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.

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.

Nancy Pelosi--where do we get these people?!!!

Check this out.

Pelosi claims that 500,000,000 Americans lose their jobs per month!

What a moron!

See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E

One has to wonder. . . .

Doing it right' means Alaska will get the most out of its gas

(Background on the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline situation. Written just prior to the 2006 election. Relevant to any Alaska Gas Pipeline discussion, the arguments against an LNG port at Valdez, Alaska to ship North Slope natural gas to the U.S. were answered here. )

The gas line route favored by Gov. Frank Murkowski and inherited from former Gov. Tony Knowles - "My Way is the Highway" - parallels the trans-Alaska oil pipeline right of way to Big Delta, and then goes east into Canada.

Murkowski's route differs from the original Knowles route in that it extends the pipeline through Canada into the United States near Chicago. This is the longest and most expensive route of any proposed thus far, some 3,500 miles with an estimated cost of $25 billion. This cost estimate has increased by $5 billion since Congress passed loan guarantees in 2004 totaling $18 billion.

Murkowski is seeking a $4 billion investment ownership by the state of Alaska. If built, the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline is to be a 48-, 52- or 54-inch pipeline with a capacity of 4.5 billion cubic feet per day and expandable to 6 bcf per day. Estimated completion date is 2016, if the producers decide the line is viable after another long five-year study.

Problems with the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline routes include: Rising cost estimates; North Slope natural gas reserves are insufficient to cover the financing cost over 30 years; steel for rolling the pipe requires a full year's world steel production quota; and new, and, as yet, untried pipe technology is also required.

The only viable alternative to the governor's Canadian pipeline is a liquefied natural gas project advocated so passionately over the years by Jeff Lowenfels. It is the same route originally permitted by Yukon Pacific Corp. The permits to build the Yukon Pacific natural gas pipeline have been in place since the mid-1980s.

In other words, if the producers would sell North Slope natural gas, construction on this line could begin almost immediately. This pipeline route parallels the existing trans-Alaska oil pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez. Obviously, all jobs and construction generated by this route stay in Alaska.

Most importantly, this route would generate a spur line into the Matanuska Valley along the Glenn Highway or possibly down the Parks Highway. Alaskans recognized the logic and benefits of this route when we passed Proposition 3 in the 2002 election, which created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority.

The Yukon Pacific pipeline was designed to carry 2.2 bcf per day to a LNG plant to be constructed in Valdez. The liquefied gas was to be transported to other markets by LNG tankers. The economics for this pipeline was predicated on natural gas with a market price at or above $3 per million British thermal units (a million Btu equals approximately 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas). The current market price is still above $8 per million Btu and has recently been as high as $15 per million Btu.

ANGDA carefully assessed the original Yukon Pacific LNG project and found it both economical and feasible. ANGDA has included a spur line of 500,000 cubic feet per day into Southcentral Alaska via Palmer as part of its pipeline plans. The ANGDA pipeline could be moving gas within five years after the start of construction, including the necessary LNG plant at Valdez. The cost is estimated at $14 billion.

The Alaska Gas Port Authority is a consortium of Fairbanks, the North Slope Borough and Valdez to promote and build a natural gas pipeline using the Yukon Pacific route, but with a difference. The capacity of the pipeline that the port authority is advocating is now up to 4.5 bcf per day to match the Murkowski-Knowles pipeline. However, this increase in capacity also changes the dynamics of the original route permitting. This means that the port authority will have to acquire some new permits, and repermit others, meaning additional delays before construction would begin. The port authority also advocates and promises to build a spur line to Palmer.

Potentially, with the ANGDA or port authority pipeline proposals, Alaska gas could be flowing to market by 2012.

As noted by Pedro van Meurs in the Fairbanks Daily News Miner Jan. 30, in comparing Alaska's hydrocarbon resource development policy with that of Norway: "With the present system, wealth is slipping through the fingers of Alaskans and Norwegians hold on to it ... Norwegians are doing something right, and Alaskans are doing something wrong." Van Meurs is the Murkowski administration's chief consultant in the gas line negotiations with the major North Slope producers.

Why not an Alaska petrochemical industry stripping our gas of natural gas liquids - butane, ethane and propane - for use in Alaska to provide new industry and creating new jobs, before our natural gas leaves the state? Why do we have to keep doing it wrong and let the real wealth of using our resources to build industry in Alaska continue to slip through our fingers?
Alaskans need the opportunity, jobs and the industry our natural gas represents, not more government.