Lies and coal mine, a solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah Palin--she's baaaack!

FINALLY, OUR GOVERNOR IS BACK IN ALASKA ACTING LIKE A GOVERNOR!

The Road to Nome, a long overdue improvement to the State's overland infrastructure is now being proposed by Gov. Palin. This is the first time there has been support by any administration since Walter Hickle in the late 60s.

Even more telling is the beginning of a thaw between Exxon and the State with the approval by DNR for Exxon to drill two gas wells at Pt. Thompson this year, along with building necessary pad and ice road support infrastructure. Granted, a long way to go to settle the State's angst against Exxon for delaying and setting upon gas leases when Alaska and the United States could use the royalties and natural gas. The natural gas would offset Middle East sources, meaning less money to the terrorists and cheaper gas for Americans.

The progress towards the start of a 24 inch natural gas in-state pipeline from the North Slope to Palmer or Anchorage is positive with a potential completion in 2014. That's cutting it too close for my liking in terms of completion before Cook Inlet reserves are depleted, but at least it is a date.

The Healy coal power generation plant sale to Golden Valley Electric is another good decision. The new power plant will reduce costs to central Alaska power consumers and demonstrate that a clean coal generation facility is a necessary and viable power generation technology for Alaska and the U.S. That plant has set idle for better than 10 years after a tremendous investment by the Dept. of Energy and the State of Alaska.

Now, if Sarah will get spending under control and show us the "fiscal conservative" side of the Palin Administration, the Sarah Palin I voted for and supported will be occupying the Governor's office.

The next item should be a vocal and public challenge by our Governor to the ANILCA restrictions regarding rights of way. The Izembek NWR land swap is an indication of unfairness in ANILCA. The State of Alaska should be allowed to build roads as it needs them and where it deems fit, just as every other State has been allowed to do so. To deny Alaska is to impose a restriction that is bad faith with respect to the intent of our Statehood Compact.

WELCOME BACK, SARAH, AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

National Energy Policy

Like Winnie the Pooh, who ignores the obvious, the United States of America is slowly declining into straits that would be familiar to the second and third world.

It is recognized that there is growing pressure on the power grids of America. In California the highest power demand ever was recorded at 5.3 gigawatts as a result of the recent high temperatures. 20 small California communities suffered rolling blackouts as power was shuffled to keep Los Angeles residents’ air conditioners functioning.

Fuel prices continue to skyrocket, which will result in accelerated inflation until demand, speculation, and supply stabilize.

Unlike, Europe and Japan, our gas prices have more to do with the lack of refining capacity than government taxes. The U.S. national tax on motor fuels is 24 cents per gallon for diesel and 18 cents per gallon for gasoline. E.U. taxes are a minimum of $.42 EU per liter. This is amounts to a rough equivalent of $1.68 per U.S. gallon for taxes in the EU.

For those who believe motor fuels costs in the U.S. should be as high as it is Europe or Japan, that means increasing taxes on motor fuels by up to at least 5-8 times over the current level of taxation.

There is a potential answer to this energy dilemma that you will not hear about in the main stream media. The United States Air Force is working to wean the USAF off of fuel refined from foreign oil to support domestic training and operations.

The USAF is building a pilot refinery to convert coal to fuel and another to convert bio sources to fuel. Were these refineries to be proposed on private lands, they would be opposed by the nimby crowd and the eco freaks. Law suits would blossom in the courts as prolific as dandelions in a Spring lawn. Fortunately, the USAF showed some intelligence in its planning and provided for the location of these facilities on its own military reservations.

The largest landholder in the U.S. is government at every level.

Military reservations can become a haven for new refineries and new power plants.

It would be logical for the military to provide for its own needs by reducing dependence and competition with the civilian market for fuel sources.

Coal fired power plants can be built, new coal to fuel conversion plants can built, and new nuke power plants can be built on government lands. Either on military reservations exclusively, or upon government lands away from population centers, but within the surface transportation infrastructure and within the electrical power grid infrastructure.


To meet the needs of the U.S. in general, the use of other government lands could provide locations for the refining and power generation infrastructure necessary for the civilian market.

What it would take to ensure the success of such an initiative to prevent the U.S. from degenerating into a third rate power, is a mandate from the President authorizing the various branches of the U.S. military to utilize military lands for the installation of power plants and refineries in order to become independent of foreign oil using the USAF model. That is the first step.

The next step is for the President to declare a national emergency and to prioritize increased energy generation capacity and fuel refining capacity to resolve the looming energy crisis. The President could do this by authorizing the utilization of government lands to be leased to power companies and leased to companies desiring to build large scale refineries and fuel conversion facilities. Lands that would be reasonably situated, lands that would not require decades of impact studies before construction could begin.

The courts have been the tool of those who desire the U.S. to be less. By making this a national emergency/defense issue, the courts would no longer play spoiler.

The cost of fuel is high in the United States for one basic reason. Refining capacity in the U.S. has been artificially limited by those in this country who put their own interests above that of the nation. There is plenty of oil. Oil supply is not the underlying problem.

There is no doubt that between developing coal to fuel conversion capacity, tar sands development, increasing nuclear power generation capacity, lifting the ban on oil and gas drilling off the coast of the U.S., opening ANWR to oil and gas development, and constructing a natural gas pipeline to bring Alaska’s natural gas to market in the U.S., that the United States would eventually be in the enviable position to virtually eliminate foreign oil and natural gas dependence.

Nuclear power generation would free natural gas for home heating, fuel cell, and other uses, by reducing the need for natural gas for power generation.

To remove the need for foreign oil would also reduce rising tensions in the world over the supply of that oil.

Increasing power generation capacity reduces the cost of power, and should favorably impact the economics associated with hydrogen generation, and electric automobiles. Reducing cost of power should accelerate the introduction of these alternatives.

Seems to me, the nimbys and the eco freaks would figure this out.

I am not advocating money. Just a means to provide the land upon which to build the infrastructure to keep this country from becoming less and less by reducing the opportunity for sabotage through the courts of needed new refineries and power plants.

The USAF has shown the way.