Have we come to this?

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

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?

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.

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