Lies and coal mine, a solution

I have listened to commercials on a local radio station decrying the proposed Usibelli coal development project.  I have read the arguments.  I have yet to read or to hear one substantive argument or legitimate, relevant fact in opposition to the mine that makes any sense or has any bearing whatsoever on whether or not Usibelli will operate within the boundaries of the law.  All I have read to date and heard on the radio ads in opposition to the coal mine are the most egregious misrepresentations and outright lies.
Where is there any evidence of potential damage to a watershed, or the specter of an air quality violation?  Where is there evidence of any damage to property values or to the ability to get a loan on property?  First National Bank of Alaska and the Matanuska Valley Federal Credit Union have both denied the allegations of those opposing the mine.  Yet, the lie is maintained on in the radio ads.

This campaign against Usibelli has been undertaken with the typical liberal penchant for making the most outrageous claims without any basis in substance or fact.  The only issues that they can bring up are areas that are the responsibility of our federal and State agencies.  They imply with their gross misrepresentations that these agencies are incompetent.  They imply by their advertising that the EPA, DEC, DNR, and the Army Corps of Engineers have been suborned to the coal company's "evil" purposes.  That these agencies and the professionals that staff them will not evaluate Usibelli's plans under the scrutiny of State and federal law.
I have a solution.

Let these whining liberals who have decided that this Valley does not need this development pay into the MSB's and the State's coffers the tax revenues that would otherwise be generated by this project.  Let them also put up a fund to compensate local business for the loss of the revenues generated from the lost wages were this project not to come to fruition.  Let them put their money where their mouths are, because all that they have done so far is to whine and cry, and to express their liberal anti-development tirade at the expense of those who need, want, and otherwise would support the development of a resource that has a long history of development in this Valley.
Given the unlikelihood of those opposing doing their civic duty and compensating for the loss of the mine, I propose the following alternative.

Why did the Alaska Rail Road (ARR) stop maintaining the track to Sutton after the coal mine shut down?  Bad policy, and a Palmer City Council that did not want coal trains moving through Palmer.  The ARR, rather than float the bonds to repair and refurbish the rail system, and to circumvent Palmer, if necessary, has required any company that needs their services to move coal or minerals from that area to pay for the track.  Must be nice to have a monopoly.  However, that is not what the ARR is all about.  It is a quasi-public corporation that is supposed to benefit the State, which is the only shareholder. 

Governor Parnell's DNR, the Valley legislative delegation, and the ARR should get together and figure out the benefits of the coal mine to the Valley and the State.   Instead of squandering $214M on a 500mmcf/da natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Nikkiski that will never be economically viable and will cost millions in subsidies yearly and raise our natural gas prices in south central, using the money to repair and upgrade the rail to Sutton would be of greater benefit to Alaska and the Valley in the long term. 

Jobs would be created for the refurbishment of the rail line.  The ARR could rehire those it just laid off, because of the shut down of the Fairbanks Flint Hills Refinery.  Jobs for Valley residents would be created by the mine development, and there would be no trucks on our highways.  Rail would haul the coal from Sutton to Seward or Pt. MacKenzie.

Once again, coal would fire the economy of the Valley and provide year round high paying jobs.  The ARR would be supporting resource development as it is supposed to do, rather than acting as a financial impediment to further development of energy and mineral resources.

The oil glut just caught up with Alaska's oil dreams . . .

The shale oil revolution in the lower-48 has finally impacted Alaska.


On April 11, the 940 foot oil tanker Alaskan Explorer returned to Valdez from a two week journey to a refinery in Washington state after delivering almost 1,000,000 barrels of Alaska crude from the North Slope. For the first time since the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) began transporting North Slope crude to the Alyeska Pipeline oil terminal at Valdez, 300,000 barrels (12,600,000 gallons) of Alaska North Slope crude oil was being returned to Valdez for the first time. (1 barrel = 42 gallons)

The day the crude oil was returned to Valdez by the Alaska Explorer, the oil storage tanks at Alyeska’s oil terminal were 90% full. The oil storage tanks have not been this full since the start of oil flowing down TAPS. Having to return oil added to the lack of capacity. This is a serious situation with respect to maintaining the oil flow from the North Slope.

One of the major concerns of Alaska’s politicians has been when will North Slope oil production fall to such a level that the TAPS will no longer be able to move the oil? This amount has been estimated to be a little as 300,000 barrels per day to as much as 500,000 barrels per day. If TAPS operations has to be stopped at present levels due to an oil glut in the lower 48, there is a very real possibility that TAPS operations may not be able to be restarted.

Last year, Thomas Barrett, the president of Alyeska Pipeline Company, warned the Legislature that any shut down of TAPS that lasted for more than three days could result in a permanent shut down of TAPS. The automation of TAPS in the 1980s removed the pumps from some of the pump stations, thereby reducing the ability to pressurize the pipeline. Present volumes are marginal with respect to restarting TAPS. The estimate of the shutdown volume was 300,000 barrels per day until 2010, when it was admitted by Barrett that the actual shut down volume could be as much as 500,000 barrels per day.

The reason the oil was returned to Valdez has been the increasing volume of oil produced from the Bakken Shale deposits in North Dakota and from other shale deposits in Texas and Pennsylvania. The same technology that has increased the natural gas reserves of the United States to as much as 200 years at present rates of consumption has now allowed access to oil previously considered unrecoverable.

Another factor is the reduction in the use of gasoline in the U.S. due to higher mileage vehicles. This has led to a decreased demand for crude oil in the face of increased supplies. The U.S. is now exporting refined gasoline in quantities not seen since the 1960s to Central and South America.

The Parnell Administration failed to publically note the return of Alaska crude to Valdez. To have made the public aware that Alaska crude was returned because of an oil glut Outside might have caused a problem for an Administration that has been heavily criticized for its lack of progress on a natural gas pipeline.

One thing is for certain, due to high international demand for crude in Asia, the price of gas is not going down appreciably anytime soon. The domestic price of crude is set by the international market.

The return of Alaska’s oil to Valdez has serious portent for the future of TAPS and for the market for Alaska’s crude. It would truly be ironic for TAPS to have to shut down because there is a glut of oil in the lower-48.