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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2009/03/17/Governor-Palins-Big-Energy-Battles

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.

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.