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

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




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

HB4 is a bad idea and a slap in the voters' faces

HB4 creating the Alaska Gas Development Corporation was passed by the Alaska House on 2 April, 2013 by a vote of 30-9. This bill is the culmination of over 10 years of effort on the part of the Legislature and the Governor to end the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority created by 138,000 votes for Proposition 3 in 2002. HB4 is now before the Alaska Senate, where it will probably pass, given the list of sponsors in the Senate: Senators Dyson, Huggins, Giessel, McGuire, and Micciche. There are only 20 members of the Alaska Senate. Senator Charlie Huggins is the Senate President. Therefore, the likelihood of this legislation failing to pass is nil.

Alaska’s history of attempting to get a natural gas pipeline built to move natural gas from the North Slope to market has been convoluted. HB4 further complicates this confusing and contradictory history.

Prop 3 passed in 2002 mandated the State to create a natural gas development authority (AS 41.41) to build the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez, with a 250 mmcf spur to south central. The capacity of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline (AANGPV) to be built was approximately 2.5-3.0 bcf/da with most of the gas converted to LNG and then shipped to market in the U.S. or to foreign markets. Proposition 3 created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA), which was to be have been the vehicle that would oversea the natural gas development potential for Alaska. From the very start, ANGDA was vehemently opposed, disrespected, and diminished by Governor Frank Murkowski, Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Sean Parnell and the Legislature from 2002 forward. With their opposition to ANGDA, the aforementioned belied any intention of respecting the peoples’ will where building a natural gas pipeline was concerned. This disrespect has been amplified in the creation of the Alaska Gas Development Corporation (AGDC) and the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP).

Governor Frank Murkowski rejected the will of the voters with his churlish opposition to ANGDA and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline (AANGPV). Murkowski funded ANGDA with an initial appropriation of $50,000 and the Legislature gave more money later in 2003. ANGDA’s yearly budgets then and since barely covered the cost of the few positions created. Compare this situation with the $400 million that will be shoveled into the AGDC’s Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) by the Legislature under HB4 and the $214 million previously appropriated for the various iterations of the ASAP line. Today, ANGDA’s website lists four on the ANGDA Board and one employee as Executive Director. Harold Heinze, a former CEO of ARCO, was the previous Chief Executive Director until he stepped down on December 8, 2011.

ANGDA accomplished much during its colored history. ANGDA explored moving gas south by truck to Fairbanks, permitting of the 250 mmcf spur line from Glennallen to Palmer’s Enstar natural gas hub, and building a natural gas pipeline from the Kenai Penninsula north to communities along the Parks Highway, which would have provided an incentive for further exploration and development of the Cook Inlet oil and gas fields. Given the dearth of resources and the failure by the Legislature and the Governors, and their opposition to ANGDA, to provide for bonding capacity, as has been done for the AGDC through Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and the Alaska Rail Road, ANGDA’s accomplishments were not insignificant. Under Harold Heinze and Scott Heyworth, ANGDA moved to meet its statutory mandate as was allowed by hostile administrations and an indifferent and, since the 2009, an increasingly hostile Legislature.

During his term, Governor Frank Murkowski had promised a natural gas pipeline and worked diligently on a 4.0 bcf/da pipeline proposal to make his promise reality. His efforts allegedly culminated in a contract with Exxon, Conoco and British Petroleum Alaska to build his pipe dream. The Palin campaign was able to successfully promote the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline in opposition to Murkowski’s efforts. It was revealed that what Murkowski called a contract was nothing more than an intent on the part of the oil companies to study the viability of building a 4.0 bcf natural gas pipeline to Alberta.

The size of any pipeline has also been an interesting side issue, and one often overlooked in any debate. The natural gas pipeline strategy effected under Murkowski, Palin and Parnell has been for a 4.0 bcf/day natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Alberta. The theory being that there must be sufficient volume to replace declining revenues produced by the North Slope’s declining oil production. The all-Alaska natural gas pipeline proposed in 2002 was to be a 2.5 bcf with Bill Walker expanding that to 3.0 bcf under his campaign proposal. The AANGPV would terminate at an LNG train to convert the methane to Liquid Natural Gas (LNG).

Bill Walker’s AANGPV proposal would have provided for use of the gas liquids in-state to grow Alaska’s private sector, whereas Palin/Parnell’s AGIA, both the Canadian route and the LNG proposal under consideration to Valdez, and Murkowski’s proposal intended that the gas and gas liquids be shipped out of state for consumption and use elsewhere with little benefit to Alaskans beyond the in-state pipeline and LNG train construction and a direct infusion of cash at the State level.

The Alaska Oil Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) has set a limit on the amount of natural gas that is available for sale in order to maintain sufficient pressure on North Slope legacy fields to allow production of remaining oil reserves. AOGCC has set a limit of 2.5-3.0 bcf available per day to deliver to a pipeline. Over 8 bcf per day is now reinjected back into the oil fields on the North Slope in order to maintain pressurization of the fields to make oil production feasible. AOGCC has been pretty consistent in its requirement that at least 5 bcf of the 8 bcf of gas produced per day be reinjected. The priority is in maintaining the State’s oil revenues.

During her 2006 campaign, Sarah Palin supported the mandate imposed by Proposition 3 and the construction of the AANGPV. Upon taking her oath of office, then Governor Sarah Palin turned her back on her support for that mandate and project, and moved forward with her Alaska Gas Inducement Act, which, to date, has produced nothing. AGIA was almost a mirror of Murkowski’s proposed pipeline plan. Instead of relying upon the Producers (Exxon, BP and Conoco), AGIA granted an exclusive to the winner of the competition promoted by the Palin Administration. Unfortunately, there was only one competitor, and that was TransCanada. Her successor, Governor Sean Parnell has not been able to move the proverbial natural gas pipeline football forward one inch towards a commitment for construction, a timeline to do anything, or even claim a successful open season.

During the 2010 campaign for governor in the Republican Primary, Bill Walker championed the AANGPV in his bid for the Republican nomination for Governor. Walker added a new dimension to the pipeline conversation that has been ignored since Parnell’s victory in the Republican Primary. That new dimension was the idea of value added resource development in the use of some of the gas to provide cheaper energy for the agriculture, timber, and mineral industries. Walker’s proposal would have seen take offs to communities down the Richardson Highway and at Glennallen. There was discussion regarding another spur across the Denali Highway to Cantwell. Fairbanks would have benefitted from the pipeline as the pipeline would have gone through with the gas liquids stripped at Fairbanks. The propane and butane would have been used as alternative fuels, with the ethane, hexane and other components being used to provide the building blocks for a plastics and petrochemical industry, giving a benefit to Alaska’s economy well beyond just the construction of the AANGPV. Walker’s proposal was the only proposal for a natural gas pipeline that went beyond just exporting Alaska’s gas to a foreign or domestic market.

The ASAP proposal was previously known as Harry Noah’s pipeline under Sarah Palin/Sean Parnell. The economics were never viable, but $14 million in State funding was appropriated to Noah’s pipeline study group for what was then known as the Bullet Line. Rep. Mike Hawker and Rep. Mike Chennault brokered deals to create the Alaska Gas Development Corporation by creating a frankenmonster of an entity to end the public’s mandate represented by ANGDA, but doing what the Legislature never did for ANGDA: providing for the ability to bond to finance any gasline projects using the resources of the Alaska Rail Road and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation.

The Republican Primary in 2010 saw three competing natural gas pipeline projects: former Rep. Ralph Samuels promoted the ‘Bullet Line’ (ASAP), Governor Sean Parnell promoted AGIA, and former Mayor of Valdez Bill Walker promoted the AANGPV.

For some reason, it was fine by the Republican legislative majority and voters to support the Bullet Line, even though it was to be 100% state financed, and limited to a maximum volume of 500 mmcf/da under AGIA, but having the State of Alaska buy into the AANGPV for a 20% interest in order to control the timeline for construction was ‘socialist’ and a subject of great controversy. The estimated cost of the Bullet Line was $4B-$7B at that time, and the estimated cost of the AANGPV was $20B-$24B. Since, the ‘Bullet Line’ cost estimates have grown to almost $8B, but the AGIA version of the AANGPV costs have increased from the 2010 AANGPV estimates to $45B-$65B according to the October 1, 2012 letter to Governor Sean Parnell from Exxon, BP and Conoco.

Note the disparity in cost increases between the two pipelines. Does it make sense that the estimated costs of the AANGPV should increase by three times over the cost factors of the ‘Bullet Line’/ASAP pipeline? Is this a case of TransCanada/Exxon, BP and Conoco inflating the AANGPV to reinforce their reluctance towards moving North Slope natural gas to market?

The upswing in shale gas production has eliminated the domestic U.S. natural gas. A projected 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves in continental U.S. shale deposits made the idea of shipping Alaska natural gas to a U.S. market moot. Now, Alaska natural gas will have to compete with domestically produced U.S. shale gas on the world market, given the export permits applied for to move shale gas as LNG to Asian markets.

One of the greatest errors on the part of the Parnell Administration was ignoring the needs of Japan after the 2011 earth quake. A delegation came to Alaska seeking an audience with our governor. They did not meet with him. Another delegation came last year in June and met with DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. After leaving Alaska, the delegation comprising four Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi, travelled to British Columbia and Louisiana where they invested almost $4 billion between Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG export expansion project and in Shell’s LNG export facility at Kitimat, B.C.

Alaska has a long term (43 years) relationship with Japan with respect to LNG exports. Conoco’s LNG train at Nikiski has been producing LNG for export to Japan since before the completion of the TAPS.

It certainly appears that AGIA has cost Alaska in lost business opportunities.

The ASAP’s primary purpose is no longer just the idea of supplementing Cook Inlet/Kenai gas production until storage and new exploration and development activities eliminate the specter of natural gas shortages that saw the closure of the Agrium ammonium nitrate fertilizer plant in Nikiski several years ago with the loss of 65 jobs. The ASAP will provide natural gas for Conoco’s LNG train at Nikiski for export to Asia. Given that the ASAP will be constructed at State of Alaska expense and its operation subsidized by the State, that is a very good deal for Conoco. At lease some of Alaska’s natural gas will make it Asia’s LNG market.

Cook Inlet has approximately 19 trillion cubic feet of estimated reserves remaining to be discovered. Exploration and development has picked up over the last two years, with more drilling planned this year. Unfortunately, there needs to be an upgrade in transportation infrastructure and storage to get the natural gas from the producing field to sufficient storage to carry south central’s demand through increasingly colder winters. It is not a declining production that is the issue, it is the lack of a suitable intra-field pipeline system to get the gas to the storage facility. As a result, Alaska may see the first importation of natural gas from Russia later this Spring.

With the 2014 gubernatorial elections looming, Governor Sean Parnell is in much the same situation as former Governor Frank Murkowski was at the time of his reelection bid against Sarah Palin. Under Parnell, the AGIA 4.0 bcf pipeline option to Canada is dead. The only viable option is the AGIA LNG option similar in size and scope to the AANGPV, excepting for no spur to Palmer and no in-state use of the gas liquids. Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon, BP, Conoco and TransCanada, LNG from Alaska is unwelcome in the Asian market, because of competing developments on the part of the aforementioned.

Given that his administration cannot state any firm date for the construction of a pipeline, could it be that Governor Sean Parnell is exploring the possibility of running against Senator Mark Begich with the intent of bailing from the Governor’s office before the house of cards that is AGIA falls in on itself?

Such could be inferred from the remarks made by Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell today. Treadwell commented on the recent upheavals in the Alaska Republican Party and its ability to promote and support the campaign against Democrate Senator Mark Begich. Treadwell stated that it may not be him running against Begich, but possibly Governor Sean Parnell. Treadwell had previously announced his intent to explore a run against Senator Mark Begich on November 30, 2012. If so, Treadwell will certainly run for governor in Parnell’s stead.

Bill Walker may have another shot at the Governor’s mansion if Parnell runs for the U.S. Senate. Under Parnell, Treadwell has not been terribly prominent in the public eye.

It should be noted that Governor Sean Parnell has not opposed theAGDC/ASAP proposal of Rep. Mike Hawker and Rep. Mike Chennault as demonstrated by HB4, nor did he oppose the previous iteration of that project proposed by Harry Noah under then Governor Sarah Palin. This lack of opposition leaves him in a position of being able to claim some degree of success with respect to moving Alaska’s North Slope natural gas to market. Ignoring of course, the fact that the ASAP project is limited to 500mmcf under AGIA, meaning the cost of transport to market will have to be subsidized by the State for the life of the pipeline. The cost of constructing the pipeline would also be borne by the State of Alaska.

Bill Walker’s AANGPV was the best option to date, as his plan provided for instate use of the gas liquids and natural gas to provide for cheap energy for agriculture and industry, alternative fuels for the Bush, and a petrochemical industry for Alaska. TransCanada and Exxon will send the gas and the gas liquids to Asia, if they bother to build a pipeline at all. Further, the AANGPV provided for a 250 mmcf/da spur into the Enstar Hub at Palmer to help mitigate the anticipated storage shortfalls from Cook Inlet natural gas production. A spur from Paxon west to Cantwell was also anticipated providing for a spur feeding to Nenana and connecting to any ANGDA pipeline from Nikiski north to Cantwell.

Competing with any potential Alaska LNG exports, Exxon has several large scale natural gas development LNG projects in the Pacific (Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea), and also needs a market for its portion of Qatar gas with the loss of the U.S. domestic natural gas market to domestically produced shale gas.

TransCanada is part of the Foothills Pipeline Company, which is involved in the Kitimat LNG port project. TransCanada was recently awarded a contract by Shell for a 2.4bcf pipeline to Kitimat, B.C.

Conoco has its portion of Qatar natural gas to move to market, now in Asia, because of the loss of the domestic U.S. market to shale gas. Conoco also has two Australia LNG projects that will compete with Alaska LNG for the Asian market.

Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips and TransCanada, is it any wonder why there has been no forward movement on AGIA?

Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon and TransCanada, Governor Parnell has to be either totally brain dead, or simply ignoring reality, given his insistence on pursuing AGIA in the face of competing projects on the part of the TransCanada, Exxon, Conoco and BP. There is no provision under AGIA to declare breach of contract based upon a conflict of interest.

Given the increasing availability of natural gas in the world market, it may be better for the State to pay $500 million to $1.5 billion in penalties get out of AGIA. The lost opportunities will cost the state several orders of magnitude of any penalty under AGIA.

What are the differences between the ASAP natural gas pipeline and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline option to Valdez?

Cost of construction is borne by the State: ASAP–100%; AANGPV–20% State ownership interest

Capacity: ASAP–500 mmcf/da; AANGPV–2.5-3.0 bcf/da

Benefits: ASAP will increase south central consumer gas costs by up to 13%; AANGVP will reduce or maintain present consumer costs, provide for growth in the private sector, because of in-state use of gas liquids, benefit beyond Alaska for growth in Asian customer’s economies

Cost of construction: ASAP–$8B; AANGPV–up to $45B-$65B (oil companies’ estimate) with LNG train and harbor improvements

Route: ASAP–North Slope to Nikiski across several salmon streams, Denali National Park and Denali State Park, but will not go through Fairbanks with no spur for consumers down the Richardson Highway south to Valdez; AANGVP–TAPS corridor from Prudhoe to Valdez covering all communities along the route through Fairbanks, with a 250 mmcf/da spur from Glennallen to Palmer and passing through Fairbanks down the Richardson Highway with a potential spur across the Denali Highway, LNG route--Valdez to Asia

Permitting status: ASAP–no permits issued; AANGVP–existing permits from Yukon Pacific Corp.

Estimated completion: ASAP–2019; AANGVP–two-three years from funding

Cost of gas to delivery per million cubic feet: ASAP–$9-$11.25/mmcf for Anchorage consumers (p13 of ASAP Project Plan); AANGVP–<$10/mmcf from the North Slope to Japan, including TAPS, LNG conversion costs, and LNG tanker costs (p15 of Wood-Mac study)

Gas liquids: ASAP–stripped at North Slope and reinjected; AANGVP–stripped at Fairbanks for use in Alaska

Testimony on HB4 was heard before the Senate Finance Committee today. HB4 is expected to pass out of the committee.

For more information:

ASAP Project Plan, Dec. 20, 2011–Joint In-state Gas Caucus

http://housemajority.org/neuman/pdfs/27/Gas_Caucus_New_Scenario_20121220.pdf

Wood MacKenzie Alaskan LNG Exports Competitiveness Study

http://www.arcticgas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/11-07-alaska-lng-competitiveness-study.pdf

Exxon Mobil LNG:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_production_lng.aspx

Conoco Phillips LNG:

http://lnglicensing.conocophillips.com/EN/lngprojects/Pages/index.aspx

British Petroleum LNG:

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015376&contentId=7028020

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015513&contentId=7043288

TransCanada:

http://www.transcanada.com/coastal-gaslink.html

Other related articles:

http://www.examiner.com/article/agia-transcanada-s-conflict-of-interest

http://www.examiner.com/article/agia-exxon-s-conflict-of-interest

http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-lisa-murkowski-is-selling-lng-to-japan-when-parnell-will-not

http://www.examiner.com/article/support-for-the-all-alaska-natural-gas-pipeline-appears-local-campaigns

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-legislature-and-the-governor-neither-of-whom-can-make-a-decision

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/denali-is-dead-now-what

Does TransCanada have a conflict of interest?

 
Through Canada or to Valdez?

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

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

The die was cast for the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alaska needs real leadership, not more of the same.

The lights still will not come on . . .

The 500mmcf per day line, the so called bullet line, Harry Noah's bullet line, the pipeline that "doesn't pencil"--make economic sense--is a dead end.

There is only one permitted, dedicated right of way to tidewater, the one mile corridor created with TAPS.

I have never seen 61 people try so hard to ignore the obvious in the face of overwhelming information available as to the market for LNG, the route, and the economics.

"We have to do something to get gas to south central and Fairbanks, why there is a crisis coming,” cry the pols.

Squandering $214M to do nothing on project that is not viable is doing something? It is admitted by Chennault and Hawker that the State will have to subsidize the natural transported in that line, because the volume is too low and would raise the cost to consumers. It would be cheaper to import gas . . . from Russia.

The Legislature and the Governor need to have an epiphany to cover their ignoring the obvious and declare "now I see, now I see" and commit to the only project that is economically viable, the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez, with the 250mmcf per day spur to the Enstar hub at Palmer. The gas liquids would be pulled off at FBKS, giving the interior new industry and fuels for the Bush.

What State ‘leader’ would ignore the ongoing benefits of the gas liquids used in-state? More importantly, why. Value added resource development has been the Holy Grail of Alaska’s resource development forever. Cheap energy will make possible what is otherwise too expensive. The impact would be tremendously beneficial to our agriculture, mining and timber sectors.

Maybe, former Gov. Sarah Palin can apologize to Alaskans for sticking it to them with AGIA after campaigning on the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to the governor’s office.

I wonder if dear Sarah has promised Gov. Sean Parnell a seat in her cabinet so long as he continues AGIA so that she can claim “expertise” of oil and gas development as part of her grandiose scheme to become Sarah the First, Queen and President? She must have done so, as no rational, prudent human being of sound mind would continue with AGIA in the face of shale gas and the burgeoning LNG market.

In order to get out of the AGIA dead end, the State would have to declare AGIA uneconomical and prepare for a potential court battle. Or, continue to roll the dice with the end of TAPS. Gas development would spur more oil development.

Leadership is what is needed, but leadership is not what we have.

Instead, we have Mike Chennault and Mike Hawker's questionable melding of AHFC, the ARR, Noah's former group, and a committee of legislators comprising the Alaska Gas Development Corporation promoting a pipeline that everyone says is too expensive and must be subsidized forever. They created an unholy abomination of State and quasi-State corporations, all of which had no gas development mandate until Chennault and Hawker pushed it through to unseeing, unknowing and apparently, uninterested Legislature.

Meanwhile, AS 41.41 is ignored which created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline.

What is so hard about all of this that these fine folks in our Legislature cannot understand? LNG is the market, we have 40 years of history with the Japanese on LNG deliveries, why are we not taking advantage of our opportunities?

Like the Japanese want to deal with the . . . Russians? Or, the ME?

We need leadership in Juneau, not someone who has violated their oath of office with the appointment of two legislators to cabinet posts in violation of the law. Gov. Sean Parnell should be impeached for what he did in the Therriault and Dahlstrom cases. However, no one in the

Legislature has the cojones to step up in defense of the constitutional affront by this governor.
And, we pay the price with $200M more going down a rat hole just to make a couple of politicians 'feel good'.

Our opportunities on the world market wane as time passes and our leaders look for “inspiration”, all the while ignoring the obvious.

Parnell and ACES . . . too little, too late?

The Legislature starts its second special session, still without a budget, still without any Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) revisions, and without agreeing to continue coastal zone management. Thus far, a very good reason to file thirteen our entire Legislature in the next two election cycles. Unfortunately, we voters will forget about the State’s issues with the windup to the 2012 Presidential race. There is more news about former Governor Sarah Palin than about the incredible failures on the part of Legislature.

Gov. Parnell has vowed to keep fighting to reduce the rates oil companies pay under the current ACES law. ACES was passed during Gov. Sarah Palin’s unfortunately not brief enough gubernatorial administration. It should be remembered, that our Gov. Sean Parnell was then Gov. Sarah Palin’s Lt. Governor. A first belated step towards ‘independence’ from Palin for Parnell?

Gov. Parnell is a former State legislator who became an oil company lobbyist in Juneau after this tenure in the State Senate and House. That he would try to reduce the impact upon the oil companies is not surprising, but, a bit late.

In case no one has noticed, the oil flowing through the TAPS is declining to the point of no return, meaning that it will no longer be economically viable to move oil down the pipeline because of the declining volume of oil, and the point at which there can be no restart of the pipeline system if there is a shutdown for any reason. The last shut down last winter was a touch and go in terms of restarting the flow of oil. Alyeska’s president Thomas Barrett stated in a public radio interview that Alyeska was very concerned about the ability to restart oil flowing after the shutdown for a broken pipe at Pump Station 1 in January of this year. He went on to say that it was touch and go as to whether or not the pipeline would restart. He further estimated that within the next four to five years at the most, operating levels of 500,000 barrels or less would be reached at which point, Alyeska’s engineers believed that restarting the pipeline after a shut down would not be possible. It was also disclosed that TAPS has suffered up to an 80% deterioration in the walls of the pipe. This would mean a lengthy replacement of pipe in order to extend the life of TAPS, should methods and technology prove that recovery of the heavy oil under Prudhoe can be accomplished in economic quantities.

BP announced a heavy oil R&D recovery project well had demonstrated the viability of recovering heavy oil under the North Slope. There is an estimated 20 billion barrels of heavy crude yet to be recovered from legacy fields at Prudhoe and the surrounding area comprised of heavy oil. BP has been tight lipped about this project, having made only the one press release earlier this year. Heavy crude recovery is the most likely candidate for increasing the flow of oil through TAPS.

Off shore oil is another potential, but only if the Obama Administration figures out that the only way to reduce gasoline prices to the consumer is by increasing the amount of crude available in the market place.

The impact of oil shale recovery will soon be felt in the market place in much the same manner as the impact of shale gas on the natural gas market Outside and in Canada. Already, significant discoveries and returns are turning the Bakken oil shale in North Dakota into developments whose potential may exceed that of Prudhoe Bay in the early days of its development. Recent activity in Texas is proving out the viability of oil shale recovery there, turning depressed areas into boom towns, a welcome change from the impact of an ongoing recession. It is estimated that if the oil shale development continues at the present pace, within the next 20 years Middle East oil will not be needed in the U.S. domestic market.

If car manufacturers would produce vehicles fueled by natural gas for urban areas, that time frame may be halved or reduced even further. In which case, we would no longer have to take in the Wahabbist element from Saudi Arabia that George H. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush decided the U.S. could absorb to keep Saudi Arabia’s oil flowing. The Bush-Clinton-Bush policy of taking in extremist religious fanatics from Saudi Arabia under the student visa program has been a policy that is a direct threat to our national security.

Gov. Sean Parnell’s desire to reduce the ACES tax rates may be too little too late, just as the delays in deciding upon a reasonable natural gas pipeline option has ended Alaska’s role as a potential major player in either the domestic gas market or the world LNG market. The same can now be said for shale oil.

To the Governor’s credit, at least he is backing a positive option. Whether or not reducing ACES will have any impact upon Alaska’s oil production remains to be seen.

Whether or not there will be sufficient oil production increases within the next five years to keep TAPS in operation is the question. With the shutdown of TAPS, so also ends 90% of the State’s revenues. Alaska will be a far different place within five years of the shutdown of TAPS.

Sarah Palin running for President?! NOOOOOOOO!!!!

I just read an article on Real Clear Politics that confirmed my worst fears. Sarah Palin is definitely going to make a run for the brass ring of the Presidency. This egotistical, paranoid, soap opera queen and failed governor of the GREAT STATE of ALASKA, this individual who stated time and again while running for that high office "This is the greatest job that I could have," and who promised that she would never leave that office for national office before her two potential terms were up . . . Sarah Palin would be a disaster as a President.

I worked for that campaign as a volunteer, I wrote in support of her campaign, I talked to people, I did what I could to support her in her race for governor. Sarah called me, I did not call her and volunteer.

When Sarah Palin took her oath of office, she closed the door to most of the peons like me, and on her promises regarding change and open, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, constitutional State government.

Her administration was characterized as being left to itself without clear leadership or direction from her. She did something none of us thought that she would do. Instead of a new start for State government as she campaigned on--the Palin Revolution, remember?--she rehired many of her predecessors' commissioners and appointees. She changed nothing. If anything, she muddied the waters of State government further.

Her theme of open and transparent government was a joke. Contact with her office was a trial, without much chance of any call being returned. I heard this again and again from people who tried to contact the governor’s offices for one reason or another and were told that their call would be returned, but never was.

I have personal experience with her administration's public access policies. Open and transparent? Anything but.

I understand that the commissioners were left to work out amongst themselves what they thought she wanted from them. Sarah Palin was described as being above details, and uninterested in anything other than what she was trying to accomplish at the moment. A recent interview with Walt Monaghan, the former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner under Palin, confirmed this characteristic of her administration. She was distant and aloof and out of touch with her commissioners.

As time went on, she increasingly made public appearances to respond to specious and idiotic attacks upon her family, character and ethics. Something she should have left out of her job as governor. It seemed she was making more retorts to these detractors than policy statements. Instead of hiring a publicist, attorney, attack dog, whatever, it was the governor's office that was dragged into the soap opera that was Governor Sarah Palin. She embarrassed us, and she acted immaturely, and foolishly by letting herself be swayed from her responsibilities as governor. She failed as a leader to keep the governor's office above the circus atmosphere, and, instead, used that office a bludgeon against those she did not like. The governor’s office was allowed to enter into the realm of a family feud between her sister and her former husband, an Alaska State Trooper.

Sarah is not a conservative. At best, she is a RINO with a great public persona who says all the right things, but shows her true colors in the record of her administration as governor.

Sarah Palin added 800 employees to the State of Alaska and oversaw the biggest expenditures since Statehood. She handed out a $1,200 fuel rebate to Alaskans in a shameless exhibition of pandering to the public with the public’s money. She expanded her cabinet to include a sub-cabinet that was devoted to . . . get this . . . climate change. She named the sub-cabinet the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet whose executive director was a federal EPA employee. According to her commissioner of DNR, and her Climate Change Sub-cabinet, global warming was a man-made problem.

Worse, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet composition was the antithesis of her claims of supporting the State's sovereignty over ever increasing federal encroachment.

It is difficult to believe that she really supported the State of Alaska's sovereignty as expressed under AS 38.05.500-505 when she let a federal employee act as management in her offices. Especially, when a single source contract for approximately $80,000 was let to Climate Change Strategies (CCS), a progressive, anti growth, anti-development, population control cookie cutter global warming consultant to give the liberals the tools that they needed to feel better about destroying an economy through carbon tax initiatives. CCS was contracted to set up and administer her sub-cabinet. Sarah Palin signed up the State as an observer in the Western Climate Initiative arm of this organization.

Sarah Palin a supporter of the Second Amendment and our military? Highly suspect, given what she ordered where the 32 USC §109(c) Alaska State Defense Force is concerned.

Sarah Palin was the first Republican Governor to reduce the military forces of the State of Alaska by disarming the Alaska State Defense Force and rendering it from an operational, disaster response unit with an outstanding record of achievement over eight years to that of an unarmed "reserve of last resort". In doing so, then Governor Sarah Palin ignored the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, AS 26.05.070, AS 26.05.100, and the intent of NGR 10-4 sec. 5 and sec. 6, something her Adjutant General, LTG Craig Campbell should have been most aware of.

Her zeal for diminishing the Alaska State Defense Force and thereby removing from the State’s disaster response resources a proven operational unit that was a state military police constabulary has only been exceeded by her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell. Both former Governor Sarah Palin and Governor Sean Parnell have shown an incredible indifference to the fact that by their actions against the Alaska Sate Defense Force that they have shown a complete disregard for the militia’s right to bear arms. They also demonstrate a callous disregard for the fact that unarmed troops cannot afford protection and safety to those whom they serve. Alaskans are less safe because of Sarah Palin’s acts against the Alaska State Defense Force.

In diminishing the military forces of the State of Alaska, then Gov. Sarah Palin, and Gov. Sean Parnell,her successor and her former Lt. Gov., both went against the Alaska Republican Party's plank in support of the military in Alaska:

“C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force.”

That this was done in a time of WAR should cause serious consternation on the part of any who might be considering Sarah Palin as qualified for the Presidency. That she stepped all over the Second Amendment and Alaska's constitution in doing so by diminishing the right of the organized and unorganized State militia to be armed should give cause to all who own weapons to worry about our Second Amendment rights if she actually achieves the presidency. That she did so during time of war should give considerable consernation to any who is concerned about the security of this great country.

Sarah Palin is not intellectually or politically qualified to be president. By intellectually, I mean that she has never studied or been interested in international affairs. Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she lacked the judgment necessary to weigh local and State issues concerning Alaskan much less weigh global issues against national interests. Sarah Palin failed miserably as the governor of the Great State of Alaska, as she did not even make it through her first term. She did not even make it two years into her administration. If Frank Bailey’s book has any truth to it, Sarah Palin can be characterized as a petulant, spoiled child who wanted to quit, because she could not stand the criticism.

You think criticizing Obama produces a spectacle, wait until Sarah Palin becomes President.

I have only seen one other as poor a candidate for the highest office. That one other is the communist and Muslim sympathizing, socialist, apologist heretic that is currently occupying the highest elected office of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama. A close second is former president James Carter.

Unfortunately, I personally believe that Sarah Palin as President would make Obama into a statesman by comparison.

That Sarah Palin just purchased a house in Scottsdale, Arizona for $1.695M is an indication of how much an Alaskan this woman really is.

Yeah, she is good looking and she says the right things that resonates with conservatives and most middle class family oriented, hard working Americans. However, that is all that Sarah Palin is and does. She is a mouthpiece and a lightning rod for the opposition.

Can you imagine her soap opera on national television with her as President? We would be more of a laughing stock than we are under Obama. She is worse than Obama where a sleight is concerned. She would rail publically against any who dared criticize.

Surely, we won't be that stupid to elect someone who is clearly unqualified for the presidency so soon after getting rid of the pretender that is now in that office?

The Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. There has to be a candidate that has a consistent record of fiscal and social conservatism, who will not compromise our Constitution and our social and moral values, who is not afraid to say that they are an American and that our culture is distinct, that English is our language, and who will not BOW to a foreign potentate, and who has the credentials to be President. Who, like Ronald Reagan will not place his/her ego above that of the country, and who will not only say the right things about America, but will act upon those words to make it so.

Sarah Palin is NOT that candidate.

Real Clear Politics piece on Palin:

Sarah Palin, Sean Parnell: How to make Alaskans less safe

Mr. Governor, Mr. Lt. Governor, Mr. Commissioner/TAG:

“We're not allowed to use the term militiaman or militia any longer.
They tell us it sounds like a security term and we no longer are involved in any way in security!”

How does the above quote reconcile with National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4?

NGR 10-4
National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4 covers the relationship of the National Guard to the State Defense Forces under 32 USC § 109(c).

The section Recommendations for Improvement in my Blue Print for the ASDF was drafted using the following sections of NGR 10-4 as a guide.

NGR 10-4
Paragraph:
“4. Status
a. Command and control: State Defense Forces, as contemplated by these regulations, the foregoing statutory authority, The Constitution of the United States, the constitution and laws of the State concerned, is solely a State organization under the exclusive jurisdiction of the respective governor. It is not subject to call, order, or draft, as such a force, into the Armed Forces of the United States. It is not subject to Federal regulation, control, or supervision other than as provided expressly, or by reasonable implication, by the statute cited in para 3. Such a force may not be controlled or commanded by Federal authorities, and missions are identified and assigned only by appropriate State officials. The State Adjutant General, even though he/she may be a federally recognized officer, is not considered as Federal Authority.
b. Appointment and commissioning of officers: Persons appointed as an officer in a State Defense Force, including general officers, are commissioned solely by the State, and as such, are not federally recognized or guaranteed the rights and privileges of a commissioned officer in the U.S. Armed Forces, or the Reserve Components thereof. Specific rank and title are assigned by the State.

5. Mission
a. The mission of a State Defense Force, as conceived by these regulations, is to provide an adequately trained and organized State military reserve force which would be under the exclusive control of the governor. It would be capable of accomplishing those State emergency responsibilities normally assigned to the National Guard, when that force is federalized or otherwise not available to the needs of the governor. In addition, they would be available to perform any such missions as the governor directs, within Federal and State laws concerned.
b. Assignment of missions: Actual operating missions will be assigned only by authorized State officials (usually the State Adjutant General). However, the requirement for coordination of local and State internal security operations, with that of the U.S. Armed Forces, is obvious in the accomplishment of cooperative missions. SDF personnel and units will not be commanded by nor their operations and activities controlled directly by, Federal civilian or military authorities. Any direct coordination will be conducted between the senior Federal military commander present and the appointed emissary of the governor.
c. Potential missions:
(1) Assist civil authorities in the preservation of order, and protection of life and property.
(2) Meet such domestic emergencies as may arise within the State.
(3) Guard and protect critical industrial installations and facilities, as determined by the governor, when other means are deemed inadequate.
(4) Prevent or suppress subversive activities, in conjunction with, or in support of State or local law enforcement agencies.
(5) Under control of the governor, cooperate with Federal military authorities and forces engaged in active military operations or charged with internal security missions within the State.
(6) Assume control of State armories and property, provide security for any Federal property until relieved by proper authority, and assist in the mobilization of the National Guard when so directed by the governor.
(7)Perform other duties as may be assigned by the governor, under the constitution and laws of the state.
c. Conflict of missions: To the end that interests of the United States and the various States be preserved, the highest degree of cooperation should be maintained between Federal and State officials concerned. If a situation of conflict Or potential conflict of interest develops, it should be resolved between the Adjutant General and the senior Federal military commander present. Consideration should be given to the paramount Federal concern with the overall problem of national defense.

6. Organization
a. Planning and conducting military operations against hostile military forces are the responsibility of the Armed Forces of the United States. Operations and activities of State Defense Forces, as envisioned by this regulation, are supplemental to the State mission of the National Guard during peacetime and are considered to be of a constabulary nature and not that of combat forces. Organization under Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO/E) similar to military police or light infantry would most closely facilitate these anticipated missions.
b. The primary objective of DoD regarding State Defense Forces would be for a cadre-size unit to be established within each State during peacetime. This cadre would represent approximately 10 to 15% of their perceived mobilization strength, provide a command and control element, representation at each National Guard armory within the State, and allow for rapid expansion if the situation arises. Priority for any future Federal support that may be authorized will be given to those states whose Defense Force organization is considered most appropriate (by the Service Secretary) to accomplish the general missions outlined above.”

I have pointed out before that there appears to be a penalty for those States whose State Defense Forces fail to train for the missions envisioned under paragraph 5.

The question that I have yet to have answered fully, is what happens when the ARNG is off doing federal missions?

Which State agency takes the place of the ASDF under AS 26.05.100?

It certainly appears that the State Military Police Constabulary mission should be a current and ongoing mission for the ASDF, given paragraphs 4-6 of NGR 10-4, especially given that Military Police units that are now a part of the ARNG. After all, NGR 10-4 para. 4-6 envision the SDFs to be trained in the duties and missions of the ARNG, and under AS 26.05.100 the ASDF is to augment and act as a force multiplier to the ARNG. Contrary to the policy of your administration regarding the missions of the ASDF, NGR 10-4 envisions the ASDF maintaining an armed, internal security role.

Since when is it a policy of the Governor of the State of Alaska to act to reduce, or otherwise render ineffective a State military unit?

I have presented my arguments in the recent past, supported by the authorities and regulations directly impacting the situation.

All of which speak to an armed State militia with an internal security mission as found under AS 26.05.070.

Who ever heard of an unarmed militia?

It is my personal belief that this administration is ignoring the intent and purpose of Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Not only has this administration diminished the organized militia, it has done so without any public input, and has further acted to disarm a unit of the organized militia.

Worse, this travesty has been accomplished without any oversight by the Legislature.

Alaska is not safer, Mr. Governor.

Is the War over?

Has Alaska gone geologically “inactive”?

Is the recession over?

Are Alaska’s energy needs fulfilled so that we in south central no longer have to worry about power failure or rolling brown outs, should there be a compressor failure in the
Kenai gas fields?

Is the Trans Alaska Pipeline System restored to 1980 condition and flow rates, so that the potential for shutdown is reduced to a distant consideration?

Is the Army National Guard of the State of Alaska no longer subject to federal service?

Mr. Governor, you have ignored the realities of 2006 and the fact that ARNG units just returned from the Middle East.

I am asking for a meeting at the Governor’s level, given the failure at the Commissioner level, if you and your second can take 20 minutes of your precious time to discuss what you have done to Alaska and Alaskans by the diminishment and disarming of the Alaska State Defense Force.

You sir, are the second Alaska Republican Governor who has reduced the armed forces of this State in a time of WAR!

With the silence, and thereby assent, of the Legislature, your Administration has made Alaskans less safe and reduced the State’s ability to respond to a major emergency.

Regards,
Larry Wood

Parnell is briliant--he's going to reduce the size of Alaska!

Our new old Governor Sean Parnell is slowly steaming ahead with his agenda. I would have never given him credit for this, but . . . Gov. Parnell and the Legislature have come up with a pretty clever way to cut local government and the population of the State of Alaska by about 50% almost immediately! This plan is insidious in its brilliance.

Gov. Parnell’s economic plans should have included –by now—news of TransCanada and Exxon’s plans for a pipeline. Yet, all we hear from industry and other sources is that there will be no pipeline to Canada or to the U.S. for at least 20 years—per Larry Persily, the federal pipeline coordinator. Nor, will any LNG be sent to the U.S. from Alaska. It is just too cheap to ship all of that natural gas Exxon and Conoco converted in their LNG trains in Qattar 15,000 miles to the U.S. by LNG tanker, off load the LNG tanker, recondition the LNG, load it back onto the LNG tanker . . . and export it to Asia another 10,000 miles—and, still make a profit.

Yes, I remember Ralph Samuels sagely opining that it was just too expensive to ship North Slope gas 800 miles to Valdez by pipeline, convert it to LNG, and then ship it to a foreign market. Man, am I glad that we did not make that mistake! We would be just like all rest of those fools shipping LNG all over the world and making far more than the domestic price! Wow. We almost blew it, big time!

What would we do with all of those LNG tankers coming into Valdez to move 3 billion cubic feet of gas a day to market?! Not to mention that the gas liquids would have stayed in Alaska for fuels and industry, thereby creating more jobs. And, why would we build the 250 million cubic feet per day spur line from Glennallen to the Enstar Hub at Palmer to relieve the gas shortages in the Kenai/Cook Inlet gas fields? What would the pols have to commiserate over?! We did not need those jobs, either! Thank you Ralph and Sean!

Alaska did not need all of the jobs and businesses that would have been created by building the natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Remember, 138,000 Alaskans voted to build that pipeline. Just foolishness! Why, we don’t need to worry! We can all work for the State! Right, Gov?

After all, Conoco let the cat out of the bag just before the elections. The intent was to warehouse North Slope gas for at least another 20 years. Yet, Conoco is still going forward with Denali . . . ? Uh . . . some things are better left alone, I guess, otherwise it hurts your head trying to follow the logic.

Oh, you folks that opposed building the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline and shipping our gas to Asia markets were so sage. . . .

What was it Larry Persily opined? No pipeline for 20 years?

I guess that we are just supposed to forget that we have a gas shortage that will result in brown outs and a loss of heat and power for up to two years in south central if a compressor fails in the Kenai fields. What fun that promises!

Just think, over 300,000 Alaskans without heat and power during the coldest part of the winter, maybe two winters. And, most of them . . . armed. Uh, oh.

If that is a means to get property values down, that will do it, alright.

I guess we should also forget that during this last election, it was revealed that TAPS will reach a critical juncture much sooner than expected. The point at which TAPS cannot be restarted due to a shutdown is now much closer.

We were all fat dumb and happy thinking that TAPS would continue to transport oil down to 300,000 barrels per day production. Oh, no. This has been revised to 500,000 barrels per day. Meaning, that within the coming four years, we may see an end to TAPS moving our oil once production reaches 500,000 bpd or less, and there is a shutdown of the pipeline for any reason. With that shutdown ends 90% of the State’s revenue.

Do you think there will be an income tax, not to mention a State sales tax and, maybe even a State property tax proposed over the next two Legislative sessions?

Wait a minute.

We have the Permanent Fund! Let’s see, that’s about $35B or so. At a yearly budget of $11B growing by at least 10% per year, we can hold out for . . . 3 years? Then what? Don’t think about it, our legislators and governor aren’t, so why should we?

How long will the PFDs last? Anyone want to make a bet past 2013?

The only “pipeline plan” being discussed publically is the idea of building a 36 inch or 48 inch natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Fairbanks. After that . . . who knows? Indecision reigns supreme. Gone is any mention of the “bullet line” from Fairbanks to Anchorage. Avoided like the black plague is any mention of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Now, all we hear is that importing natural gas to Cook Inlet is inevitable.

In Canada, poly pipelines are being installed year round for gas distribution to market. You see it all over the west. Just awesome their expansion and aggressive development of their NG resources. The Canadian government just approved the MacKenzie River Delta 1.5 bcf natural gas pipeline project. In the mean time, the success of the LNG export facility at Kittimat, B.C. is no longer doubted by any here or there.

The MacKenzie River Delta pipeline is going ahead, the national energy board in Ottawa said it needs to be done, all the aboriginal malarkey is settled, and it is and will always be . . . Canada first. That project will pretty much see an end to the hot air expounded over any idea of moving our gas to Canada. We won’t be able to give our gas away if this dodo bird attitude on the part of those in Juneau continues regarding LNG exports and instate use of the gas liquids.

Yet, in Alaska . . . well, the sage heads in the Legislature and the Governor’s office have decided that in about 5 years or so the Grinch is going to visit all of us, if not before. “Before” may be a compressor failure on the Kenai, or the inability to restart TAPS after a maintenance or leak shut down. Then what? The silence has been deafening.

The Alaska Legislature and our governors have been very successful in ignoring the obvious. We have to trust them to keep doing just that. After all, a little misery and cold never hurt anyone. Right? Just suck it up and keep moving, soldier.

Enjoy heat and lights while we have ‘em!

And, then, when we all get cold enough and angry enough, let’s enjoy tar and feathering the legislators and the governors who served from 2002 forward who ignored our will. There will still be diesel to heat the tar.

Sarah looks good in black, too.

Just before we do Parnell, we should give him an award for the success of his brilliant plan. After we finish tar and feathering him, we will send him to Washington to advise President Obama on resource development, cutting government, and population control.

Parnell broke the law.

The Republican Primary was a disappointment. In more ways than one. Not only did Parnell receive the nod to move on to the General Election, but he was given a free pass on his violation of his oath of office. Parnell has violated Article II Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, not once, but twice. Now, we hear that it may actually have been 3 times with the appointment of a State employee to Dahlstrom's seat.

Parnell has deferred owing up to his indiscretions by alleging that he acted upon the advice of an unnamed junior attorney at the Dept. of Law. This excuse completely ignores the fact that Sean Parnell is a lawyer himself. What? He no longer understands the Constitution, much less now apparently has a diminished capacity to understand the English language?

Art. II Sec. 5:
§ 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. This section shall not prevent any person from seeking or holding the office of governor, secretary of state, or member of Congress. This section shall not apply to employment by or election to a constitutional convention."

What part of "for one year after" does not this governor understand? I think the provision is very clear. Gee, even I understand it.

What I find most disturbing are those who voted for both Joe Miller as a strong constitutionalist versus Lisa Murkowski as the compromised insider who ignored the Constitution. Yet, many of these folks voted for Parnell. How does one reconcile that paradox?

Sarah Palin campaigned on a platform that included integrity. Sean Parnell cannot lay claim to that, given his violation of the State's Constitution, to which he swore an oath to uphold and defend. Which, given the Dahlstrom and Therriault affairs, he did not.

How could one vote for Miller, then vote for Parnell?

How could one then claim the moral and legal high ground over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid trashing of our national Constitution?

Another excuse that I heard was that Faibanks and North Pole hold former Sen. Gene Therriault in such high regard that they were willing to ignore the fact of the constitutional affront by his appointment on the part of Governor Parnell.

Allegedly, the Palin crowd was also a factor, voting for Joe Miller, and then voting for Parnell due to his association with Sarah. Let me remind that Sarah Palin did not select Sean Parnell during the 2006 Primary. Parnell won the slot as her Lt. Gov. by winning the Primary. That he did on his own. I do not recall Sarah Palin going out of her way for Parnell’s election.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that these folks hold the Constitution of the State of Alaska in such low regard that it can be violated with impunity by a sitting governor, so long as that governor is Republican?

There are those who believe in "my party, right or wrong". I am not one of those. I believe in the rule of LAW.

If one can violate one's oath with impunity, then what's next?

I am more than worried about the integrity of the Alaska Republican voter and the hypocrisy demonstrated in this election. Even more troubling is the lack of integrity and honor demonstrated by our current Governor.

Will the new Legislature have the courage to impeach this governor, if he prevails in the General Election?

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?

AGIA IS A SCREW OVER IF THE PIPELINE GOES TO CANADA!

“TransCanada's inclusion of an LNG option throws a curve into Alberta's hopes to expand its petrochemical industry, which is relying on Alaska gas volumes, especially the liquids contained in the gas stream, for feedstock. According to the Industry Canada website, there are currently insufficient volumes of feedstock to support big new investments in Alberta's petrochemical sector”.—Shaun Polczer, Calgary Herald 1/30/2010

http://www.calgaryherald.com/Alaska+could+bypass+Alberta/2502872/story.html

There it is in black and white from a Canadian source for those of you who still feel that there is any upside to allowing our gas to be transported to Canada.

What does Alaska get out of AGIA to Canada or Denali? SCREWED, THAT’S WHAT!!!!!!!

Any Alaska politician who supports either of the Canadian options should be voted out of office, if not outright impeached!

There is it is, Governor Sean Parnell.

AGIA is dead but for the politics

Obviously, AGIA is not dead. However, the announcement Friday of a cost increase of an estimated $41B is not conducive to supporting a belief that either AGIA or Denali can be feasible economically. Especially, since the completion date is estimated to be at least 2020.

Given that costs of operations on the North Slope have risen 68% from 2001 to 2009, one can reasonably figure that AGIA’s costs will increase between now and any anticipated start date, say 2015. Since AGIA’s estimated cost was about $15B-$25B, depending upon the source during the Palin v. Murkowski campaign, one can estimate that the completed cost will be somewhere between $75B and $100B by estimated shipment of the first gas in 2020.

Shell announced that it is cutting back its expansion of production of oil from Alberta’s tar sands from a target of 700,000bpd to 225,000bpd for the foreseeable future. Shell will be shifting its emphasis to offshore and onshore exploration, something the company had not emphasized until a recent change in management. Increased cost in the reduction in the expansion of the tar sands recovery was cited as the reason.

It is my belief that AGIA is dead, given the shale gas production Outside and in Canada. Exxon spent $41B buying the company with the largest shale gas holdings in the U.S. One also has to remember that Exxon is committed to a 25 year commitment with Qattar to bring gas to the U.S. The expansion of LNG terminals in the U.S. to 4.5bcf is an interesting number, as that was the planned capacity of big diameter pipelines from Alaska to Canada to the U.S. Any introduction of Alaska gas at that rate would have a depressing effect on the price of natural gas in the region in which it is introduced.

There are those who believe that the President will not allow Alaska to export LNG. That given this belief, the all-Alaska pipeline would not be feasible as Alaska’s gas could not then be exported. This position is belied by the fact that Alaska has been shipping gas from Nikkiski to Japan for the last 40 years. Given this fact, the all-Alaska pipeline would have a market in Asia, primarily in Japan.

The big question now, is what will be the outcome of the AGIA Open Season? Will the producers step up to send gas to Canada? Not likely, for the reasons stated above. However, AGIA was flexible, with a 2.0bcf pipeline to Valdez as the LNG option. That option may see interest, as Asia offers higher prices to Outside markets now uncertain because of shale gas development.

The outcome of the AGIA Open Season will not be known until NOVEMBER, after the general election is over. This plays in the favor of Gov. Sean Parnell. However, if the arguments on the part of Bill Walker regarding the viability and benefits of the all-Alaska pipeline option continue to find favor with Alaskans, Gov. Parnell will need something substantive to show the people that AGIA will produce results before the August Primary.

It is obvious, with the filing of HB312, that Rep. Jay Ramras, Rep. Mike Chennault, Rep. Mark Neumann, Rep. Bill Stoltze, Sen. Lesil McGuire, Sen. Charlie Huggins are hoping to confuse the idea of the Noah Parks Highway 500mcf pipeline sufficiently to get the people to forget that we voted for the all-Alaska route back in 2002 and again in 2006 with the election of Palin/Parnell. These legislators forget that they have ignored the will of the people as egregiously as did governors Murkowski, Palin and Parnell.

The reality here is that although there was no announcement, AGIA’s viability is suspect, due to the doubling of the price tag over less than 4 years. That fact cannot be attractive to potential investors.

The only sure thing is the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline proposed by Bill Walker, and voted upon by Alaskans in two separate elections. That pipeline is permitted, and ready to begin construction. All it needs is a governor to lead the way.