have to pass on was the “rest of the story”.
This is what Walker was quoted as saying in the ADN:
“Q—How did you vote on the 2006 gas reserve initiative? Yes, no or prefer not to say. (The question was about a proposal to tax North Slope natural gas reserves until a pipeline was built to bring them to market. It could have imposed up to $1 billion annual tax on the gas under land leased primarily by Exxon Mobil, BP and Conoco Phillips, most in the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson fields.)
Walker – Yes (Walker said in an interview after the forum that “we wanted to get the gas moving, the only thing we were missing for a gasline at that point was gas. At that point in time that looked like it was the way to go. I don’t believe that is the way to go at this point, the way at this point is to create the infrastructure. The producers have said…we will ship if there is a reasonable expectation of profit.”
Fagan is an accomplished reporter. He should have asked Bill Walker directly before labeling—slandering—Walker and his supports as commies and socialists in fit of outrage over a an absolute answer that was designed to reflect an absolutist position that did not apply to Walker. It should be stated that Walker has never served in the Legislature.
The Dan Fagan Show, on KFQD in the afternoon heavily promotes Ralph Samuels for governor.
Ralph Samuels is recognized as being in Third Place, folks, that’s why Fagan jumped without first “looking”. Fagan’s boy is losing, even with Rick Rydell on Keni 650 AM and Dan Fagan and Dave Stierens on KFQD 750 AM all pushing Ralph Samuels like he is our Savior and the only conservative running.
Fortunately, people are not stupid.
Former Rep. Ralph Samuels received over $10,000 from Bill Allen of VECO fame. This same former representative voted for the biggest capital budgets in the State’s history prior to Parnell’s whale of a budget. Those budgets included an increase in the size of state government by 800 employees. Yet, these “good conservatives” all tout Samuels as a fiscal conservative.
Yeah, well, if Samuels was a fiscal conservative, then I guess that would make Sarah Palin a fiscal conservative.
Samuels has also touted his leadership abilities. As House Majority Leader, his was the only vote against AGIA, Palin’s gas pipeline initiative. The only vote. In a House and Senate that did not really support or like Sarah Palin. Why was Ralph’s vote the only vote? When the going gets tough, and the objective is not what the troops want to achieve, a good leader picks up the pack and rifle and says, we gotta do it . . . let’s go. And, the troops either respect the leader enough to obey, or they don’t. Samuels stood alone. That shows me that he is not the hero that these guys continually represent him as, if he could not garner one additional vote in support of his position.
Samuels supports the bullet line, widely held by industry and the State to be too expensive to be competitive to imported LNG for Cook Inlet. That the bullet line would double the cost of natural gas in south central. How is that an economic plan?
Samuels also supports Conoco/BP’s Denali project. A gasline that does not have a market, and will take everything, the jobs, the money, the majority of the infrastructure to Canada. How is that putting Alaska first? How is that acting in concert with Article 8 Sec. 2 of Alaska’s Constitution? In this regard, Samuels shares common ground with Parnell.
Parnell supports AGIA, another take it all to Canada plan, and also supports the bullet line. Of course Parnell also considers himself above the law, given his problems with his appointment of legislators to the Governror’s office. These appointments were made in violation of Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. How can we have a Governor who holds himself above the law?
Therefore, why does Fagan and the others try to paint the only gubernatorial candidate as other than what he really is? The only conservative running for the office of the governor of Alaska who will put Alaska and Alaskans first? And, who has a viable pipeline plan that 138,000 Alaskans mandated by vote in 2002?
If this man is a commie and an socialist to Dan Fagan, then Walker has good company in that regard. Given Ralph’s record, Rydell, Stierens and Fagan will have reconsider their labeling Sarah Palin as a RINO.
This race is too crucial for such silliness.
When TAPS falls to 300,000 bpd of oil, the system will be shut down. The problem of the oil companies going elsewhere is not ACES, but a combination of taxes, regulations and litigation . . . and, a world wide recession that reduced the demand for oil.
As a result of the regulatory environment, of which taxes are a part, and the litigatory environmental greenie assault on the oil industry through the courts, the oil companies went wherever they could work with as little environmental and regulatory hassle as possible. They went for as little as $1 per barrel of profit.
Yet, according to the pundits, it was all because of ACES.
Male bovine offal.
Alaskans must be informed. Please take the time to attend forums and read the websites of the various candidates. Listen to the pundits, but take what they say with a grain of salt. Fagan did his credibility a great deal of harm today by calling good people something that they are not: commies and socialists.
Fagan owes Bill Walker and his supports an apology and his listeners an apology for his acting without the “rest of the story”.
For more information:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/152634?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted#Comments_Container
Showing posts with label Denali. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Denali. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
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:
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?
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?
Monday, July 5, 2010
Leadership and Ralph Samuels
There has been much made about the lack of leadership shown by the current governor. Governor Sean Parnell has been described as lackluster, mediocre, behind the scenes and hard working, and a nice guy. Ralph Samuels has chosen “Leadership Now!” as his campaign slogan to emphasize his perception of the lack of leadership shown by Parnell. This is an interesting ploy on the part of Samuels, but akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Samuels has his own baggage as regards demonstrated leadership ability.
Samuels’ claim to fame, as touted by his avid radio entertainment advocates, was his solitary vote against former Gov. Sarah Palin’s Alaska Gas Inducement Act, or AGIA. Ralph Samuels was the only legislator to vote against AGIA.
On the surface, this is a bold statement as to his principles. However, it is an indictment against any claims of leadership ability. You see, Ralph Samuels was the House Majority Leader at the time.
Leadership is the ability to induce others to do what the leader wants them to do, whether or not they want to do the task at hand. In the case of Samuels as Marjority Leader, his job was to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, to influence his fellow Republicans in the majority caucus to act united in supporting or defeating whatever legislation was at hand. Where AGIA was concerned, Ralph failed miserably to exercise his leadership position.
Sarah Palin was hardly the pinnacle of cooperation and encouragement for the Legislature. Former Gov. Sarah Palin was a magnet for criticism. AGIA was not quietly passed, but argued vehemently at times. Where were those who argued against AGIA during the legislation’s travails through the legislative process? Why did they fail to stand with Ralph?
Samuels’ standing alone was not a case of a subordinate stubbornly refusing to follow the superior’s orders in good conscience. There was little or no risk in his opposition. Sarah Palin could hardly fire him. This was a case of a ranking member of the Legislative Branch standing against the Governor’s pet project. A governor who was not exactly engaged in any process at any time. A governor too busy with soap opera theatrics to demonstrate any leadership whatsoever during her tenure as governor. Therefore, Samuels’ singular opposition was hardly a case of political courage.
Nor, was Samuels act that of the commander of the Forlorn Hope given the impossible task for which survival of any so ordered unlikely. There was no personal danger involved. No threat to livelihood. No risk whatsoever. How was his sole vote an act of . . . leadership?
I will concede the issue of principle. To Samuels’ credit, he did stand his ground. To what end? If he was so in opposition, why was he standing alone? Why could he allegedly see what others were blind to?
House Majority Leader Ralph Samuels failed to influence his caucus to rally against Gov. Sarah Palin’s AGIA. Not one of his majority caucus minions followed his lead. Not one.
Yet, to hear Dan Fagan and Rick Rydell on their respective talk shows, Ralph’s vote against AGIA is the equivalent of Patrick Henry’s hanging, or Washington crossing the Delaware. Only one politician in Alaska’s political history deserves any real accolades, and that is former Governor Walter J. Hickel who challenged the federal government’s usurpation of sovereignty. He managed to get AS 38.05.500-505 passed. Yet, Samuels could not get one other to vote against AGIA.
To be cynical, was Samuels’ act an act of calculated political strategy? Did Samuels see in a distracted Gov. Sarah Palin the opportunity to challenge what was increasingly perceived as a weak and ineffectual governor?
It is interesting that her Lt. Governor has managed to accrue the same lack of respect. And, Samuels’ challenge.
Ralph Samuels campaign slogan of “Leadership Now” is either a demand by him for someone to step up, or a claim that he is the missing link for leadership. In either case, he is not the panacea that others claim. He is a failed leader.
Ralph Samuels held a powerful legislative position with a clear majority. Yet, he was not able to impede or to hinder the passage of AGIA.
In this time in Alaska’s history, given the decades to get major projects underway, the steady decline in oil production that constitutes 90% of the State’s revenues, and the fiscal catastrophe that will befall this State once TAPS declines to 300,000 bpd to market and is shut down, can we afford a governor who is a failed leader?
Samuels’ claim to fame, as touted by his avid radio entertainment advocates, was his solitary vote against former Gov. Sarah Palin’s Alaska Gas Inducement Act, or AGIA. Ralph Samuels was the only legislator to vote against AGIA.
On the surface, this is a bold statement as to his principles. However, it is an indictment against any claims of leadership ability. You see, Ralph Samuels was the House Majority Leader at the time.
Leadership is the ability to induce others to do what the leader wants them to do, whether or not they want to do the task at hand. In the case of Samuels as Marjority Leader, his job was to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, to influence his fellow Republicans in the majority caucus to act united in supporting or defeating whatever legislation was at hand. Where AGIA was concerned, Ralph failed miserably to exercise his leadership position.
Sarah Palin was hardly the pinnacle of cooperation and encouragement for the Legislature. Former Gov. Sarah Palin was a magnet for criticism. AGIA was not quietly passed, but argued vehemently at times. Where were those who argued against AGIA during the legislation’s travails through the legislative process? Why did they fail to stand with Ralph?
Samuels’ standing alone was not a case of a subordinate stubbornly refusing to follow the superior’s orders in good conscience. There was little or no risk in his opposition. Sarah Palin could hardly fire him. This was a case of a ranking member of the Legislative Branch standing against the Governor’s pet project. A governor who was not exactly engaged in any process at any time. A governor too busy with soap opera theatrics to demonstrate any leadership whatsoever during her tenure as governor. Therefore, Samuels’ singular opposition was hardly a case of political courage.
Nor, was Samuels act that of the commander of the Forlorn Hope given the impossible task for which survival of any so ordered unlikely. There was no personal danger involved. No threat to livelihood. No risk whatsoever. How was his sole vote an act of . . . leadership?
I will concede the issue of principle. To Samuels’ credit, he did stand his ground. To what end? If he was so in opposition, why was he standing alone? Why could he allegedly see what others were blind to?
House Majority Leader Ralph Samuels failed to influence his caucus to rally against Gov. Sarah Palin’s AGIA. Not one of his majority caucus minions followed his lead. Not one.
Yet, to hear Dan Fagan and Rick Rydell on their respective talk shows, Ralph’s vote against AGIA is the equivalent of Patrick Henry’s hanging, or Washington crossing the Delaware. Only one politician in Alaska’s political history deserves any real accolades, and that is former Governor Walter J. Hickel who challenged the federal government’s usurpation of sovereignty. He managed to get AS 38.05.500-505 passed. Yet, Samuels could not get one other to vote against AGIA.
To be cynical, was Samuels’ act an act of calculated political strategy? Did Samuels see in a distracted Gov. Sarah Palin the opportunity to challenge what was increasingly perceived as a weak and ineffectual governor?
It is interesting that her Lt. Governor has managed to accrue the same lack of respect. And, Samuels’ challenge.
Ralph Samuels campaign slogan of “Leadership Now” is either a demand by him for someone to step up, or a claim that he is the missing link for leadership. In either case, he is not the panacea that others claim. He is a failed leader.
Ralph Samuels held a powerful legislative position with a clear majority. Yet, he was not able to impede or to hinder the passage of AGIA.
In this time in Alaska’s history, given the decades to get major projects underway, the steady decline in oil production that constitutes 90% of the State’s revenues, and the fiscal catastrophe that will befall this State once TAPS declines to 300,000 bpd to market and is shut down, can we afford a governor who is a failed leader?
Sunday, June 6, 2010
FERC Misinformation
A recent decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has provided the grist for the political mill of those opposing the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline and Bill Walker’s candidacy for governor. However, this is a case of the disinformationistas being aided by the silence of the lamb (Parnell), rather than it being the death knell to anyone’s campaign.
FERC recently declined to renew an application by Yukon Pacific Corporation for an LNG export train at Anderson Bay. This decision has been declared a death knell to Walker’s campaign by Walker’s detractors. Walker’s pipeline advocacy is in support of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. The decision has been heralded as barring any export of Alaska gas, thereby ending both Walker’s candidacy and the Valdez pipeline option. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The silence being on the part of the Parnell Administration in keeping quiet an inquiry of Jan. 28, 2010 from Pipeline Coodinator Bob Swenson made to FERC as reported in the Oil and Gas Journal in an editorial dated March 22, 2010.
Cheniere, Inc. is converting its Sabine Pass, TX LNG import facility to receive foreign LNG and to loop it back for export to Asian markets. Cheniere cites a 42% drop in LNG imports between 2007 and 2008 into the U.S. because of increased domestic supplies. This market trend results from increased supplies of natural gas in the domestic U.S. market from shale gas and other unconventional sources.
Cheniere has also applied for permits to export U.S. domestic produced natural gas to global markets. This would be only the second facility in the U.S. built to export domestically produced LNG to foreign markets. The first such facility was built at Nikkiski, Alaska and has been exporting LNG to Japan since 1969.
In his Jan. 28, 2010 inquiry to FERC, Gov. Sean Parnell’s pipeline coordinator Bob Swenson described 3 scenarios and requested to know if FERC would have regulatory oversight.
Scenario 1 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state only. FERC’s response was that FERC would have no regulatory oversight authority for such use.
Scenario 2 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state with some of the gas being exported to domestic U.S. markets. FERC”s response was that FERC would regulatory authority over domestic export to the U.S. market.
Scenario 3 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state with some of the gas being exported to foreign markets. FERC’s response was that FERC would not have regulatory authority over North Slope gas exported to a foreign market.
FERC does not have regulatory oversight over North Slope natural gas exported to foreign markets. Therefore, the issue of FERC’s denial of Yukon Pacific’s permit to export North Slope gas from Valdez to the U.S. domestic market has no bearing whatsoever on Walker’s Valdez pipeline project.
Parnell knows that Walker’s Valdez pipeline plan is viable and economically sound. Cheniere, Inc.’s filing for an export permit to export domestically produced LNG to global markets further supports Walker’s contention that Alaska should export its natural gas to a global market rather than to an oversupplied U.S. market.
Rival Ralph Samuels has also lauded the FERC decision regarding the YPC permit as supporting his position that Walker’s plan is not viable. Obviously, in light of the response by FERC to the Parnell Administration’s inquiry, Samuels is wrong in his position. Samuels knows full well that FERC has domestic market oversight, not foreign, and that Walker’s plan is to export natural gas to Asia.
On the one hand, Parnell acts to withhold information, on the other, Samuels acts, as have others, to promote half truths.
The positions of the various candidates on the issues regarding the pipelines and the looming economic disaster facing the State would be illuminated at public forums where they would debate on the issues. Unfortunately, Gov. Sean Parnell has decided that he does not want to participate in any more debates until just before the Primary Election in August. He was put on the spot by Walker at the Kodiak Crab Festival on May 29th.
Walker asked Parnell about the $20,000,000,000 give-a-way that his refusal to sign SB 305 separating natural gas taxes from oil taxes will cost the State. This give-a-way amounts to a State subsidy for the Canadian route construction of AGIA or Denali. Both benefit from Parnell’s action. Apparently, Parnell chose to waffle and make polite noises rather than answer a direct question.
It appears that Walker’s growing support is making Parnell and Samuels a bit nervous in the service as it were.
FERC recently declined to renew an application by Yukon Pacific Corporation for an LNG export train at Anderson Bay. This decision has been declared a death knell to Walker’s campaign by Walker’s detractors. Walker’s pipeline advocacy is in support of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. The decision has been heralded as barring any export of Alaska gas, thereby ending both Walker’s candidacy and the Valdez pipeline option. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The silence being on the part of the Parnell Administration in keeping quiet an inquiry of Jan. 28, 2010 from Pipeline Coodinator Bob Swenson made to FERC as reported in the Oil and Gas Journal in an editorial dated March 22, 2010.
Cheniere, Inc. is converting its Sabine Pass, TX LNG import facility to receive foreign LNG and to loop it back for export to Asian markets. Cheniere cites a 42% drop in LNG imports between 2007 and 2008 into the U.S. because of increased domestic supplies. This market trend results from increased supplies of natural gas in the domestic U.S. market from shale gas and other unconventional sources.
Cheniere has also applied for permits to export U.S. domestic produced natural gas to global markets. This would be only the second facility in the U.S. built to export domestically produced LNG to foreign markets. The first such facility was built at Nikkiski, Alaska and has been exporting LNG to Japan since 1969.
In his Jan. 28, 2010 inquiry to FERC, Gov. Sean Parnell’s pipeline coordinator Bob Swenson described 3 scenarios and requested to know if FERC would have regulatory oversight.
Scenario 1 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state only. FERC’s response was that FERC would have no regulatory oversight authority for such use.
Scenario 2 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state with some of the gas being exported to domestic U.S. markets. FERC”s response was that FERC would regulatory authority over domestic export to the U.S. market.
Scenario 3 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state with some of the gas being exported to foreign markets. FERC’s response was that FERC would not have regulatory authority over North Slope gas exported to a foreign market.
FERC does not have regulatory oversight over North Slope natural gas exported to foreign markets. Therefore, the issue of FERC’s denial of Yukon Pacific’s permit to export North Slope gas from Valdez to the U.S. domestic market has no bearing whatsoever on Walker’s Valdez pipeline project.
Parnell knows that Walker’s Valdez pipeline plan is viable and economically sound. Cheniere, Inc.’s filing for an export permit to export domestically produced LNG to global markets further supports Walker’s contention that Alaska should export its natural gas to a global market rather than to an oversupplied U.S. market.
Rival Ralph Samuels has also lauded the FERC decision regarding the YPC permit as supporting his position that Walker’s plan is not viable. Obviously, in light of the response by FERC to the Parnell Administration’s inquiry, Samuels is wrong in his position. Samuels knows full well that FERC has domestic market oversight, not foreign, and that Walker’s plan is to export natural gas to Asia.
On the one hand, Parnell acts to withhold information, on the other, Samuels acts, as have others, to promote half truths.
The positions of the various candidates on the issues regarding the pipelines and the looming economic disaster facing the State would be illuminated at public forums where they would debate on the issues. Unfortunately, Gov. Sean Parnell has decided that he does not want to participate in any more debates until just before the Primary Election in August. He was put on the spot by Walker at the Kodiak Crab Festival on May 29th.
Walker asked Parnell about the $20,000,000,000 give-a-way that his refusal to sign SB 305 separating natural gas taxes from oil taxes will cost the State. This give-a-way amounts to a State subsidy for the Canadian route construction of AGIA or Denali. Both benefit from Parnell’s action. Apparently, Parnell chose to waffle and make polite noises rather than answer a direct question.
It appears that Walker’s growing support is making Parnell and Samuels a bit nervous in the service as it were.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Ralph Samuels steps in "it" . . .
In an interview with the Frontiersman, gubernatorial candidate Ralph Samuels pretty much damaged his hopes for a successful run against incumbent Sean Parnell or fellow Republican Bill Walker.
In what has to be one of the weirdest statements of any candidate to date on resource development issues Samuels opined:
“A larger diameter in-state gas line running from the North Slope to Valdez presents problems and not enough room for future growth to make it worth the $20 billion investment. First, there is no LNG plant in Valdez, and the plant in Nikiski already has the permit to export the commodity.
Second, and more disturbingly the known reserves in Prudhoe Bay are large enough to supply the pipeline to Valdez with gas for 70 years. This means future gas development is no longer necessary to make the line to Valdez pay off. Why would you go explore for more? You don’t want the (Valdez pipeline) because that’s all you get.” –Ralph Samuels 3/30/2010
I characterize this statement as weird, as this is the first time that any candidate has stated that too much gas is a problem. This is also the first time that any candidate has stated that having enough gas for a 70 year supply of gas to tidewater at 3 billion cubic feet per day is a bad thing.
Samuels’ statement means that his estimate of 70 years of jobs, industry from keeping our gas liquids in-state, and keeping the money and infrastructure in Alaska while exporting a reasonable volume of gas from the North Slope would be bad for an economy that is cooling with the continuing reduction in oil flowing through the Trans Alaska Pipeline.
How is this “long term thinking” on his part, much less demonstrating any business acumen?
It is obvious that Samuels ultimately favors sending most of the North Slope gas to Canada. He states:
“The gas supply on the North Slope is big enough to keep a bullet line operating without harming the prospects of a larger, out-of-state gas line.”
Looking at his list of contributors to his campaign is a list of whose who at Conoco-Phillips and Enstar.
Samuels is another of the give it all to the Canucks and to heck with Alaska and Alaskans. He intends to give Alaska’s resources away without demanding anything in return.
It is common knowledge that Conoco-Phillips/BP’s Denali project intends to supply gas to free Alberta tar sands oil at the cheapest cost possible, with Alaska’s gas liquids—propane, ethane, hexane, butane—going to Alberta’s petrochemical industry. Alaska would get the lowest price for its gas were Denali to happen.
The Valdez line option championed by Republican Bill Walker and mandated by Alaska’s voters in 2002 has all permits in place and the Environmental Impact Statements up to date for the LNG train and the impact of LNG tanker traffic in and out of Valdez and Prince William Sound. This is the only pipeline option for export of our gas to market that keeps the jobs for Alaskans, the infrastructure in Alaska, and our gas liquids for use in-state to build a petrochemical industry. AGIA and Denali, the other two export options benefit Canada, not Alaska.
Samuels’ record is as a 6 year legislator with 2 years as House Majority Leader. Samuel’s was a legislator who voted for the greatest increase in state budgets and a significant increase in the growth of State government. He lacks the credentials to qualify him as a fiscal conservative.
The problem with the bullet line from the North Slope to Port McKenzie in the Mat-Su Valley, is that 1. the route is not finalized, 2. any route being considered crosses 2 wildlife refuges, a federal national park, a state park, and 12 fish streams.
It took 8 ½ years for the Valdez line Environmental Impact Statement to be approved by the federal government. I guess Samuels figures he will just declare such done and that is all there is to the process?
The bullet line sounds like a great idea. Except, the cost of transporting the gas is figured on a volume basis. Further, the impact upon future development and exploration in Cook Inlet by 500mcf/da was unstated by candidate Samuels. In fact, he missed the boat regarding the ability to resolve the real problem with Cook Inlet gas supply.
The problem is the 10 years it takes to get a permit approved to do anything, and then the impact of further delays from specious litigation on the part of the environmental, no growth groups. The Alaska Regulatory Commission is a major impediment with respect to the time it takes to get any permits for exploration, development and improvements where Cook Inlet oil and gas are concerned.
Samuels is a walking statement for why it is necessary to reject the incumbents and prior and serving legislators this coming election. They are the problem, not any answer.
Alaska is in a very serious predicament financially and economically. Without a viable economy, which Alaska’s runs on oil and gas, there is no hope for our sons and daughters staying here. There will not be any jobs here for them, given Samuel’s lack of foresight and logic.
Look at Samuels’ website at http://www.samuelsforgovernor.com/ . Please, if you can find one statement about any position, let me know! This guy evidently stands for . . . leadership? That’s all he says. He says nothing on the website about his positions for anything. And, he wants to be governor of Alaska?
Please be informed this election.
For more information:
http://frontiersman.com/articles/2010/03/31/local_news/doc4bb161049c270431896290.txt
In what has to be one of the weirdest statements of any candidate to date on resource development issues Samuels opined:
“A larger diameter in-state gas line running from the North Slope to Valdez presents problems and not enough room for future growth to make it worth the $20 billion investment. First, there is no LNG plant in Valdez, and the plant in Nikiski already has the permit to export the commodity.
Second, and more disturbingly the known reserves in Prudhoe Bay are large enough to supply the pipeline to Valdez with gas for 70 years. This means future gas development is no longer necessary to make the line to Valdez pay off. Why would you go explore for more? You don’t want the (Valdez pipeline) because that’s all you get.” –Ralph Samuels 3/30/2010
I characterize this statement as weird, as this is the first time that any candidate has stated that too much gas is a problem. This is also the first time that any candidate has stated that having enough gas for a 70 year supply of gas to tidewater at 3 billion cubic feet per day is a bad thing.
Samuels’ statement means that his estimate of 70 years of jobs, industry from keeping our gas liquids in-state, and keeping the money and infrastructure in Alaska while exporting a reasonable volume of gas from the North Slope would be bad for an economy that is cooling with the continuing reduction in oil flowing through the Trans Alaska Pipeline.
How is this “long term thinking” on his part, much less demonstrating any business acumen?
It is obvious that Samuels ultimately favors sending most of the North Slope gas to Canada. He states:
“The gas supply on the North Slope is big enough to keep a bullet line operating without harming the prospects of a larger, out-of-state gas line.”
Looking at his list of contributors to his campaign is a list of whose who at Conoco-Phillips and Enstar.
Samuels is another of the give it all to the Canucks and to heck with Alaska and Alaskans. He intends to give Alaska’s resources away without demanding anything in return.
It is common knowledge that Conoco-Phillips/BP’s Denali project intends to supply gas to free Alberta tar sands oil at the cheapest cost possible, with Alaska’s gas liquids—propane, ethane, hexane, butane—going to Alberta’s petrochemical industry. Alaska would get the lowest price for its gas were Denali to happen.
The Valdez line option championed by Republican Bill Walker and mandated by Alaska’s voters in 2002 has all permits in place and the Environmental Impact Statements up to date for the LNG train and the impact of LNG tanker traffic in and out of Valdez and Prince William Sound. This is the only pipeline option for export of our gas to market that keeps the jobs for Alaskans, the infrastructure in Alaska, and our gas liquids for use in-state to build a petrochemical industry. AGIA and Denali, the other two export options benefit Canada, not Alaska.
Samuels’ record is as a 6 year legislator with 2 years as House Majority Leader. Samuel’s was a legislator who voted for the greatest increase in state budgets and a significant increase in the growth of State government. He lacks the credentials to qualify him as a fiscal conservative.
The problem with the bullet line from the North Slope to Port McKenzie in the Mat-Su Valley, is that 1. the route is not finalized, 2. any route being considered crosses 2 wildlife refuges, a federal national park, a state park, and 12 fish streams.
It took 8 ½ years for the Valdez line Environmental Impact Statement to be approved by the federal government. I guess Samuels figures he will just declare such done and that is all there is to the process?
The bullet line sounds like a great idea. Except, the cost of transporting the gas is figured on a volume basis. Further, the impact upon future development and exploration in Cook Inlet by 500mcf/da was unstated by candidate Samuels. In fact, he missed the boat regarding the ability to resolve the real problem with Cook Inlet gas supply.
The problem is the 10 years it takes to get a permit approved to do anything, and then the impact of further delays from specious litigation on the part of the environmental, no growth groups. The Alaska Regulatory Commission is a major impediment with respect to the time it takes to get any permits for exploration, development and improvements where Cook Inlet oil and gas are concerned.
Samuels is a walking statement for why it is necessary to reject the incumbents and prior and serving legislators this coming election. They are the problem, not any answer.
Alaska is in a very serious predicament financially and economically. Without a viable economy, which Alaska’s runs on oil and gas, there is no hope for our sons and daughters staying here. There will not be any jobs here for them, given Samuel’s lack of foresight and logic.
Look at Samuels’ website at http://www.samuelsforgovernor.com/ . Please, if you can find one statement about any position, let me know! This guy evidently stands for . . . leadership? That’s all he says. He says nothing on the website about his positions for anything. And, he wants to be governor of Alaska?
Please be informed this election.
For more information:
http://frontiersman.com/articles/2010/03/31/local_news/doc4bb161049c270431896290.txt
Friday, January 29, 2010
Is ACES the problem?
I think something is being overlooked in this discussion. It is easy to blame taxes. And, one has to give a minor kudos to Parnell who alluded to a potential decrease in the State's royalty taxes. However, there is more here than just taxes.
One of the primary issues is the state of the national economy. There has to be a market to sustain the exploration and development. That the market is in decline due to Obama/Pelosi/Reid's disasterous attempt to rewrite the national economy paradigm. Yeah, GWB had his part in the making of this mess.
That situation definitely has an impact on what happens where with any industry, much less oil and gas.An indicator of the impact of the national economy is Shell's pulling back from oil tar sands recovery expansion from a planned 700,000bpd to 225,000bpd, including putting on hold a potential technology pilot project for insitu recovery. Cost of production is up--and it is here also, a 68% increase in operations costs on the NS from 2001. Therefore, it stands to reason that the oil companies are shifting their focus to portions of world that do not have the regulatory baggage--read nimby/greenie lawsuit--where it is cheaper to operate, even if the return is lower. Exxon and others bid on Iraqi concessions for around $1.40pb.
Shell is going forward with its offshore exploration, something the Parnell Administration seems to be hyping as the new oil rush. State gov't does not get as much directly out that development, but will gain from the jobs and infrastructure in the communities where support bases will be established. Unfortunately, the State is used to a "trickle down" economy where the revenue goes to the State directly and is then distributed to the smaller communities. This type of development, as well as mining will start to put the State back in its place and give new economic power to the communities impacted by the resource development--as it should be instead of this socialist state and colonial economy that is Alaska.
Given the reduction in the tar sands expansion on the part of Shell, it appears that AGIA and Denali may have lost a great deal of their appeal to the Canucks. I doubt those big pipe projects will survive.
This means that ACES is important to maintaining a bloated State gov't, which also feeds bloated local gov'ts. Reducing ACES is going to be a fight, given declining production on the NS.Should ACES be reduced?
Ireland reduced their taxes and boomed economically. Alberta and Saskatchewan played tug of war with the oil industry when Alberta increased its production royalties, and the oil companies bailed for Saskatchewan. Alberta figured the situation out quickly, and made up for lost drilling by lowering the royalty tax. Lowering taxes and royalties cannot be understated in terms of demonstrated positive impact.
Yet, when Parnell in his State of the State suggested that the State's royalty tax may be reduced, a good conservative pundit howled like a striped ape. Why, we just cannot do that!
The reality is that taxes are only one part of the problem in attracting the oil industry back to the State.
Taxes alone will not bring attention back to Alaska, a redress of regulatory impediments must also happen. Marathon Oil did not complain to the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce about taxes, they complained about the regulatory burden in aquiring the permits to drill new exploratory wells.
Calling for a reduction of ACES is only one aspect of what is needed to create a favorable environment for the oil/gas industry to reinvest in Alaska. A reduction in the royalty tax should also be looked at and weighed. However, the primary focus should be on the regulatory impediments. That's where the delays and the real money is lost to the oil companies and any resource development business trying to do business in Alaska.
In the mean time, we need to elect a governor who can move the State forward in the face of declining oil revenues and that candidate is Bill Walker. The all-Alaska pipeline will provide revenue, jobs and infrastructure that would allow the State to reconsider its policies regarding oil and gas development from a position of not having to knee jerk to demands that may be well intended, but might not have the end result desired.
One of the primary issues is the state of the national economy. There has to be a market to sustain the exploration and development. That the market is in decline due to Obama/Pelosi/Reid's disasterous attempt to rewrite the national economy paradigm. Yeah, GWB had his part in the making of this mess.
That situation definitely has an impact on what happens where with any industry, much less oil and gas.An indicator of the impact of the national economy is Shell's pulling back from oil tar sands recovery expansion from a planned 700,000bpd to 225,000bpd, including putting on hold a potential technology pilot project for insitu recovery. Cost of production is up--and it is here also, a 68% increase in operations costs on the NS from 2001. Therefore, it stands to reason that the oil companies are shifting their focus to portions of world that do not have the regulatory baggage--read nimby/greenie lawsuit--where it is cheaper to operate, even if the return is lower. Exxon and others bid on Iraqi concessions for around $1.40pb.
Shell is going forward with its offshore exploration, something the Parnell Administration seems to be hyping as the new oil rush. State gov't does not get as much directly out that development, but will gain from the jobs and infrastructure in the communities where support bases will be established. Unfortunately, the State is used to a "trickle down" economy where the revenue goes to the State directly and is then distributed to the smaller communities. This type of development, as well as mining will start to put the State back in its place and give new economic power to the communities impacted by the resource development--as it should be instead of this socialist state and colonial economy that is Alaska.
Given the reduction in the tar sands expansion on the part of Shell, it appears that AGIA and Denali may have lost a great deal of their appeal to the Canucks. I doubt those big pipe projects will survive.
This means that ACES is important to maintaining a bloated State gov't, which also feeds bloated local gov'ts. Reducing ACES is going to be a fight, given declining production on the NS.Should ACES be reduced?
Ireland reduced their taxes and boomed economically. Alberta and Saskatchewan played tug of war with the oil industry when Alberta increased its production royalties, and the oil companies bailed for Saskatchewan. Alberta figured the situation out quickly, and made up for lost drilling by lowering the royalty tax. Lowering taxes and royalties cannot be understated in terms of demonstrated positive impact.
Yet, when Parnell in his State of the State suggested that the State's royalty tax may be reduced, a good conservative pundit howled like a striped ape. Why, we just cannot do that!
The reality is that taxes are only one part of the problem in attracting the oil industry back to the State.
Taxes alone will not bring attention back to Alaska, a redress of regulatory impediments must also happen. Marathon Oil did not complain to the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce about taxes, they complained about the regulatory burden in aquiring the permits to drill new exploratory wells.
Calling for a reduction of ACES is only one aspect of what is needed to create a favorable environment for the oil/gas industry to reinvest in Alaska. A reduction in the royalty tax should also be looked at and weighed. However, the primary focus should be on the regulatory impediments. That's where the delays and the real money is lost to the oil companies and any resource development business trying to do business in Alaska.
In the mean time, we need to elect a governor who can move the State forward in the face of declining oil revenues and that candidate is Bill Walker. The all-Alaska pipeline will provide revenue, jobs and infrastructure that would allow the State to reconsider its policies regarding oil and gas development from a position of not having to knee jerk to demands that may be well intended, but might not have the end result desired.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Hickel's not happy with Exxon/TransCanada deal.
Former Gov. Walter Hickel harshly criticized the deal between Exxon and TransCanada.
His disaffection with Sarah Palin began over her decision to go for a big pipe through Canada versus an all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez.
And, he is correct.
Neither AGIA nor Denali have all the producers on board. AGIA has Exxon, and Denali has Conoco and BP. Takes 3 to make any large project work.
Then, there are those little details that everyone forgets. Such as, Alaska is short about 80 tcf of NG to keep either AGIA or Denali fed with gas over the 30 years of the life of the financing. Too, Exxon stated earlier this year, that there is too little gas available on a daily basis to make a big pipeline work. 4.5 bcf is available, but 2.5 bcf must be reinjected to pressurize the oil fields daily. This leaves 2 bcf for market, and that is with Pt. Thompson included in the mix.
All of the above was argued during the gubernatorial campaign. Nothing has changed.
The price of oil is 18 times that of NG right now. Guess what use Alaska's NG will have? Keeping the North Slope fields pressurized and separating oil from Alberta tar sands.
While big news, the Exxon TransCanada deal is really so much fluff.
His disaffection with Sarah Palin began over her decision to go for a big pipe through Canada versus an all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez.
And, he is correct.
Neither AGIA nor Denali have all the producers on board. AGIA has Exxon, and Denali has Conoco and BP. Takes 3 to make any large project work.
Then, there are those little details that everyone forgets. Such as, Alaska is short about 80 tcf of NG to keep either AGIA or Denali fed with gas over the 30 years of the life of the financing. Too, Exxon stated earlier this year, that there is too little gas available on a daily basis to make a big pipeline work. 4.5 bcf is available, but 2.5 bcf must be reinjected to pressurize the oil fields daily. This leaves 2 bcf for market, and that is with Pt. Thompson included in the mix.
All of the above was argued during the gubernatorial campaign. Nothing has changed.
The price of oil is 18 times that of NG right now. Guess what use Alaska's NG will have? Keeping the North Slope fields pressurized and separating oil from Alberta tar sands.
While big news, the Exxon TransCanada deal is really so much fluff.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
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/
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)