Rep. Les Gara Says It’s State Sovereignty vs. Exxon in Alaska’s Pipeline Politics.
By Rep. Les Gara (D)
I might lose my honorary Mudflats Fan club membership over this one. But I really need to say this. The future of an Alaska gas pipeline, and whether this state cedes its sovereignty over our natural resources to the Exxon’s of the world, depend on it. How do I say this politely?
There’s a temptation in politics to criticize everything proposed by those politicians you don’t support. I understand it. I resisted that temptation for 8 years under President George W. I now see this going on with the Alaska gas pipeline, and the politics are getting dangerous.
As Governor Palin becomes more of a lightning rod, lots of Republicans and Democrats who oppose her have started to oppose EVERYTHING she does – and many of her most devout fans have likewise started vilifying anyone who doesn’t agree with her on EVERYTHING. We all have to, um, what are the words I’m looking for. Oh yeah. STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!
On the Gasline, opposing the Governor’s position means this. It means opposing the efforts of EVERY DEMOCRAT in the Legislature. Much of the Republican Party leadership fought us on this one. Don’t get the wrong impression. To get a Gasline, it could be that President Obama, and Congress will have to come to the rescue to help us. The President lists this project as one of his major energy priorities – we need it to replace fuels that produce far too much greenhouse gas, and need it as a bridge fuel to get America to a renewable energy future.
Time out. I probably need to build up my Progressive Street Cred before I lose you.
Street Cred interruption. Street Cred interruption.
When Governor Palin’s gone too far, I’ve been vocal in the state and national press. Ask Google. Search the Mudflats, Daily Kos and Huffington Post archives. And as a vocal Democrat, I haven’t received a lot of love from the Republican Party – a party whose biggest historical donor, VECO CEO Bill Allen, had some choice words to say about me in his federal corruption trial. I’ve put hundreds of hours into fundraising to elect good state, local and federal candidates who’ll improve our state and country (I’m looking for a good, eager person to take over my unbelievably fun House Democratic Campaign Committee fundraising duties, any takers?). Oh, and I’ve been a vocal supporter of President Obama long before he won the Democratic Primaries, back when he was just a long shot.
Hopefully I have enough Progressive Cred to get you through this column now.
Here’s the crux of my concern. Opposing Alaska’s plan for an independent gas pipeline – an issue we agree with the Governor and a cadre of Republicans on – translates into siding with Exxon, British Petroleum, and other oil interests whose executives are seeking billions in unjustified corporate concessions from the Alaska public. They’re starting to salivate in the Exxon and British Petroleum board rooms over the prospect that those who don’t love the Governor will reflexively oppose her – and our – plan for a gas pipeline.
Here’s why. For decades Alaskans have been right to join in a common goal to build a natural gas pipeline. We need it for local energy. And we need it because as oil production declines, we’ll need a job and tax base. Without oil or natural gas revenue every Alaskan worker would have to pony up roughly $15,000 in sales or income tax payments, maybe their PFD, and then property taxes on top of that. That’s a recipe for pain, bad roads, bad schools, and no progress on our greatest problems.
So, why is the TransCanada license we agreed to sign so important?
1. The major oil companies likely oppose a gasline.
Why isn’t clear, and until we get access to their Board minutes, we won’t know for sure. There is evidence that Exxon, Conoco and British Petroleum may want to delay a project because sending Alaska gas to the Lower 48 will reduce the price they get for the natural gas there. Or they may not want a gasline until later because that’s what fits their business plans. They may want to keep using their natural gas as long as possible to pressurize oil out of their North Slope oil fields, even if delay kills a gasline project forever.
2. The TransCanada project places pressure on the oil companies to move forward.
Remember what we had before TransCanada? The Frank Murkowski proposal with Conoco, Exxon and BP? The one that would have, by contract, prohibited us from fixing the flawed oil tax law he signed, and that’s put the FBI on overtime? The one that included billions of dollars in tax concessions, and great financial risk for the state?
That’s closer to what you’d get if you only negotiated with the oil companies to build a gasline.
Where do the oil companies get their leverage? Well, they hold the leases to the major known reserves of natural gas on the North Slope. If they know we are relying on them to build a gasline, they can withhold their cooperation until they get the tax breaks they want, and the terms they want. If they’re the only game in town, they won’t build a gasline until we say “Uncle.” The terms they demand won’t be in our favor.
Today, with TransCanada moving ahead, the oil companies have quickly created their own pipeline company, Denali. To date we don’t know whether the major oil companies have any real intent of building a Denali line, or whether they have done this for show, to get the public to fall out of love with the TransCanada project. My belief is that if we stopped moving ahead with the TransCanada project, the Denali project would disappear, or remain only if we promised the billions in tax and other concessions the oil companies will demand.
3. What other terms will the oil companies demand?
Our experts call what the major oil companies want “Basin Control.” What’s that? They don’t want other companies to make money off North Slope natural gas. If there’s a gas pipeline, the major oil producers want as many North Slope leases as possible for themselves. How can they make sure they get their way? Well, if a pipeline is built, the initial one will be sized to fit the gas reserves the major oil companies hold. In an ideal world, independent companies will then look for gas, hire workers, and produce gas that produces more state revenue. But it’s not that easy.
New production will likely require an expansion of the original gas pipeline. If the pipeline is owned by the major producers, they’d want the independent companies to pay for the full cost of the expansion, through what’s called “incremental rates” – transportation rates that charge the new producers for the cost of expanding the pipeline. That could make production by new producers cost-prohibitive.
Here’s the fair way to price natural gas transportation. Natural gas is a public Alaska resource. As Alaskans we want to encourage production, and under Alaska law – and the TransCanada license – we have required the pipeline owner to agree to what’s called “rolled in rates,” and to argue for rolled in rates before the Federal Energy Regulator Commission. What are rolled in rates? Those rates would charge all gas shippers, including the major producers, the cost of expanding the line. That would make gas production more economic for new producers, would likely spur new production, and is not to the advantage of the major producers. This is one of the rules the major oil companies have vocally opposed. The Denali line will not abide by the requirements on rolled in rates that TransCanada has agreed to.
4. Where Can We Stumble?
Next year TransCanada is required to hold an “open season”. This is where the battle for Alaska’s gasline future will be waged next. In an open season the major oil companies will state whether they’ll agree to sell their gas into the TransCanada line. It is expected they will say “no”, and try to cause TransCanada to fold. No one can build a gasline if they don’t have a promise that there will be gas they can charge to ship.
5. The $500 Million Question.
The critics of the current proposal have focused on the $500 million contribution the state has promised. Though, by the way, we’ll get much of that back if a gasline is built. By law, the rates TransCanada charges, and that come out of state taxes, can’t include this $500 million contribution – that is, the $500 million state contribution will lower the transportation charge allowed by FERC on this line.
So, why did we have to contribute $500 million? Well, it’s pretty disingenuous of the major producers to complain about this provision in the law. The state had to provide it to help TransCanada through the delay and uncertainty in this gasline that will likely be caused with the oil companies don’t show up at open season. That is, we all know the major oil companies may try to slow this project down, and possibly kill it. To get independent companies to bid on the gasline, we had to provide a financial contribution to help them through the uncertainty.
At that point we may have to threaten to sue to require the major producers to sell their gas (they likely have a legal obligation to sell gas into a pipeline if the pipeline charges a rate that makes gas production economic).
Alaska’s gasline future is in our hands.
We shouldn’t play politics with it. In this case, joining the chorus against the TransCanada project is joining Exxon. It’s joining British Petroleum. It’s joining those who want you to give up your state’s sovereignty.
In politics it’s rare that your political opponents are always wrong. And it’s rare that those you support are always right. I hope you’ll keep that in mind when you hear, next year, that the major oil companies haven’t shown up at open season. That should be call for us to stand together with resolve, not to celebrate the failure of the TransCanada proposal. It should be a call for us to stand together in our effort to move the TransCanada project forward.
Representative Les Gara
Alaska State Legislature
716 W. 4th Avenue, Suite 310
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: 907-269-0106
Fax: 907-269-0109
www.akdemocrats.org
But where do you stand on the 10th Amendment movement?
First, thank you so very much for communicating directly with this blog community.
Second, your rationale and effort to cut through partisan bickering is appreciated.
Third, and most important, your details and background on this matter are what’s needed from all elected officials. Your ‘article’ should be required reading for all Alaska citizens to be able to make good decisions and support better policies.
Thank you.
Rep. Gara, you know already that most Palinistas are adamantly opposed to the federal government — i.e., President Obama — and Congress coming to the rescue to help see the NG pipeline project through to completion, don’t you?
They see it as Obama stealing the limelight, publicity, credit, whatever from Sarah Palin and taking it all for himself if federal help succeeds in getting the project moving.
It’s pretty sad to see a group of followers like the devoted fans of Sarah Palin so willing to cut off their noses to spite their faces, as the saying goes. They’d rather see the pipeline project die than have their idol share credit with That One.
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it, what motivates people to display several of the Seven Deadly Sins so openly and blatantly?
AKM, I believe true progressives look out for the people’s interest wherever that takes them. This is an outstanding background/education piece I really needed, and will share widely. I think it only increases your cred, IMHO.
Thank you Rep. Gara and AKM for publishing this information. We appreciate your sharing it with our community. My issue has to do with the fact that at the time AGIA passed, everyone knew that the major oil companies would probably not take part in the open season, so it still looks like a pipe dream, in every sense of those words. Is it realistic to expect that some independent exploratory companies will decide to invest in new leases, and are there many new leases to be had? I wish you all luck with this project: the needs are righteous, but the economics don’t seem to be there.
Mr. Gara, your letter is thoughtful and informative. However, I didn’t take the article in Portfolio to be a call for anti-gasline politics. Perhaps I am wrong, but I took it to mean that the path Palin is taking to accomplish this daunting task is fatally flawed. I’m all in favor of stopping the strangle hold that Exxon et al have on gas, and I think putting the gasline in someone else’s hands is probably a good idea. However, kicking people in the teeth, as Palin tends to do, is most likely the wrong tactic to employ. All players need to be on board for this to work. She seems to see the “big picture” and forget the details, but success is in the details of such a huge endeavor.
Umm, what’s wrong with working with Big Oil if they actually own the gas rights and can help get it built?
Seems like EVERYONE should just work together on a single project. The US versus THEM mentality doesn’t work – that’s why this pipeline has been 30 years in the making with no real progress.
Can’t we just all get along to make all of America better? Is that’s so hard?
We need to treat this economic crisis like a 9/11. Let’s all do our part and work together. We;ve done it before.
I just don’t see how GINO is ever going to pull this off. She doesn’t have the political strength, depth, or skills to manipulate big oil in Alaska to play ball. This is a stale mate, and then TC gets to keep the 500 mill and walk away.
Next year is a long time away in the “Magical Thinking” land of GINO. Gino has a few gates that could swing open any day and her house of cards could come tumbling down.
Does GINO Lite have the skills to push through TC pipeline?
Dear Rep. Gara–
Let me say, like those before me have, that your letter is much appreciated. You’ve laid out the central issue–that when one must choose between an ally with whom one finds one’s self in frequent, deep disagreement and an ally who has exploited–and intends to continue that exploitation–one must sometimes make a hard choice.
What I find myself wondering, though, is whether this is in reality a choice at all. If the oil companies currently control the lion’s share of the natural gas which must be shipped through the pipeline in order to make it viable, is it realistic to even hold out the hope for enough small, independent companies to step up and fill the breach?
Perhaps your central point–that sometimes we must find ways to work with those whose policies and goals don’t march well with ours–is one that the Governor needs to hear. Alienating those who must be your largest customers is just not good business, no matter how you slice it.
Given that business reality, the question becomes two: First, is it remotely realistic to consider building a pipeline if the biggest customers have already taken care of their shipping needs elsewhere? Second, can an agreement with the oil companies be structured in such a way as to protect Alaska’s environment, culture, and citizens?
All the support and goodwill in the world won’t change the fact that if the pipeline is to succeed, it must have enough customers to be profitable–and that right now, it looks like without the Big Boys, that’s not the case.
Again, thanks for your post–it provides the kinds of details and thoughtful observations that start fruitful conversations.
Hey, MF’rs, I’m looking for images of my sign & costume from the Park Strip anti-Sarah rally -way back when. I was the hulked out Hillary Clinton with the Sarah Palin doll wrapped in the US flag surrounded by her bullet point beliefs. Please send large format images to lonetreeone@yahoo.com
THX
Thanks for the info. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so I’m not surprised that Palin and someone will agree on something.
I wonder if the assurances that $500 million will buy, could have been purchased with thoughtful management of Alaska’s assets. Its a high price to pay if the oil companies don’t show up at open season.
You, Les, are in the position of making the best of the current situation, and will affect no practical benefit by analyzing what should have happened.
Here in the blogosphere we can spend time to snark joke and vent when one of our leaders goes off in characteristic maverickey style with dubious chance of a good result.
The future of the gas line is uncertain and will require skill leadership and management skill to pull off. This is why I personally think it’s a mistake as long as Palin is behind it. I think there’s a good chance that $500 million has been substantially wasted. The project may fail or go off budget. This attempt may become known as the pipeline to nowhere.
And it may put Alaskans in the position of deciding how much good money to throw after bad or just try something else.
I don’t think its wrong or unprogressive to support a pipeline, I think its a mistake for Palin to be behind it plan it and manage it.
Its a mistake I can criticize from afar, and one you will have to work with.
Thats my $.02
Good luck, and thanks for writing.
Thanks for the post, Mr. Gara.
I must admit that my overall impression of your discussion is that the TransCanada pipeline “idea” is basically a defensive posture that’s supposed to look like an independent rebellious move against the oil companies. Cutting one’s nose to spite the face comes to mind. As you said in your paragraph labeled #4: “No one can build a gasline if they don’t have a promise that there will be gas they can charge to ship.”
Mr Knowles takes a pragmatic view that makes sense to me in this quote of his from the Portfolio article:
“It’s just so puzzling,” he told me, “that the state has gone in the direction of dividing the players instead of trying to bring them together. It dumbfounds me. I’m not sure what point the governor is trying to prove, but everything she’s doing is the opposite of ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ This shouldn’t be about creating enemies or making friends. Emotion shouldn’t be the basis of public policy. What the state should be doing right now is not demonizing, but negotiating with interested parties to try to make something happen that would be good for all concerned. The window of opportunity is closing. This gas-line opportunity is going to pass us by. It’s like we’re sitting here in our log cabin on the frontier, and the wind is howling all around us, and we’re heating ourselves by burning our own furniture.”
If the companies who own the majority of the gas refuse to sell it, what’s the point of a pipeline? It seems to me one of the first steps in this process should have been getting the owners of the gas to agree to sell it.
Where there no American companies qualified to handle the building of the pipeline? I remember reading awhile ago that Palin almost tailor made this contract for TransCanada. Also, TransCanada is already asking for more money. How much will it really cost Alaskans and the rest of the US taxpayers?
Completely and Totally OT, but you will NEVER guess who I actually saw in Juneau today!
If Les Gara wants some “street cred,” he can start by initiating statutes that make it illegal for a governor (or any other state employee) to get per diem for living in their own house, for taking family members around the country (eg Bristol to NYC for 4 days in a $700/night luxury hotel for a four hour meeting- to which Bristol had not been invited), and so on.
It’s one thing to support the governor on the gasline issue- it’s a completely different matter to look the other way and pretend that these violations of ethics didn’t exist. As far as I am concerned, it’s akin to AIG handing out bonuses and ignoring it.
And if AGIA was such a great deal for Alaskans and our sovereignty, why did only one company show up- and a Canadian company at that.
The Federal Government has already laid down the law concerning who gets to put gas in any line built from the slope. It goes like this, if you have gas and can get it to the line, it goes in period. Little guy or big guy, it goes in. Trans-Canada is not going to order or lay one stick of pipe until the big producers write the check, period. Might as well wait for the ice to melt and make the slope the Qatar of the north. Democracy is reading the eulogy at Capitalism’s funeral while Fascism runs the teleprompter. Sarah Palin is just a pawn in their game, let’s not be a pawn in her’s……
Sorry if this sounds ignorant, but what is the criteria determining importance towards need, what percent goes to local AK energy need, what percent goes to AK jobs.
Forgive my needing to ask, but why don’t Alaskans pay personal state income tax, and how do Alaskan wages compare with the lower 48 incomes who primarily do pay state income tax. How is property tax handled?
To me if this big deal and expense, not only to Alaska but all U. S. tax payers, is mainly about AK jobs and AK state income, I’m sorry, other states have had to reinvent their industries to create jobs. And if AK can only survive by selling it’s natural resources, what happens when they are depleted? in 30 yrs, what then? So Alaska has basically boomed on oil for what 30-40 yrs? and now that particular source of oil income is diminishing, along with natural gas already being used?
This has nothing to do with how I think or feel about Governor Palin. I don’t mean to be callus, cold or rude, (really!) but is it really truly needed for the nation or mainly for Alaska. What is the global impact? what is the environmental impact? Is this because natural gas is overall less damaging to extract, transport and burn, less expensive than developing other means of energy? such as wave, geothermal or wind?
I don’t pretend to know what is doable in Alaska, but I do expect my federal tax dollars to be spent wisely.
TansCanada would own the pipeline? Would Alaskans end up paying for use of the pipeline over-time? Would the pipeline be primarily on US lands or Canada’s? What are Native Alaskans land rights re drilling and building pipelines? What about the Native rights in Canada for the pipeline in Canada? How much does moving Native Alaskans off traditional lands depend on the building of the pipeline? Are politicians and ‘Big Oil’ simply waiting out the time until the people just simply give up and move away from ‘subsistence’ lifestyles?
Big Oil owns the gas / oil by lease forever? Alaskans own the rights to the remaining unextracted oil? ‘Big Oil’ sounds like the party of ‘NO’ unfortunately. If that is so, wouldn’t it really take more expertise than GINO to even begin to work through these long-standing obstacles with the pipeline? Who are the real energy experts in AK that consider the collective benefits for the US? Is Bob Poe an energy expert?
I will simply check in later to see if these (IMHO) pertinent points are addressed. Alaskans have a lot of pipeline decisions to make. It seems difficult to separate pipe dreams from corrupted realities.
AKM, again it is a good thing that Les Gara posted here to speak to issues that y’all and the rest of us too.
AKM, again it is a good thing that Les Gara posted here to speak to issues FOR y’all and the rest of us too (other 49).
look — alaska, for whatever reasons it has, must take care of itself.
that said — please impeach your governor.
THEN if you can promise that Palin will never ever ever run for any political office, including the office of president or vice president
and if you elect a more reasonable governor and clean up more of the oil company related corruption that has found fortune in your state…..
THEN — you have my full attention to the matter of how to get Alaska natural gas anywhere – be it to the Tar Sands of alberta or eventually to some power company or (no matter how unlikely) to those purported hungry markets down below your state line.
but not a gosh darned second before. seriously.
there are reasons folks like myself came to the mudflats……..and the most prevalent reason was in response to the complete and total horror thrust upon us called Sarah Palin.
fix that — then we talk gas pipelines
Thank you to Les and AKM for helping us understand some of the complexities of the pipeline- it boggles the mind, but every little bit helps. And – thanks for giving some balance to our perspectives on the governor’s efforts in this area.
Thank you Rep. Gara for the heads up and AKM for ger most informative site.
I’m posting some links on my next post, which shows the big picture, pipelines joining Canada’s, Just giving the heads up. [so many links usually get placed on hold...]
I’ll include one now…
One is a map of the Denali Pipeline, [see map on RHS link]. Rep. Gara mentions.
Coming soon…
“Enbridge To Join Denali Pipeline”…
An article from the Edmonton [Alberta, Canada] Journal “Enbridge eyes stake in competing Alaska pipeline” [May, 2008]
I’ve posted this link before, KEYSTONE PIPELINE PARTNERSHIPS—TransCanada and AlbertaClipper—Enbridge
Forgive me I am not sure if I am digesting all the various points of view on the Gasline – but what comes to my mind is that a symbiotic relationship needs to be developed between:
1 ) TC is able to build & maintain the pipeline while earning a
“respectible profit”
2 ) the drilling & producing companies are treated with courtesy and
with knowledge that after they “sign on the bottom line” with TC,
they will not be taken to the cleaners with state and federal taxes,
rate increases, etc. And again – be able to make a “respectible profit”
They need each other (mutualistic relationship)
The States (TC) proposal won’t work without the gas/oil companies which won’t sign until they have some guarantee’s. Until they come to an agreement – the money already paid out may as well have been flushed.
Unfortunately, what I have read in the Portfolio article, is that SP/GINO wants it “her way or highway” ie: parasitic relationship. (reminds me of that former prez. what was his name ??) She doesn’t “want” the input of the producers but be able to dictate taxes, rates, fee’s, etc.
Help – am I reading this correctly??
Biologists define symbiosis as the relationship between two creatures who rely upon each other. The relationship is called mutualistic if both creatures benefit; if only one benefits, the relationship is called parasitic.
I think I’ll add 2 links to this post [may avoid holding pattern].
Enbridge To Join Denali Pipeline
Article from the above link….
From the Edmonton Journal, “Enbridge eyes stake in competing Alaska pipeline” [May, 2008]
2 links I’ve posted before, tying it all up in a nice bow…
KEYSTONE PIPELINE PARTNERSHIPS—TransCanada
AlbertaClipper—EnbridgeM
I have questions about this supposed pipeline, thanks Les Gara, for answering a few of them.
President Obama appears to be in favour of a pipeline.
It is beyond my comprehension that GINO thinks Big Oil shouldn’t be involved. They own/have rights to the commodity/resource.
Pardon me, Sarah, but could you puh-leese step out of the way, you’re a no-mind or some may rightly say, moron, your lack of ethics is gonna bite you in the ass in due time, and peach is really not your colour.
Oh your kids are off limits, Sarah? Whatevs. I pity your kids, Sarah, given that you used your children as part of the BIGGEST MEDICINE SHOW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS EVER WITNESSED. So much of what you said when you were campaigning in 2008 has now been exposed as NOT TRUE. You’re a liar, Sarah Palin, you’re a fraud, your jaw looks kinda saggy and you’re cross-eyed, beside that your voice is so shrill and annoying that Dick Cheney should have recorded it to use as torture in his illegal torture chambers!
Thank you Les for explaining this confusing and very important revenue producing project for Alaska. We have grown common place with the oil money that gets pumped into Alaska. You, more that we the people of Alaska, see the dwindling oil revenue that replenishes are states coffers.
There is no easy solution or quick fix for Alaska. When the price of oil climbs again, that will be good for the state, but hard on its people.
Doing more with less has to be the lesson of the day….
OK, InJuneau, I’ll bite. Whom did you see doing what?
Thoughts on Palin
Surely there is sufficient proof/evidence to impeach Sarah Palin?
Why is there all this, as they say, beating around the bush about that?
Just like the Diebold voter caging machines used to elect Dubya, though John Kerry actually got the most votes and should have won, what can you do?
Why is this this nomind PSYCHOTIC sociopath Sarah Palin, actually in charge of Alaska?
Riddle me this.
Canick for Choice
I guess being from Louisiana I just don.t get it.Here the oil and gas companies lease our mineral rights,pay us or the municipal ownersbonuses and royalties,and incur all of the costs to develop and ship our shale gas. If it is a bankable,moneymaking commodity,the oil companies will pay to build and ship.They are in business to make money.If it is not a moneymaker,then it needs subsidies for now and forever,until the gas runs out and the pipes rust.Who is expected to pay the shortfalls?Why not use the money to develop renewable energy for Alaska ?
Why pay to build and ship gas to Canada to use in their oil sludge sands oil production,that is already causing huge pollution problems? Who truly believes that the gas is needed in the lower 48 more than in Alaska ? Here we have more options that we shouild be persuing for renewables ,too,but Alaska seems to have more long term need of her own resources,given that infrastructure is slim and some technologies such as solar are not possible,along with extended periods to construct new green power plant options due to weather related delays.
@Aussie Blue Sky (22:07:00) :
The actual GINO herself, one kid in tow, getting out of the car (driven, not driving) at the actual Governor’s Mansion/House (depends on which sign you read) in the actual Capital City (the official, real one)!
Mr. Gara, thank you for the lessons on the gasline. Education is power. It benefits everyone in the lower 48 for Alaska to be financially sound as Alaska receives more of our federal tax dollars than it pays. I still don’t feel that I know enough about the Trans Canada proposal to agree with it. I do know, logically, just because big oil is not in control does not make it feasible.
One question I must ask, what policies of the George W. Bush administration did you agree with?
There is no doubt that there are laws in place which will put Sarah Palin a.k.a. GINO (governor in name only) in prison.
Citizens of Alaska need to familiarize themselves with said laws, and not only be witness to her illegal activities but oppose them! Otherwise GINO and others will stop at nothing to promote GINO lies!
I submit the following for your review, by Richard A. Fineberg … regarding the pipeline.
http://www.finebergresearch.com/
InJuneau (22:51:55) :
The actual GINO herself, one kid in tow, getting out of the car (driven, not driving) at the actual Governor’s Mansion/House (depends on which sign you read) in the actual Capital City (the official, real one)!
————————————————————
Maybe she had cookies in the oven.
here she comes…..
“Palin offers olive branch on gas taxes”
JUNEAU — Gov. Sarah Palin surprised state legislators Wednesday by indicating she is willing to negotiate how much the state taxes natural gas in order to attract oil companies to a pipeline project.
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/pipeline/story/728350.html
Injeneau – Were you close enough to chunk a shoe ??
sorry – Injuneau.
InJuneau (20:23:21) :
Completely and Totally OT, but you will NEVER guess who I actually saw in Juneau today!
++++++++++
You saw Elvis? Has he gone gray? Does he still have all his hair?
Here’s my take: Gasline is just fine. Just don’t do it while she’s in office to take the credit. Because she will, even though it’s not her baby. It’s all of OURS.
Thanks AKM, I like reading Gara.
Or to put it another way, if she screws up the pipeline the way she screwed up the land rights to the Wasilla sports complex, then the project is in trouble.
The scope and complexity of the pipeline is way beyond her ability to manage.
I don’t mean to seem insensitive to those closest to the project, but I am amused as I sit here at a great distance from AK and mock Ms Maverick. I suppose she’ll find a way to waste Federal, ( My ) money on this project. Ouch. Well, its funny anyway…
Self interest is an interesting human problem. We all know that the giant multinational “Big Oil” corps have only their own bottom line as their self interest. They have helped start wars around the globe (Middle East, Indonesia) to benefit their self interest. But Alaskans have also shown a lot of self interest in living off of Big Oil resources for many years without doing anything to create a new future without oil/gas dependency. They tend to alternate between demonizing Big Oil and holding their hands out for more “free” money.
I have no idea what the solution is, especially after all these years of doing it one way until everybody’s role seems to be set. I do know that Alaska has put itself in a bad bargaining position by allowing itself to be completely dependent on the oil industry (80% of its revenue) and never using all that free flowing money over the years to build a more diverse revenue base. Now Alaska is stuck with oil welfare, adversarial attitudes, and no other eggs in its basket. I think Knowles is basically right, that there needs to be more nonadversarial MUTUAL interest and less adversarial SELF interest. And GINO has basically used the adversarial self interest approach to promote her own ambitions, not for the good of the state. She has a history of exploiting adversarial positions for her own benefit, and this is just the biggest example.
Personally, I think Alaskans need to give up their PFD and start investing in a different future for Alaska. That may also include investing in a gas pipeline, but if Alaska continues to believe that the pipeline is the ONLY way to continue the glory days, and continues to believe it has the right to endless glory days, well, that’s not just sad, that’s ultimately very bad for the state.
And regardless of where the pipeline sits on the good/bad scale, I don’t think GINO should get credit for making it work, because it is not working at the moment or anytime in the immediate future, mostly due to her adversarial, self-interested, short-sighted ambition.
I haven’t followed all the links yet, BUT, if Canada Tar Sands is going to have anything to do with this, sorry, but in all wordly conciousness I would have to say NO WAY.
Canada Tar Sands is an environmental disaster, a terrible rape of the lands, and a toxic waste spill wating to happen.
I think all other avenues need to be explored for Alaska energy and jobs.
Absolutely do not benefit or add to the Tar Sands mess. In fact slap that mess with stricter environmental control for green house gases. Google Canada Tar Sands people, read what the natives downstream say about lack of fish, fish abnormalities and cancer rates, read about the tailing ponds which will last forever, read about the pristine Arboreal Forrest or it’s lack of. Read about bird migration. Read about what CA has do to diminish copper poison leaching into in rivers due to exposing mountain sides to rain and what mining gold and daming dams has done to river changes and farm lands.
These decisions have consequences that someone has to be responsible for!
Are Todd and his “contractor buddies” gonna get to bid on the gasline ?? you betcha !! wink – wink .
Yesterday I read the article by Shannyn Moore about the back room dealings involved with Tim Griffin. It was sickening. Gas line or not, delayed or not, if you think there aren’t those same kind of politics going on again with such a huge project then you might as well be standing in a blizzard wondering which way to go. Alaskan politcs is riddled with schemes and corruption yesterday and today and this project that is going to take years and years to complete. Everything has to be open to the public, everything – who is on the overseeing boards, who the investors are, length of permits, access, access, access demand it at every turn, at every cycle, all the time.
Sarah Palin is a frost heave in the road to a honest and open government that is for the people by the people but as we all know a frost heave can create damage to your car that will cost lots of money, have surprises and last a long time. Palin is short term but the pipeline is for a very long time.
I think the well-reasoned McGinnis article played a role in this “turn-around”.
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/pipeline/story/728350.html
OMG – Palin is making the following prediction-
“We will obviously get to a point of asking them if they are interested in hooking up with TransCanada,” Palin said. “That is what we predict will happen.”
In the spirit of civility, I say, good Idea Sarah.
Find out if the pipeline you’re planning on has any interest for the intended users.
I would have confirmed their interest first, before committing 500 million to, as Les Garah put it, –
to help TransCanada through the delay and uncertainty in this gasline that will likely be caused with the oil companies don’t show up at open season. That is, we all know the major oil companies may try to slow this project down, and possibly kill it. To get independent companies to bid on the gasline, we had to provide a financial contribution to help them through the uncertainty.
I would have tried to eliminate that first. It could have saved oh I dunno $500,000,000.00 ?
Silly me , I would have done what I often do with dinner guests. I find out if they want to come, and ask – Beef Chicken Fish or Vegetarian… first, THEN plan Then spend.
But hey that’s me.
Palin has cleverly Committed 1/2 billion dollars so as not to have to get screwed by US Big Oil. I guess she likes variety.
I hope Alaskans have lots of new Canadian friends now …
After reading through Mr. Gara’s article and all the responses, I am struck by one thing: Risk/Reward. There’s no doubt that oil and gas has been very lucrative, but I find myself wondering if, when we look at the big picture, it’s actually been good for Alaska. There have been a lot of sacrifices–the environment has suffered with the terrible oil spills and the destruction of habitat. Those who prefer a subsistence lifestyle have suffered as the economy has increasingly become focused around resource exploitation. The native peoples have suffered by being moved off their lands at the convenience of oil. And in the end, my reading indicates that what’s left is a state with crushing social and economic problems–and this, in spite of all the Big Money from Big Oil. There’s no doubt that oil has pumped a lot of dollars into the state coffers, but have those dollars really compensated for what oil has cost and is costing the state? I’m asking–I don’t live there, so I don’t have the right to an opinion on this subject.
My next question builds on the first. My understanding is that we are at the point in our global history where most of us recognize that we cannot continue like this forever–or even for much longer. We cannot continue to consume non-renewable resources indefinitely. If I’m understanding correctly, the pipeline is under consideration for that very reason–because the oil fields are becoming less profitable, and so the companies are open to the idea of shipping natural gas, which they have previously consumed in getting the oil out of the ground, to some undisclosed location. So here’s the question: How long could we reasonably expect this pipeline to have something to ship? When politicians speak of the “window of opportunity,” are they referring to the shortening time span when there is actually natural gas to ship? If so, would there be enough gas shipped–even running at full capacity–to amortize the cost of construction to something remotely reasonable?
Next question: Over and over, we’ve seen what happens when spills happen. We’ve seen that that doesn’t seem to have stopped–or even slowed down–drilling. The oil companies have a terrible record, not only in polluting, but in the sort of risk/reward evaluations that I think need to be central to a discussion like this–a good friend of mine had a son who, as part of a team of “observers,” was instrumental in stopping a drilling project in the Amazon jungles. The oil had been located under a local tribe’s ancestral lands. The money sounded good to them (obviously) but they wisely brought in their own experts to determine how much oil was there, what the effects of drilling would be, and what they could expect, long-term, from allowing the oil company to drill.
When the results came back they indicated that the company would actually be pumping oil for a VERY short time, but in order to do it they would be razing the forest, polluting the land and streams, and the people would, of course, have to move. The experts predicted that the land would be, well, uninhabitable for, oh, like forever afterward. The tribe opted NOT to drill–and invited my friend’s son back a year later to help them set up an educational system that would both preserve their traditional values and equip their children to survive and flourish in the modern world.
It seems to me that something similar might be applicable here–is there enough natural gas (reward) to offset the environmental, cultural, and fiscal cost (risk) of this project–no matter who builds it? Or would Alaska benefit more by investing those funds in renewable resources, as someone mentioned above, in education, in infrastructure? Now I’ll show my appalling ignorance–how did the native peoples keep warm for all the centuries before the arrival of oil and electricity? They did it–perhaps, rather than investing in the sort of renewable resource development that works in other climates, Alaska would be better served by re-developing some of those methods?
When I see footage of Alaska, I see a lot of pictures of little frame buildings. Even under the best of conditions, those look cold to me. What about resurrecting some of the traditional building methods? They became traditional because they worked well in that environment.
I pay taxes. It pinches every year, but over all I don’t mind–I understand that my tax dollars are necessary for the common good. I don’t like paying more than my fair share, and I don’t like thinking that the money is being squandered, but paying taxes is not the end of the earth. It might actually be a better thing for Alaska than depending on oil money for everything. In immediate terms, it means the oil companies can literally hold the state hostage for about anything they want–money is power. For another, oil isn’t going to last forever. Might be a good idea to start developing some systems that can outlast it, or Alaska will find itself exactly where it is now, but with no income. Diversification is a GOOD thing. It lessens the overall risk, and while it decreases the chances of making a killing, it also decreases the chances of being killed…
Bottom line: In considering this pipeline, it would be good to know that Alaska (and the rest of us who will be contributing federal funds) aren’t beating a dead horse, and that the long-term financial rewards truly do offset the cultural, and environmental and short-term financial risks. The pipeline CAN be build; no doubt about that. But SHOULD it be built?
A reminder of what Governor Palin told the world about her expertise and the pipeline. This is how she works, molding truth to meet her agenda.
” In her Sept. 3, 2008 speech to the Republican National Convention, Governor Palin said: “I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.”
(“Text of Gov. Sarah Palin’s speech,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 4, 2008
[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-palintranscript4-2008sep04,0,3137902.story?page=1]).”
BodieP: EXCELLENT comment. Thank you for articulating my feelings exactly!
I have not gotten to read all the research this man has done, but he was part of the development team and I would tend to strongly believe his arguments and opinions.
I found this part really interesting after reading AKM and Shannyn Moores blog articles about Tim Griffens consulting activities in AK, dontchya think?
Hmmmm, that Rove connection thingy bothers me.
There’s something fishy about Palin dropping a consulting firm upon
VP pick. Is there a tie McCain camp knew didn’t look good? ties to a law firm of questionable background. hmmm
What does anyone know about Greenberg Traurig, consulting law firm? why would they be recommending anything to Palin?
Mr. Fineberg speaks of a “conflict of interest” also, but I haven’t figured out what that is related to.
………………………………………………………………..
http://www.finebergresearch.com/
“The first, appearing on the front page of the Washington Post Oct. 10, revealed that in 2007 Governor Palin had retained an east coast public relations firm to pitch stories to the national press on her natural gas pipeline proposal. Department of Natural Resources officials told the Post that the Palin administration natural gas team’s $31,000 contract with MCB Consultants of Needham, Massachusetts ended when Governor Palin was named as John McCain’s running mate, giving the Alaska governor a national megaphone for the proposed gas line.
According to that article, MCB prepared press advisories soliciting interviews for Governor Palin – a task usually performed by state employees. The public relations firm claimed success in bringing the governor’s gas line plans to national attention, listing articles in the New York Times and Investor’s Business Daily as examples of its accomplishments. The Oct. 10 article also reported that the law firm of Greenberg Traurig – the consulting firm with a questionable background – recommended MCB to the Palin administration. (a)
Greenberg Traurig, which employs 1,750 attorneys in 30 cities on three continents, serves the Palin administration as one of six principle consulting contractors and the legal team’s lead firm. (b) According to a state list of AGIA consultants, Greenberg Traurig’s primary areas of assistance include general legal expertise, U.S. and Canadian regulatory expertise and First Nation issues. Public The state list of consulting firms did not mention public relations, or MCB. (c)
To enable readers to reach their own conclusions about Governor Palin’s performance, in my Sept. 27 posting I did not speculate about what she might (or might not) have been doing when she was not actively engaged in the oil and gas issues for which she later claimed credit. The second piece (which appeared on the web Oct. 20 with an advanced date of Oct. 27), filled that gap. That report, by New Yorker investigative reporter Jane Mayer, revealed that although Gov. Palin depicts herself as a reform-oriented, anti-establishment outsider, soon after taking office she began aggressively developing contacts with Washington insiders, including conservative pundit William Kristol, who loudly touted her as a Vice- Presidential candidate (to read Jane Mayer’s piece, click here.) (d)
The issues I raised in my web site posting Sept. 27 finally landed in the national press Oct. 26 in an AP investigative report. The AP investigative report appeared as the leading piece on the Huffington Post Oct. 25, was picked up by a variety of outlets that included USA Today and MSNBC, as well as the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and the Juneau Empire. This report added new information to the troubling facts to the issues I raised in my Sept. 27 posting. (e)
In my Sept. 27 posting, I stated that I wished Governor Palin’s team had followed three simple steps that would go a long way toward alleviating concerns about potential conflicts of interest:: (1) Reviewing apparent conflicts; (2) making complete disclosure of those conflicts; and – perhaps most importantly – (3) producing a work product that is logically sound and empirically verifiable. I would have been happier still if the Palin administration had responded substantively instead of failing to respond to the concerns I outlined in the packet I delivered to Governor Palin August 12. Nevertheless, I remain a member of the school of thought that says: Do not assume wrongdoing if coincidence or incompetence will explain what’s going on. In any event, the Palin administration’s failures to answer questions about the financing arrangements and tariff determination for the proposed North Slope natural gas pipeline megaproject and the governor’s failure to close the door cleanly on potential conflicts of interest suggest further review is warranted.
When I submitted a commentary to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Oct. 16, I had seen the Oct. 10 Washington Post article but knew nothing about the New Yorker and the Associated Press pieces, which had yet to be published. These three national articles lend significant support for the News-Miner community perspective, which appeared October 30 (f) — and for my Sept. 27 posting, which concluded:
. . . . .Governor Palin offers her oil and gas
. . . . .efforts as proof that she’s the Real McCoy.
. . . . .She’s not. “
What does Les Gara say now about Palin’s turn around (“We are open to changes in the state’s fiscal structure to allow this project to happen. … We are open to whatever it takes to make sure that this project happens for our state and for our country,” Palin told reporters)?
Now she wants to give tax concessions to the producers while continuing to give Transcanada $500,000,000 to design and build a gasline the producers will build with the concessions and without the upfront dough.
So Les, show us some “street cred.” Do you agree with Palin’s admission that AGIA is a failure, or not?
Les, I can’t hear you!!
What is Mr. Fineberg referring to here?
“potential staff and consultant conflicts of interest within her administrative team that sully her image as a reformer.”
……………………………………………….
Interactions with the Palin administration regarding implementation of other significant oil and gas policies during the first six months of 2008 heightened my growing concern about the gaps between what Governor Palin said she intended to do and what her administration actually did. By way of example, Part III (below) summarizes the failure to implement the part of the 2007 production tax overhaul bill on which I worked.
The materials that follow serve as case studies that call into question
Governnor Palin’s management of major oil and gas issues in the very field she now proffers as her primary credentials for assuming the duties of high national office. In sum, the first-hand observations and documentary record presented here point to:
* fundamental flaws and inconsistencies in the design of Governor Palin’s major oil and gas policy proposals;
* implementation failures;
* a strangely reclusive management style; and
* potential staff and consultant conflicts of interest within her administrative team that sully her image as a reformer.”
@ BodieP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Extremely well thought out questions and opinions. Did you send them to Mr. Gara for his consideration in reply to his post? I agree that dwelling on oil and gas is very short-sighted and not the only answer to all problems. Until we are truly energy-efficient, we must do, in the interim, what is sensible and transitional doing as little damage as possible. $500 million is an awful lot of money to pay for something that might never be, and I, for one, can’t afford to throw my money (as in taxpayer dollars) out the window. I’d like to hear something more than vaporous, half-truths from the AK executive branch.
BINGO…….Thank you Mr. Fineberg!!!!
Jack Abramoff……..and the law firm Greenberg Traurig who defended Bushes 2000 election voter fraud, gee who has Palin been palin around with?
such a small world, eh?
What happened to Marty Rutherford? I lost track of his character placement in the Palin Administration.
……………………………………………………..
Two pieces of possibly significant background information did not figure into in my analysis of the AGIA project, or in the preparation of the documents presented above:
* ” As reported in the New York Times September 11, (27) Alaska Deputy Commissioner of Natural Resources Rutherford – regarded by knowledgeable followers of the gas line proposal to be the gas line team’s “go-to person” (also the author of the unresponsive item 3 in the documents posted above) – consulted for a TransCanada subsidiary involved in the gas line project in 2003 during a ten-month period when she was not working for the state. According to that article, Ms. Rutherford did not lobby for TransCanada but only performed research and analysis. In 2007 Ms. Rutherford told an Anchorage Daily News reporter that she “did two small research and analysis jobs for Foothills” Pipe Lines Alaska, Inc. (the TransCanada subsidiary). (28) Ms. Rutherford now tells the New York Times that “she and the governor never discussed whether her role on the team might be viewed as improper or give the appearance of a conflict of interest,” and that “she was not one of the pipeline team members who recommended a developer to Ms. Palin.”
Neither article contains this fact: In 2003 Ms. Rutherford was registered as a lobbyist for Foothills and was paid $40,200. (29)
* The other troubling loose end to this story is that the Washington, DC law firm of Greenberg Traurig played a significant role in the design of the Palin gas line proposal. Greenberg Traurig employed disgraced Washington, DC lobbyist Jack Abramoff and helped represent President George Bush in the 2000 Florida election legal fracas on which his first election turned. (30) The voluminous record the Palin administration released for public review in May 2008 contains nine documents totaling 138 pages prepared by Greenberg Traurig, whose attorneys testified several times in support of Governor Palin’s decision to award the AGIA contract to TransCanada. (31) In attempting to understand the Palin administration’s position, I spoke at length to a senior Greenberg Traurig attorney who prepared several of those documents. Clear and convincing responses to my questions could have put unsubstantiated suspicions about Greenberg Traurig’s role in formulating and then supporting the state’s position to rest. However, as the documents presented in this packet indicate, I have not been able to reconcile our divergent viewpoints.
The materials I researched, presented to Governor Palin and posted here indicate that there is an even more fundamental disconnect between the realities of natural gas pipeline financing and the overly simplistic approach to these problems that the Palin administration has adopted. Based on the still unanswered questions I have raised, I have reluctantly concluded that both the the Greenberg Traurig role in the Palin administration’s endorsement of TransCanada’s AGIA proposal and Deputy Commissioner Rutherford’s past ties to TransCanada warrant further investigation. I now count these among the many troubling aspects of Governor Palin’s natural gas line proposal – details in which Governor Palin appears to me to be distinctly disinterested. I am not asserting wrongdoing, but I can say this: The possibility of conflicts of interest at high levels on an issue of this magnitude seriously sullies Governor Palin’s image as an ethics reformer.
I love this part!
“I am not asserting wrongdoing, but I can say this: The possibility of conflicts of interest at high levels on an issue of this magnitude seriously sullies Governor Palin’s image as an ethics reformer.”
Thank you Les Gara for writing to mudflats
Several people have brought up very good points, so many its hard to keep track, but first off I have to agree with womanwithasardinecan, Alaska must pursue other avenues of jobs etc., maybe giving up the PFD. Now for Alaskans that’s going to go over like a lead balloon! Or property taxes, or state taxes. I think the only other state that doesn’t pay state tax is Texas. (b/c of oil) And I have to throw this back at some of the people in Alaska who cruelly said Natives should go back living as before, 50 or 100 yrs ago, ummm, so what was happening up in Alaska before the pipeline? Just food for thought. I have heard there is geothermal energy up there to be explored? If so that could be a more environmentally sound energy source for electricity? But I guess that doesn’t bring in the bucks, like oil does.
I have read there are already court cases lining up with Native lands in Canada over this that could hold things up years for the pipeline. Also GINO is not the one to handle it…if it ever gets through the courts. She is not equipped mentally for this.
Nick Tucker has stated there is a big oil deposit under his house. I don’t think he was saying it, to mean, DRILL here, just making a point. The state has gotten rich on oil development. So it has not bothered to develop any other business.
I have ordered the book by the author of the Portfolio article. I remember in ’72 hearing about everyone going to Alaska to work on the pipeline. I want to read how it was before the “great pipeline” so I guess I will just stop here.
I love this part! “warrant further investigation”, seriously sullies Palins ethics reform image, ah yah, I’d say so!
……………………………………………………
Mr. Fineberg said:
“Based on the still unanswered questions I have raised, I have reluctantly concluded that both the the Greenberg Traurig role in the Palin administration’s endorsement of TransCanada’s AGIA proposal and Deputy Commissioner Rutherford’s past ties to TransCanada warrant further investigation.”
“I am not asserting wrongdoing, but I can say this: The possibility of conflicts of interest at high levels on an issue of this magnitude seriously sullies Governor Palin’s image as an ethics reformer.”
Thank you Mr. Gara – it’s sad to me how Palin has intentionally positioned herself to be polarizing and divisive. It rubs off onto anything she latches on to, this pipeline included. She taints anything she comes in contact with, even ideas that might have merit.
$500 million is an awful lot of money to pay for something that might never be and there must be a lot more cost involved too, think of the administrations man hours, consulting fees, research teams, etc!
shaking my head……seriously, for 2 yrs now Palin has been pouring who knows how many hours and dollars as Governor developing this “big” deal.
Wonder what the current cost to date is?
andrewhalcro.com/
Andrew has an opposing view that is just as persuasive and appears to answer questions raised by Mr. Gara.
A must read web site.
BodieP (05:53:21) :
Bottom line: In considering this pipeline, it would be good to know that Alaska (and the rest of us who will be contributing federal funds) aren’t beating a dead horse, and that the long-term financial rewards truly do offset the cultural, and environmental and short-term financial risks. The pipeline CAN be build; no doubt about that. But SHOULD it be built?
***************************
Alaska got it’s last big pot of money this year. As a state it looks like AIG and that is simply not going to happen any more. Everyone else pays taxes and is responsible or not for their public well-being (or not in the case of most of the south and AK). It’s time that Alaska deals with reality. They act like Mississippi. They should not be bailed out by the taxpayers. Paying taxes is a civic duty, not a crime to quote your sf governor.
Can’t we all just get along?
JUNEAU — Gov. Sarah Palin surprised state legislators Wednesday by indicating she is willing to negotiate how much the state taxes natural gas in order to attract oil companies to a pipeline project.(ADN)
If Palin wants to make a run at the Presidency;
1. She has to make some progress on the pipeline. At a national level, this will be more important than maintaining her ‘populist cred’ with the locals.
2. She is going to need money. In Republican circles, Big Oil are seen as perfectly reliable and ideologically compatible donors.
So, if she makes some friendly concessions to Big Oil, she achieves both objectives.
Bodie said: There have been a lot of sacrifices–the environment has suffered with the terrible oil spills and the destruction of habitat. Those who prefer a subsistence lifestyle have suffered as the economy has increasingly become focused around resource exploitation. The native peoples have suffered by being moved off their lands at the convenience of oil.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
yes, and now I’m struck with the wolf killing thing in order to increase moose and caraboo compared to the long term permanant harm to the same end becuase of oil, mining and possibly gas pipeline.
The wolf population could probably be brought back, the environment not so.
So is this wolf and bear killing business a big fake, look over here deal, to distract from a far bigger and more serious move in the making??
lol, sorry for the typos…..
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1480
“The vast amounts of natural gas needed to extract millions of barrels of oil per day are leading to an anticipated shortage of supply. As a result, several energy megaprojects have been proposed.
Perhaps the most contentious of the proposals is the $7 billion Mackenzie Gas Project, a 1220 kilometre pipeline that runs along the Mackenzie River Valley, from the Arctic Ocean to Alberta’s northern border. The project would connect the estimated 82 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Mackenzie River delta with the tar sands extraction plants to the south.
A second project, the Alaska Gas Pipeline would connect Alaska’s north slope, home to an estimated 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with the Mackenzie valley route.
In part to make up for the natural gas supply taken up by the tar sands, Liquid Natural Gas terminals have been proposed in multiple locations on the west coast, east coast and along the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The terminals would receive natural gas from tankers incoming from the Middle East, Russia and other overseas sources.”
http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/689040.html
” When you look at a map of the proposed Alaska pipeline you’ll see that it ends in Northwest Alberta, just a short hop to the tar sands. If the pipeline is built by the proposed 2017 completion date, by that time the tar sands could need the equivalent of roughly half the gas coming from Alaska. Delivery of gas to the Lower 48 could be sparse.
Despite the arguments about Alaska gas being a “clean burning” and “low-carbon” source of energy, in fact sending this gas to the tar sands would produce exactly the opposite result. Producing a barrel of oil from the tar sands leads to three times the greenhouse gas emissions as a barrel of regular oil. Some have characterized this process of turning relatively clean burning natural gas into carbon-heavy oil as “reverse alchemy” — the equivalent of turning gold into lead.”
SameOld:Alaska got it’s last big pot of money this year. As a state it looks like AIG and that is simply not going to happen any more. Everyone else pays taxes and is responsible or not for their public well-being (or not in the case of most of the south and AK). It’s time that Alaska deals with reality. They act like Mississippi. They should not be bailed out by the taxpayers. Paying taxes is a civic duty, not a crime to quote your sf governor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GINO has stated publicly that its “unpatriotic to pay taxes”….? Must be a AIP thing…?
@InJuneau…..I don’t know what I would do if I saw her? Cross the street, spit, roll my eyes, turn my back or just shake my head. I am soooo tired of her B.S.
Women Who Run With The WolvesNo Gravatar (08:05:02) :
@InJuneau…..I don’t know what I would do if I saw her? Cross the street, spit, roll my eyes, turn my back or just shake my head. I am soooo tired of her B.S.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would throw a shoe! And curse her for being a wolf killer!
From Mr. Fineberg’s writings, (my notes in parenthesis).
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Alaska produces approximately 3.5% of the U.S. domestic energy production. (note produces, which doesn’t seem like much to me)
EIA also estimates that Alaska possesses approximately 4.9% of the nation’s natural gas reserves and 13.2% of the nation’s oil reserves. (note possesses, gas supply doesn’t seem huge, and again both of these will run out)
U.S. Energy Information Agency, “State Energy Profiles: Alaska,” accessed Sept. 25, 2008 at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=AK
and “World Proved (1) Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas, Most Recent Estimates,” August 27, 2008, accessed Sept. 25, 2008 at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html.
When Alaska natural gas reserves are converted to barrels of oil equivalency on a Btu basis, EIA’s most recent data (for calendar year 2006) indicate that Alaska has approximately 9.1% of the nation’s oil and gas reserves.
(okay, 9% capability, but for how long? and at what cost?)
In reality I have a problem with this also, too, why should the other 49 states pay for this pipeline, and let Alaska bank all that cash while bragging about how rich Alaska is! (Sorry Alaska) Alaska gets $1.84 for every $1.00 from the Feds. Doesn’t Alaska also export some of their oil to foreign countries?
Regina has a great article could be another “Gate” here…
http://palingates.blogspot.com/2009/03/sarah-palin-and-pebble-mine.html
Frankly, I would much rather see 500 million go to wind, water and solar power. By the time the gasline is built we won’t need gas. Or so I hope. As a family, we have reduced our oil usage (1000 gallons a year for aprox $3500) to zero (we heat with already dead wood & locally mined coal for $400. year). I have reduced my driving from $30 a week in gas to $10. per week. Our next move is to downsize from 2 vehicles to one. Gas and oil are energies of the past. In 20 years??? Waste of money.
@ BodieP
They did it–perhaps, rather than investing in the sort of renewable resource development that works in other climates, Alaska would be better served by re-developing some of those methods?
——
@crystalwolf aka caligrl
And I have to throw this back at some of the people in Alaska who cruelly said Natives should go back living as before, 50 or 100 yrs ago, ummm, so what was happening up in Alaska before the pipeline?
——-
Oops–should have been a little clearer on that. What I was trying to get at was that Alaska’s unique climate should be taken into account in determining how best to meet the challenge of keeping people warm and fed, and that since people were doing that pretty effectively long before oil and electricity came on the scene it might be smart to look at how they did it and apply similar principles–like the adobe houses in the Southwest, which were built from local resources, and kept the people inside cool in summer and warm in winter. Traditional cultures often evolved environment-specific, creative solutions to keeping warm/cool and fed–and solutions developed in one area don’t necessarily translate well to another climate/longitude/latitude. I wasn’t implying that Alaskans should forcibly be returned to Gold Rush days.
Globe and Mail – “First nations blur the pipeline picture”
11/17/2006
First nations blur the pipeline picture
DEBORAH YEDLIN
CALGARY — Just when you thought the Mackenzie Valley natural gas pipeline might dislodge itself from the political and bureaucratic quagmire, along comes another ruling that could stop everything. Again.
This time, it’s assuaging the concerns of the 2,500 members of the Dene Tha First Nation about the $7.5-billion project. This group, which controls 70 kilometres of the area from which the pipeline will enter northern Alberta, received a ruling last week from the Federal Court saying they were unfairly excluded from the consultation process. In other words, the federal government made a mistake. As a result, another hearing has to be held to determine the remedies due to the Dene Tha before the joint review panel can file its final report. The hearings were set to wrap up in April, with a report expected by late 2007 or early 2008.
Let’s be honest: Remedies are a nice euphemism for “how much money will it take to satisfy the aggrieved party.” However you choose to look at it, even if the Dene Tha were unfairly excluded, how much would their participation change the outcome of the joint review panel? They are a small group and represent a small slice of land.
This movie has been seen before, only last time the starring role was
played by the Deh Cho First Nations. They settled with the federal government for $31.5-million. Now it’s the Dene Tha’s turn.
Setting aside the obvious frustration being felt by Imperial Oil, the lead
proponent of the Mackenzie Valley project, there are bigger questions that
need to be addressed and answered.
Is it right that projects go forward solely on the basis of what companies
or governments are prepared to pay, beyond what is covered under the
various treaties? Isn’t the bigger elephant in the room the one that deals with constitutional rights of aboriginal groups and how far these extend? Why can’t there be a clear set of rules that sets out the standards for
consultations on both sides of the table?
The Dene Tha argued they had been trying to get a seat at the table for the
past six years. What’s interesting is that they, like many other first nation groups, engage consultants to work on their behalf. What exactly did the consultant(s) get paid for, if not to ensure the Dene Tha’s voice was heard? And did it need to take six years or is this a tactic employed at the last minute for the greatest impact?
At issue is the same old story of traditional lands. While the Dene Tha are
covered by the terms of Treaty 8, which effectively covers northern Alberta
and northeastern B.C. and sets out regulatory requirements, the aspect of
traditional lands in the southern Northwest Territories adds another
dimension. This has to do with whether the areas in question, though not
included in the treaty provisions, have been traditionally used by the band
in question for its livelihood.
Common practice in the oil patch in these cases is to simply pay the group
in question if there is an issue regarding access. And this is effectively
what will happen here, though on a bigger scale, over a longer time and in
the public domain.
Think about how this all plays out beyond Canada’s borders.
Pipeline giant Enbridge was in China this week, with one of its goals being to reignite its Gateway project that will send oils sands crude to China
via Kitimat, B.C. Enbridge signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding with Petro-China back in April, 2005, in which Petro-China would commit to taking half of the pipeline’s capacity of 400,000 barrels a day. The intent was to have the deal firmly in place by the end of that year. It’s almost a full year later and there’s still no deal. One of the obstacles has to do with the more than 200 first nation bands in British Columbia that are not covered by the same treaty provisions and have many outstanding land claims. The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, representing 5,000 people in seven first nations covering about one-third of the Gateway route, argued that it has not been properly consulted and in October it sued the government in Federal Court.
In light of this, the ruling in favour of the Dene Tha doesn’t help Enbridge
at all. The thinking very likely goes like this: If the Dene Tha, who are covered by Treaty 8, are doing this, what is possible in B.C., where no such
agreements exist?
And that’s one of the reasons Enbridge is having trouble getting someone to
sign on the dotted line.
Adding a bit more uncertainty to the entire pipeline picture in Canada is
Alaska’s incoming governor Sarah Palin, who is determined to get the Alaska
pipeline under way and has called a meeting for Dec. 5, the day after she is
sworn in as governor. And as testament to her determination, the same folks who were advising her predecessor, Frank Murkowski, will be at that
meeting.
In other words, this woman means business: She doesn’t want to waste time
getting a new team up to speed.
While many say there is more than enough room for both the Mackenzie Valley and Alaska pipelines, in the current labour-squeezed environment being first to market in terms of getting things going is critical. Stalling only adds to the time and cost — in the billions of dollars — not to mention the probability of compromising an entire project.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to sell Canada as an energy superpower but there are billions of dollars in pipeline projects in a holding pattern today, which could be interpreted as running contrary to what he wants the world to believe. In order for Canada to live up to that lofty moniker, a regulatory framework capable of supporting all the resource-based activity must be put in place. And this includes finally addressing the role and impact of the country’s first nations.
dyedlin at globeandmail.com
Thank you BodieP and Crystalwolf
You addressed some of my concerns about the Native land stakes in this pipeline construction (and investment reward for some) project. I should read the McGinnis book too–at least for insight about how THE ALASKAN PIPELINE was the next big thing more than 30 years ago.
It makes me think of other countries and areas of the US where indigenous people end up owing (forever) the developers at the expense of the displaced population. Most people lose, some benefit greatly.
Makes me uncomfortably think of the more recent on-going Katrina rebuilding (displacements) in New Orleans, LA–natural disaster that it was. Man-made disasters-for-profit are still as devastating to (targeted?) communities.
And aren’t the oil companies planning their very own pipeline? A little kick in the teeth, as AK will be paying 500 mill for a gasline to no where.
First and foremost, I old no regard for Sarah Palin, what so ever!
Having said that, Alaskans must do what they can to protect their natural resources.
Please take this warning from your Canadian neighbour. Don’t let your government abuse you like we did.
We find ourselves in a dire situation because of our NAFTA agreements.
I’ll give you an excerpt and a web link to explain our situation. I think that many of you will be shocked to see this;
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/message-canada-s-political-leaders-stop-ducking-obama-s-nafta-challenge
For Canada, there are plenty of good reasons for renegotiating NAFTA after almost 15 years. Chief among them is the energy chapter which includes the “proportionality clause” that compels Canada to continue exporting this country’s oil and natural gas resources to the United States, even if these exports result in domestic shortages here at home.
Canada has less than 13 years of conventional oil reserves and only 8.9 years of natural gas supplies available at current rates of production. Any decision by a Canadian province or federal government to cut back on oil and gas exports for the sake of conservation, greenhouse gas emission reductions, the creation of jobs in the petrochemical industry or diversion of petroleum to eastern provinces could be forbidden by NAFTA’s proportional sharing obligations.
The proportionality clause would compel Canada to continue its oil and natural gas sales to the US at the same rate as they were exported over the previous three years. Currently this means that Canada would be obliged to make two-thirds of our domestic oil production and 63% of our natural gas production available for export to the U.S.
Not only is Canada’s energy security at risk, but so are this country’s freshwater resources. Today, there are rapidly growing water shortages emerging in the Southwest, Midwest, and Southeast states of the US. By 2015, almost a quarter of America’s medium sized cities and nearly one-fifth of its largest cities are expected to be facing serious water shortages. If one or more Canadian provinces turn on the tap to export freshwater to the US, the proportionality clause will automatically be activated, guaranteeing a continuous, uninterrupted flow.
Moreover, NAFTA’s investment chapter gives corporations the right to sue governments in all three countries for alleged violation of these rules through unelected trade tribunals, thereby giving them the powers to ratchet down unwanted policies and regulations adopted by democratically elected legislatures. Since NAFTA was signed, corporations have used NAFTA Chapter 11 in over 50 cases, demanding hundreds millions of dollars in public money as compensation for lost profits. Through this mechanism, corporations have successfully challenged federal bans on toxic gasoline additives and the export of hazardous wastes, while posing a threat to British Columbia’s ban on bulk water exports. Indeed, the number of claims continues to grow, including challenges against Newfoundland’s local economic development policies, by multinational oil giant Exxon-Mobil. In short, NAFTA’s investment rules need to be renegotiated to eliminate this deeply flawed dispute process.
Finally, we maintain along with our allies in the US and Mexico that trade regimes like NAFTA must be designed to protect workers and the environment. As it stands now, NAFTA functions in such a way as to foster a race to the bottom for both workers and the environment in all three countries. In the current economic crisis, these flaws in NAFTA will only serve to further depress wages and cause the loss of more good jobs, while undermining both workers rights and environmental sustainability
@Crystal wolf aka caligirl
Here in Southeast we wear xtra-tuffs Thay are knee length heavy duty ruber soled boots. Being fashion minded like I am (ha-ha) I roll mine down to ankle length. I love my boots, wear them all the time. I couldn’t bring myself to taking it off and tossing it at Gino, my boots mean too much to me and they are way too nice to waste on her. Now a clog is a different matter? No problem there.
Homegrown renewable energy resources—like wind, solar, bioenergy, and geothermal—don’t pose threats to our health and environment nor do they leave us vulnerable to price spikes and supply shortages.
500 Million (on this single project) is just a deposit on a fossil fuel that WILL run out. Why not invest in energy projects that will last for generations -and be available forver?
Why would anyone, from anywhere or any political or econimic class support drill baby drill for ANY fossil fuel? Do we EVER learn?
@ Paula….Here in Southeast Alaska, Solar really wouldn’t cut it. We are located in a rain forest and baby does it ever rain! Now wind….that’s another story. Wind power and Hydro power for Southeast Alaska is where it’s at. We have plenty of both, wind and water.
Oil & Natural Gas is a valuable commodity – if not to the US – then world markets if we ever reach a point of total energy independence.
This Pipeline has “potential” for that “energy independence” goal. It is years away from actual developement – which is why AK paid TC $500K – that $$ will cover PART of the costs that TC will incur while doing “prep” work; meetings, survey’s, studies, research, maps, public meetings & notices, impact studies, etc.
The oil companies may feel they can build their own line with less expense, less government interference, tax depreciation write-off, and control their own use costs while “jacking” costs to addional users (ergo keeping the smaller production people out)
Either way – this is a very complex project – between three parties. Producers (oil companies) – Builder (TC) and Government (AK & CAN)
Sometimes a written piece raises more questions than it answers – and for me, this is one. That’s a compliment! Mr. Gara, you’ve definitely put this subject into a whole new perspective.
Seems to me, one of the lessons we’ve learned recently is that business and economics simply cannot go on as in the past … that ‘business as usual’ (i.e., catering to short-term greed) just doesn’t cut it anymore. We’ll have to chart new routes to get there. Anything is possible. (Remember “Change”?)
Also feels like we’re in this one way over our heads, kind of like a first-grader trying to make it in a Ph.D. program. AK’s current administration (IMHO) lacks the depth, scientific & business background, and foresight to carry this project forward with the confidence of Alaskan people. If the gasline goes forward, it will take federal and international intervention to make the rules, lay them down and make them stick. Palin needs Obama (along with every advisor he can muster), and without federal help that $500M is probably down the tubes. If the gasline truly is going forward, I hope our legislators will do everything they can to engage that much-needed competent help.
We ignored her and continued on with our engaging conversation about bikes and bikers and how they need to obey traffic laws just like everyone else (long story). She looked at us like she expected us to interrupt our conversation and ackowledge her. No go on that one (and I needed my shoes to get to church supper, so no go on that one either).
InJuneau (09:13:32) :
We ignored her and continued on with our engaging conversation about bikes and bikers and how they need to obey traffic laws just like everyone else (long story). She looked at us like she expected us to interrupt our conversation and ackowledge her. No go on that one (and I needed my shoes to get to church supper, so no go on that one either).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OMG! You ignored Queen GINO????? {yay!}
crystalwolf aka caligrl (07:38:57) :
GINO has stated publicly that its “unpatriotic to pay taxes”….? Must be a AIP thing…?
***********************
I believe it was during the VP non-debate. It was definitely a slam at Biden for suggesting that taxes be raised on the wealthy.
It’s all part of the Alaska mentality of being a welfare state, but pretending else wise. It is banana republic mentality and must be acknowledged before Alaska can grow up and stop being an irresponsible teenager waiting for an allowance. It is not the responsibility of the rest of the nation to help Alaska avoid taxes. And that is the fallacy of Les’s entire argument. He want the rest of us to waste enormous amounts of money on a marginal pipeline so Alaska can avoid taxes. For that he will suck up to Palin’s game. Sorry. I think you Alaskans need to review the history of the Long family in LA. All you are doing is enabling Palin and her ilk and accomplishing nothing. I believe this is what is known as neo-liberalism. Check the insanity of New Labor in Britain for a clear example and the resultant mess.
When you check your morals at the door for some short-term gain, you are actually checking your morals at the door.
crystalwolf aka caligrlNo Gravatar (09:20:22) :
InJuneau (09:13:32) :
We ignored her and continued on with our engaging conversation about bikes and bikers and how they need to obey traffic laws just like everyone else (long story). She looked at us like she expected us to interrupt our conversation and ackowledge her. No go on that one (and I needed my shoes to get to church supper, so no go on that one either).
~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would of changed the conversation real fast to the Wolf killing! (even though I hear you about the bikes, I think that’s a pet peeve of allot of drivers everywhere!)
@ Yukonbush 9:11
Also feels like we’re in this one way over our heads, kind of like a first-grader trying to make it in a Ph.D. program. AK’s current administration (IMHO) lacks the depth, scientific & business background, and foresight to carry this project forward with the confidence of Alaskan people. If the gasline goes forward, it will take federal and international intervention to make the rules, lay them down and make them stick. Palin needs Obama (along with every advisor he can muster),
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well said -
SameOld:”It’s all part of the Alaska mentality of being a welfare state, but pretending else wise. It is banana republic mentality and must be acknowledged before Alaska can grow up and stop being an irresponsible teenager waiting for an allowance. It is not the responsibility of the rest of the nation to help Alaska avoid taxes. And that is the fallacy of Les’s entire argument. He want the rest of us to waste enormous amounts of money on a marginal pipeline so Alaska can avoid taxes.”
Yes, I agree, but that’s where you start hearing from people in Alaska, “hey you in the lower 48, you stay out of our bizness!” You see this reaction all the time in the comments on ADN and other Alaskan newpapers. Wait until the permanent fund goes down to $68.
I agree with Paula, instead of investing in a pipeline to nowhere, and expecting the rest of the taxpayers in the US support it, Alaska should be exploring other energy alternatives, such as, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric and solar (where there is enough sun). Besides there are huge issues with Canada’s First People’s and land rights, here too, in regards to the pipeline to nowhere….
I’m going back to read the other posts- nice job, ‘flatters- But I have one question about the TransCanada proposed pipeline: how far has the company gotten in negotiations with the First Nations (I think that is the correct term for Canadian natives) for right-of-ways through their territories? I read that they are very savvy, fierce negotiators, and are good at tying cases up in court for years-
Perhaps gas should be piped/guaranteed for Alaskans first; I know one-two gas pipelines are in the works to sent Colorado gas both East and West, and we aren’t the only state with infrastructure projects going.
Thank you Mr. Gara for your article and AKM for presenting it for us to read. I don’t think the people would condemn the pipeline because they don’t like Palin. I think they will condemn the pipeline for several reason and because no one trust Palin for anything she says or does. What has she done that puts in credibility into what she says? Even with the last article about her making concessions they state they never said or implied they would not work with the big 3. But everyone knows that is a dam lie. As I said you can not trust anything she says or does.
I don’t live Alaska either but I do see how some of the citizens are treated. Everyone knows that Alaska profits from the natural resources but does Alaska treat all the citizens equal? NO. If the government of Alaska treated everybody equally the rural villages would have some type of infrastructure. The rural villages are treated as second class citizens and I actually read that on a description of a village I looked up. Now if Alaska will treat their own citizens this way how in the world would the rest of us (49) expect to be treated any fairly.
Why in the world would you purposely piss of the Big Oil companies and expect them to play ball with you. I personally would take my ball and go elsewhere. With all the posturing that the Gov. (respect the position but not the person) did why in the world would the Big companies want to deal with her, I wouldn’t neither would most people. I also think it is strange that that article came out on Portfolio that everyone is scampering trying to do damage control. Compromise is not a word in the vocabulary of the Gov.
I think the government has a lot of making up to do to the citizens of Alaska for the behavior they have exhibited. I think the government needs to exhibit the propensity of being trustworthy. In my opinion it can not but alas it is not up to me. There is no leader of the government in Alaska to handle this life changing project and the welfare of the citizens of Alaska.
Moose is going to be a bit puckish here.
Our natural gas resources aren’t going anywhere. They are like resources in the safe, fish in the freezer, wood in the woodshed.
I advocate for smaller energy projects that benefit Alaskans and provide diversity and spread risk including smaller well-thought out natural gas projects to Alaskan communities that want this.
A mega-project pushed forward as a priority at the expense of all other priorities will suck up all resources and expose Alaskans to mega-risks–financial, environmental, and sabotage.
Democrats/Republicans no better on this. Agreed.
BTW, by suggesting earlier that ‘federal help’ would be needed to progress the gasline, I didn’t necessarily mean that I support the project. Haven’t decided yet.
But as others are saying, why not develop renewable energy sources? $5.50/gal. gas is what we pay here – ridiculous!
In fact, last fall when we received our extra $1200 I wondered the same thing.
NEW THREAD, and it’s a good one (oops, aren’t they all?)!
Tewise: excellent post
BTW, bikers not obeying things like traffic signs and laws (STOP SIGNS, anyone?) is also a pet peeve of pedestrians and other bikers. The conversation started because the spouse was nearly run over by a biker flying through a stop sign yesterday morning, in spite of there being a huge line of cars stopped at that stop sign because there were PEDESTRIANS IN the crosswalk! Came this close ( ll ) to being hit! We’ve both been serious bikers in the past, so it’s a pet peeve to us on that level too, as it makes bikers look bad and makes drivers less likely to equitably share the road.
Awwwwww….the answer, per Progressive Alaska–
Former Alaska Attorney General and two-term Borough Assembly member, Talis Colberg, announced Wednesday that he has notified the Alaska Public Offices Commission of his intent to run for the office of Mayor of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Be careful throwing shoes at Palin. Bush just ducked, but she might shoot.
Answers to a few questions. Sorry these don’t fit into a soundbite –
1. Some of you have rightly noted the oil companies hold the gas leases. That gives us a few choices. 1) Cave in to whatever demands Exxon and friends make in terms of tax concessions, and other matters – that’s subtly, what they are trying to get from us – they get us to cave, they get everything they want, and then tell us they might then build a pipeline. Or, 2) We can stand firm like a true sovereign state, and if they don’t offer their gas into a pipeline in an effort to kill the TransCanada proposal, we respond with a) federal pressure; b) market pressure (investors will not be happy that they are declining an opportunity to sell vast amounts of natural gas); c) legal pressure (they have a legal duty to produce their gas, and if they pursue the litigation too far, they risk losing billions of dollars in valuable leases – litigation’s more risky for them than it is for us); d) other pressure points. So, I don’t buy into the argument that since they h old the gas, we should cave, and give them everythign they want. That’s the crux of the whole debate here. That was the Flaw in the Portfolio Article – that since the oil companies held the leases, we should do what they tell us; and it’s the flaw in Andrew Halcro’s position.
2. No one beleives that if we caved into the oil companies demands, and made TransCanada disappear, a pipeline would ever get built. If we dump TransCanada, we remove the pressure on the oil companies to proceed with their possibly fictional Denali project, the Denali project would likely disappear – or, again, only proceed with billions of dollars in concessions from the state.
3. Tax concessions by the Governor. I can’t speak for her. But when we passed oil tax reform in 2007, many people on both sides of the aisle said we’d come back at a later date to see if we need to adjust our Natural Gas production tax. I don’t know that it needs to be adjusted. But maybe it’s too low. Maybe it’s too high. And maybe it’s just right. It’s danagerous to re-visit this tax structure, but it may be necessary. That’s been the discussion all along. In 2007, when we adopted our oil and natural gas tax, we focussed on the proper oil tax rate – since we weren’t proiducing any major amount of nrth slope natural gas. We didn’t spend as much time on determining whether the Natural gas production rate we adopted was correct. I suspect it may be fine, but we at lease need some more testiomony and expert analysis on this point.
There. No soundbite. And, BTW, I think Tony Knowles is great – and while we disagere on this one, his opinions are surely well considered.
Les, thanks for contributing to this wonderful blog, AKM has for us! And thank you, for sending me your newsletters even though I’m in cali!
I think its important for our Reps. and Leg. to be accessible to their constituents and by joining this blog and conversation you are doing just that!
Hey Les!
Thanks for “palling around” with Mudflatters”!
CO almost native (09:38:30) :
You are % 100 correct about Canadian First Nations. The federal government has no say over their lands whatsoever. Some of them are no different than any small sovereign nation.
It will be like attempting to lay a pipeline through approximately 13 or so countries. The largest country welcomes the idea and the remainder do not. In fact the remainder are vehemently against it.
The First Nations have prevailed in the courts, so it would be more than a difficult challenge for Alaska.
Of course Palins lawyers on this project, have almost dismissed this fact, out of disregard for the intelligence and power of our native population .
If I were an Alaskan, I would insist that the First Nations issues were resolved before proceeding with any plans.
The First Nations have prevailed in the courts, so it would be more than a difficult challenge for Alaska.
Of course Palins lawyers on this project, have almost dismissed this fact, out of disregard for the intelligence and power of our native population .
If I were an Alaskan, I would insist that the First Nations issues were resolved before proceeding with any plans.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes I totally agree! I know I’m not Alaskan so my thoughts mean squat but that would be the prudent thing to do before throwing more money into it, especially if the First Nations are already against it.
Martha is right. Canadian First nations people will be a major hurdle for this pipeline. They are extremely organized and have a very high profile amongst our government leaders. Most Canadians try to listen to and respect our First Nations leaders and their people. Its not perfect by a long stretch…but we have come a long way.
Perhaps Mr. Gara…you should run for Governor. I am being sincere when I say this….not snarky.
I do appreciate many of the things that you have said. I surely am no expert on pipelines, gas, nor oil. However..I have not billed myself that way in the way SP has done.
I truly believe that most people…especially mudflatters….dont necessarily disagree with a pipeline. The problem is, that Ms. Palin has lost a huge amount of credibility. Its unfortunate, but its true.
I thank you for sharing your point of view without sounding as though you are lecturing.
Pipe Dreams
Sarah Palin likes to talk about how she’s building a $40 billion natural-gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48. But the project hasn’t gotten off the ground, and it’s her fault, Portfolio reports.
http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2009/03/17/Governor-Palins-Big-Energy-Battles
What thoughtful, intelligent responses here from so many! I have enjoyed reading them and also hearing all side of a very complex issue.
Coming from a state (CA) that is teetering on the edge of economic collapse, yet we have one of the highest state income tax, receive the least per capita earmarks per resident and not to mention our state sales tax going up a another penny on April 1st (9.7% in LA County, 8.75% in OC) , I guess sitting on huge reserves of oil and wondering who gets what when where is a problem I can’t relate to.
But what I do find troubling and I think more to the point here is that your governor has demonstrated again and again and again that whatever agenda she puts out, her transparent and ONLY goal is to further her own personal agenda and she will glom on to any issue that she thinks promotes her. She is not only a ‘magical’ thinker, she is a shallow, superficial, short-term thinker who is incapable of acting in anyone’s long-term interests except possibly her own.
She is however very adept however at parlaying minimal accomplishments into political rhetoric that she uses shamelessly to promote herself as something she clearly is not – someone who gives a shit about anything but herself.
I don’t know if the pipeline is a good idea or not. I think I tend to fall on the side of those who say $500 million could be invested in alternative energy sources that have longterm benefits, not short-term get-rich quick schemes for the oil companies.
But what I do believe is that anything Sarah Palin proposes needs to be looked at with a fine tooth comb because one can be 100% sure that she never did. She just saw a political opportunity to advance herself and grabbed it with no worry or thought towards what is best for the future of Alaska or Alaskans.
And that, Rep. Gara, is why I think so many people are naturally suspect of anything the Sarah Palin proposes. It is HER that people don’t trust because they question her motives and doubt that anything she does is to benefit anyone but herself.
Mr. Gara: “So, I don’t buy into the argument that since they h old the gas, we should cave, and give them everythign they want. That’s the crux of the whole debate here. That was the Flaw in the Portfolio Article – that since the oil companies held the leases, we should do what they tell us; and it’s the flaw in Andrew Halcro’s position.”
Respectfully, Sir…..but you’re presenting an “All or Nothing” argument here: Cave or do it Palin’s way. That’s truly the flawed argument.
I go back to Mr. Knowles’ position that the real, business-world option is ” negotiating with interested parties to try to make something happen that would be good for all concerned.” Instead, Palin and “the state has gone in the direction of dividing the players instead of trying to bring them together.”
I see nothing about Mr. Knowles’ or Mr. Halcro’s position that is “caving.”
Interesting discussion. Thanks, Mr. Gara! And I agree 100% with my fellow Canadians that the Canadian First Nations will be a major hurdle. Not least because they DO NOT generally stand to benefit from increased oil sands development. Canada as a whole does not, but especially not the neighbouring First Nations. It will be very costly, if not impossible to prevail on them to accept a project that will lead to the further degradation via oil sand development of the environment they depend upon and live in.
Second, just a though inspired by the fact that the oil companies are using natural gas deposits to pressurize oil deposits. They must be extracting it from the earth in order to put it somewhere else. Are they paying taxes and royalties to the state for this extraction and use or is there a nice, accommodating loophole for this extraction and use? If they are paying taxes/ royalties, couldn’t they argue down the road that they have already paid once and just pump it out again? Thinking like a crook here.
I have gone on at length re: my views on the TC pipeline issue, so won’t reiterate here, will only say the following:
1) This seems like partisan anti-oil stuff to me.
2) Sorry to burst the bubbles of readers, but this was not written specifically for mudflatters, as it is the content of Mr. Gara’s latest newsletter sent out via email. Or else it WAS written for mudflatters and was lifted verbatim for the email newsletter.
3) If Alaska really wants to get serious about sending a message to oil companies then it had better get an alternate revenue stream that lets them know that they are not the only option. This would be an INCOME TAX. If one is truly interested in the well-being of Alaska, then they should have the nerve to bring up that subject, falling on their political sword if need be. Bring it back bring it back bring it back. Palin could do LOADS for her GOP cred, if she has the nerve to, by spouting personal fiscal responsibility for Alaskans (as opposed to the socialist PFD thing) via personal state income tax, knowing full well it will mean that she won’t get re-elected, but then at least she would have a great GOP platform issue to blame for it.
Look, I like a lot of what Gara has to say, but not a bit of what he has to say about oil & Alaska. Until AK government comes up with something to replace oil revenue they need to find ways to WORK TOGETHER.
And I still don’t like anything that Palin has to say. Still the worst gov this state has ever had.
The following is an excerpt from Andrew Halcro’s blog 3/18/09 which I found interesting regarding AGIA:
“Last week Rep. Jay Ramras (R-Fairbanks) and Rep. Craig Johnson (R-Anchorage) introduced a resolution that asked the governor to review AGIA and make sure the project and the $500 million outlay of taxpayer money to TransCanada still makes sense given the dramatically changed global economic outlook.
And while there has been no desire shown by either the House or the Senate to revisit AGIA, that hasn’t stopped some from coming out and attacking the resolution.
What’s odd about the sudden burst of policy makers rushing to AGIA’s defense is their arguments are as hollow as AGIA itself.
Yesterday at a press conference called by House Democrats to defend AGIA, Democrats started sounding like Republicans in their support for stability and predictability within the oil & gas industry.
Democrats Les Gara, Berta Gardner and David Guttenberg to name a few, all said the same thing; if Alaska’s revisits the AGIA contract less than a year after it was signed, it would show the global marketplace that Alaska was an unpredictable place to do business.”
Ramras’ and Johnson’s resolution is at least taking into account what is happening in the global economic situation. Sounds intelligent, realistic, and aware that changing forcasts might necessitate flexibility or scrapping the original plan.
As far as the Democrats’ concern for losing face “in the global marketplace”……I submit that the business failure of poorly-constructed plan is the biggest loser of all.
Alaska “an unpredictable place to do business??”……As long as Palin is at the helm, doing business with Alaska will be wildly unpredictable. She is an unpredictable, shallow politician whose every move from here on out will be to do what she thinks favors her political chances in 2012. Bank on it……….. since that’s the only predictable thing about her.
@Les (and @SMR):
Thank you, Les, for clearly outlining your position. You successfully make the case that the gasline issue is far more complicated than being pro- or anti -GINO.
However, as an outsider, I am not totally persuaded by your fundamental assumption that the key issue in this matter is to achieve the maximum net financial benefit for the AK state treasury and the AK economy. While it is true that the gas reserves lie in Alaska, they also lie in the United States (no matter what the AIP may think). The preponderant majority of consumption of the reserves (whenever that may be) will occur in the Lower 48. Therefore, virtually all of the money that pays for the gas (and amortization of the pipeline) will originate with residential and industrial consumers Outside.
Your negotiations with “Big Oil” are, essentially, arguing over how to split up the take of money from outsiders. I hope you can appreciate that for an outsider such as myself, the key question is, rather: what policy will lead to the lowest delivered cost per unit of natural gas? This question will become especially sharp if it turns out that the Federal government (that is, the taxpayers in the Lower 48) ends up subsidizing the gasline.
I am practically a charter reader of the Mudflats, and I have a certain empathy for things Alaskan based on spending the winter of 70-71 at Clear, but I have to say that since the North Slope development, you all have been living in a state-fiscal dreamworld. I am just as incensed as any other knee-jerk liberal at the multi-billion-dollar profits of the oil companies, but I am also aware that a billion dollars into the Permanent Fund has the same effect on the price of gasoline or heating oil as a billion into Exxon’s bank account.
I stipulate that we (that is, the US) need a gasline. The gas reserves are a significant resource that could help us bridge the energy gap between now and a “greener” future. It seems to me that sooner would be better than later, and that sooner might also mean cheaper in the long run. I am afraid that the AGIA will turn out to be a paper tiger; that its failure will leave the oil companies in an even more dominant position; and that this will delay the availability, and increase the cost, of supply from the AK gasfields.
AK government is, admittedly, in a difficult position. Any of the major oil companies is, financially, bigger than Alaska. As SMR (14:11:43) points out, AK will not be able to negotiate properly until it frees itself from the current situation where its entire state budget depends on energy royalties/taxes.
Mr. Gara, your post may well resonate with some of your Alaskan constituents. I would even agree that your position is appropriate for a state representative — trying to maximize the financial benefit to the state. However, I have to object to your use of the term “Progressive” to describe yourself. Maximizing local benefits to the detriment of the greater community is not a progressive stance.