'No' on the license
Senate should steer Alaska elsewhere on pipeline project
Published Thursday, July 24, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!The Alaska House of Representatives voted 24-16 this week to give TransCanada a state license to build the North Slope natural gas pipeline and sent the license legislation to the Senate, where its passage seems generally to be expected when the upper chamber votes next week.
We urge the Senate to come to a different conclusion than the House, to realize that the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act process is not the way to go and that giving a license to TransCanada under AGIA is not the best course to take.
We realize, though, that this view is likely held by only a minority of legislators and, possibly, the public. But the absence of numbers doesn’t mean the absence of correctness.
Gov. Palin will, in all probability, get to sign the awarding of the license to TransCanada, a reputable Canadian pipeline-building company that has filed a responsible pipeline application in accordance with the gas act.
But, as has been noted here and elsewhere many times, TransCanada has no gas of its own. It will need the gas held under legitimate lease by BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil for its project to proceed. TransCanada needs the oil companies to commit the gas to its project so it can secure financing — no financing, no project.
That’s an inescapable fact.
TransCanada by itself gets Alaska nothing.
BP and ConocoPhillips, as most people should know by now, have embarked on their own pipeline project and have committed to spending $600 million on preliminary work — including field work that is under way — during the next three years. So it is difficult to see what is gained by giving a license to TransCanada. And the state “license” isn’t even the one that matters; that one comes from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. BP and ConocoPhillips have already begun the process to take their North Slope project to FERC.
Is the TransCanada proposal being kept around to keep pressure on the oil companies? Some people think so. But does Alaska need to be giving $500 million in financial support to TransCanada to keep applying the pressure? That’s what an AGIA license will give to the company. Is that the best use of that money? It seems that BP and ConocoPhillips have, after these many years, made a big-time commitment to work toward building the gas line.
Gov. Palin’s signature on the TransCanada license legislation will commit the state to working exclusively with TransCanada. The state won’t be able to do anything, like talking with the oil companies, that could be construed as advancing a project that would be a rival of the TransCanada project.
Alaska will be locked in and maybe locked out.
The granting of a license to TransCanada will be a landmark moment for Gov. Palin and for the state. That’s something that the governor’s opponents and supporters should be able to agree on.
Just what type of landmark — a famous one or an infamous one — is where they differ.
We think it will be an infamous one. Giving $500 million to TransCanada isn’t necessary. Half a billion is a lot of money, even for a state flush with cash. Too many questions surround the TransCanada proposal. And there’s another project proceeding at a faster clip.
There’s still time for the Senate to correct Alaska’s course by voting against giving TransCanada a license.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
AGIA needs to be approved as soon as possible. Then we have to get to energy relief for Alaskans. We need the Alaska State Royalty Oil to be refined and distributed to Alaskans at $2.00 a gallon for all fuels. Anything less than a fuel subsidy program will leave Alaska's economy in a shambles.
ok, i guess i dont get it, why are so many people backing transcanada?
Wow ... I've always thought the jokes about the DNM and oil companies were a joke until now.
Why on earth should the State let the oil companies strong arm us into following their plan? The State had a process, they publicized this process, the oil companies had their chance during this process. Just because they don't like how it turned out does not mean they can tell the state "Well, we lost when we did it your way, so now we're going to force you to play our way"
The oil companies need to remember that it is Alaska's oil, and we ultimately are the ones in control.
Why does anyone care who owns the leases?
the oil companies haven't said they would refuse to transport gas on a TC line... They just use mouthpieces to ominously point out that they think they own the gas.
Many countries have a law in their Competition Laws called "refusal to deal". That is exactly what this falls under. It's extortion, saying "Do it our way, or we'll make sure it doesn't happen at all".
Continuing along that path is not in the long-term best interests of this state.
Look at point thompson. BP/exxon/etc will never risk the possibility of losing their leases. If they refuse to ship gas, which again, they won't do, the legal machine starts and they lose billions.
It's a scare tactic, an obvious one, an unethical one, and DNM is eating it up saying it's delicious and everyone else should think so too.
I ain't buying the hype that Big Oil will build a gas line, no way. I do agree that this deal with the Canucks is rotten to the core. Michael Dukes (for you new people-he has the most popular radio show in Fairbanks) was playing a recording of the head of TransCanada, their CEO, who was saying that Alaska was last on their list of gas line projects- heck, they will not even get around to Alaska until the end of the next decade. So what does that mean? Another 15 years for Fairbanks to get affordable energy? I am ready to toss out all the incumbents who voted for this. These people- and the News-Miner, should have been paying better attention.
The good folks who testified said over and over and over again that they want a gas line owned and controlled by Alaska. If people do not want a Canadian gas line, then their wishes should be respected.
The legislators that ignored our wishes: Kawasaki, Guttenberg, Kelly and Coghill.
Maybe G P has a cousin or somethin at transcanada....
Tom Erwin Commissioner of DNR, on the Michael Duke's show yesterday really ripped the treasurer of the Port Authority and the Port Authority apart. Erwin said, the Port Authority had the poorest presentation of all and even with the State bending over backwards couldn't help them. Erwin countered every contention presented by the Port Authority's treasurer. Wonder if Dukes will present both sides and play the statement issued yesterday by the Chief of Transcanada and replay the discussion he had with Erwin.
Transcanada is not perfect, but at this time it is our best bet to get a project going.
The State of Alaska has almost a perfect record in defeating the oil companies in court. The producers are not going to risk losing leases that are worth tens of billions. They are going to play hardball but in the end the gas will be committed to the pipeline project.
Icebreakers Haven't been heard !
Why are we discussing Pipes at all ?
The reason this is so "IF" is Imported LNG can beat Alaska Pipe's cost, at every possible market (except Exxon's Over the Top could edge the farthest source, Qatar -- at Chicago, only).
The reason -- SEA TRAVEL IS CHEAPER !!
Just take the Valdez Plan & remove $20 ugly Billion in Pipeline.
... besides: a PIPE IS FIXED AT BOTH ENDS.
A pipe to Prudhoe means KILLING THE OIL.
Now current standards would not extract all 13.6 Billion barrels left there BUT if Future Tech can, & Alaska RUINS it, the lawsuit would be for:
1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS !
Plus Punitive Damages !
Think about it.
And:
BUSINESS WILL FLEE THE STATE before the Pipe completes -- to avoid being among the Property owners that have to PAY IT (that's what happens when Municipalities BANKRUPT -- $3 Trillion works out to $4.5 million per Alaskan )!
To the Editor who wrote the Editorial: Who is this WE you keep writing about?
We voted to build an Alaska Gas Pipeline last year. Then Alaska voted into law the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act through the full Legislature. We recieved one acceptable proposal that met the State's requirements for a pipeline. We should be awarding that license to build the line effective immediately. We will hope that the producers that hold the leases participate in the open season. If they fail to do so then we can take their leases back for failure to produce. We can then let other companies bid on the leases with a clause that requires production.
Those are our options. The producers had at least 25 years to build a line at lower costs than those of today, which now, they say makes the line economical.
Why is Alaska supporting Trans Canada Alaska, because they are willing and able to build a line that meets our requirements. I have yet to hear one of the competing plans' comparison to the AGIA requirements. Denali Group and the Port Authority's all Alaska Pipeline plans leave out one big player and that is Alaska, the will of the people, and what Alaska requires in a line.
We don't have to build it, but our input upfront is missing from the other two plans. That alone makes me wonder why our legislature thinks we can get a better deal from the competitors that aren't playing by the same rules.
I announce I want a house built. Only one company submits a bid meeting my requirements. A year later two other companies tell my neighbors they have a better plan and are going to build my house on my land using my resources. Who should I hire to get what I want?
Again, thank goodness Sam Bishop is returning.
BigMike:
See what happens when you form an opinion and state it publicly! Burst a few bubbles and, oh boy, it's like you attacked someone's religion. Here's an idea. Why not invite someone from the DNM editorial board on your show? Mr. Irwin (not Erwin) was evidently on yesterday in a tit-for-tat with Mr. Pierce. Why not invite Dermit Cole, Kelly Bostian or Rod Boyce (or all three) tomorrow? I think the audience would like to hear a program like that. I would certainly be interesting and informative to me to hear how they decide what topics to editorialize and how the content is developed. I'd listen to the whole show.
While I don't always agree with the editorials, I certainly find them to stimulate thought. And I've always known it isn't "reporting." It is "opinion" - something we all have and something we are all free to express.
Give it some thought. It could be a hit.
Alaska's PPT means you earn almost $2 for every $1 of Big Oil Profit.
If you Disagree with them SOMONE is shooting themselves in the Foot.
Why would they decrease their OWN Profits ?
Worry about them scamming you on the Tariffs, but on matters of them making PROFITS FROM SALES -- they cannot MAKE money without YOU MAKING MORE.
... it's Alaska that's got it's own bullets in its own feet.
UNOBTAINIUM...
Aside from the 200^tcf of gas in proven leases onshore there's recent estimates of over 1000tcf of gas offshore in the BeaufortSea and Chukchi. The big pushers of the big-steel-pipeline is the hard-core military-industrial-complex who originally blueprinted this big-steel-megaproject in WW2..
...they just wanna make it look like it's a populist-progressive-project.
The gas&oil that gets spotted by the exploration companies is immediately assessed and valuated and mortgaged 3times by the brokers.
The value becomes hyper-inflated before it's drilled.
The boardroom pirates have been doing this for hundreds of years.
Every potential resource on the planet gets assessed and "taxed"..
..including you and the house you live in, yes, you are just a commodity too. If you can see it from satellite, then you can begin claiming it and banking on it.
It seems obvious Juneau and BigBiz don't give "two whoops in hell" about how much money they expect to throw at this megaproject. The more drama they can whip up about the "passing of gas" the more "important" thus expensive the project becomes. The producers of this movie are busy loading imaginary and inflationary expenses to this project.
The most expensive epic movie ever filmed, so you should expect to pay $5000.00 per ticket at the box-office
[or $5k/month for your gas-bill]
In all of the journalism written about this daily the most commonly used adjective used to describe this "Big Steel Pipeline" is "e x p e n s i v e". Paid-shill journalists are comparing the expense of getting access to the hydrocarbons in the Caspian-Region to the costs of drilling in the arctic. Does anybody know what the real-cost of spewing 2000tons of Depleted-Uranium around Iraq is gonna be??
In 1974, when sitting at the desk in Fairbanks ordering some Crouse-Hinds and Allen-Bradley motor-starters and switchgear, I began joking... "I don't care if it's made from Unobtainium, we need it here yesterday, and hell no I don't care what it costs, just send the invoice to this office address in Seattle."
Should the oil companies own their own pipeline ??
Suuure, why not.. then all of NorthAmerica can be a "company town" that's replaced the dollar for hydrocarbon-script.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act has as much teeth nowdays as an impeachment.
Exposed to $50trillion of debt...
The US-Congess has already spent the money that the economy will earn in the next 50years by selling to us our own resources.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The Gas is already gone.....
stolen by spendaholics
Anybody wanna build a cheap gasline to get some affordable gas?
There's a lot of analogies out there that really hit home.
When you and your family is sitting in the cold, do you wait another 6 years till someone proposes to build a 'perfect' house, or would you be willing to accept an imperfect one, as long as it meets your basic standards?
Oil companies make money for their share holders. That's their justification. Like a lawyer who gets his client off of a murder charge over a technicality, they're just doing their job to the best of their ability. That's what they tell themselves, and us, so they can sleep at night.
They will not cash in the natural gas ticket, if it means they will loose money on oil. They know they can delay on the natural gas even longer till the oil is played out, and natural gas prices are tripled what they are now.
They have no ethical reservations when it comes to making money. If they can get away with it, they will. This is why I support TransCanada. They are not oil. They just want to build a pipeline. Their interest lies in doing it as quickly as feasibly possible, to start making money as soon as possible.
I would however, like to see the state sponsor a 'bullet line' to the interior. Fairbanks needs a strong natural gas supply now. Not only for the heating alternative, but also for air quality. On that alone, we should be able to tap into some of that federal money for air quality improvements.
custerwilson... if you really wanna show how easy it is to ship gas out of the arctic by boat I'll show you a shortcut.
Did you know that you can take an old smelly fish-freezer ship and park it off Point Thomsen in deep water [there's a dropoff there], then you can run a raw-gasline to a 10ton-gizmo parked on the bottom next to your deep-anchor at 1500' deep. The product you get onboard the ship from the riser-pipe attached to the 10ton-gizmo looks like softserve icecream, but it's really methane-hydrate.
Methane-Hydrate compresses the effective volume of nat-gas by a factor of 160. LNG's ratio is 600:1
But with low-overhead expense you can make a good profit shipping the 160:1 methane-hydrate to market...
...this is how you prove that ArcticShipping is more cost-effective, by demonstrating that it can be done for an initial investment of less than $10million.
But you'd better have your boat totally festooned with video-surveillance cameras, and recording sonar, with satellite uplink, and every other security method you can think of..
..because just one phonecall from an office in Houston will order a Navy Submarine to "accidentally" surface under your boat project, just like they did with the other "accidental collisions".
The people controlling the hydrocarbon game aren't interested in getting gas to market cheaply..
..they wanna make it as expensive as possible.
They know that if in 2012 there will be an order to Caterpillar for $600million of side-boom pipelayers, then they will buy stock in Caterpillar 6months before the order is cut.
When swimming in the deep end of the pool you might find out there is no bottom there.
"The oil companies need to remember that it is Alaska's oil, and we ultimately are the ones in control."
Good point, MarieBarr, except 'oil companies' should be replaced by 'multinationals'. I cannot accept any corporation dictating policy to our government, contract or not. Any proposal accepted by our legislature should state:
1. A guarantee of a commitment to build (not to study).
2. A stipulation that the state reserves the right to further other projects it deems necessary in order to manage the resource in the best interest of the people of the state, regardless of size or cost.
If this doesnt sit well with the multinationals, too bad. We use our own cash and resources and do it ourselves. The oil and gas belong to us, not them; all we have done is lease the extraction rights, not conveyed ownership.
Of course, its all moot; Anchorage has decided this is the right course and we all know who is really in power in this state. The interior is Alaskas red-headed stepchild, and there is no glass slipper thats going to change that.
The Newsminer really owes an explanation to its readers on WHY they are so pro oil and anti Palin. We are now seeing a feeble attempt by the pro big oil legislatures (Ramras and Harris) attempting to railroad the plan and Palin by calling for a "special, indepth investigation on the recent top cop dismissal. Our country and state are heading for an economic disaster not seen since the dirty thirties. Why are they trying to divert the state's attention away from the very pertinent, serious issues? One can't help but feel someone is receiving "something". Newsminer, fess up.
I would like to know how to get access to the sound bite Michael Duke's used on his show in which the CEO of Transcanada states they won't even begin the Alaska line until the latter end of the next decade. I heard it and was absolutely appalled. If he is correct, that is 10 years minimum before construction, not production, will begin.
This failed when Carter tried to do it. Why does anyone think it can work now?
Big oil boycotted AGIA in hopes of crushing it. Now that we are proceeding with AGIA they suddenly want to build a line of their own. The only thing big oil wants less than to build a gas line of their own right now is to have someone else build one. If AGIA is not approved we will see the Denali Line slowly fade away.
Non-Lemming, here is what I could find. This was the top guy over at TransCanada, their CEO, so it is pretty clear what the Canadians' priorities are. Alaska is #4 on the list.
And this is the kind of stuff they are saying before they have approval- imagine what will come later.
452-4448 is the number for the LIO. If it is OK that we pay these guys 500 million, and Fairbanks has to wait for gas for 15 years- then tell 'em you want the Canadian deal. If not, well, what I do not understand is with all the money we have, why not build this line ourselves?
http://watch.bnn.ca/the-business-news/ju...
The Prudhoe Gas has never been stranded, and Alyeska has been shipping out as much NGL's as possible mixed with the crude all along. This is the REAL-cause of the ExxonValdez disaster[not Hazelwoods DUI].
Gaslines are not nosebleed-expensive to build, just ask Gazprom.
Running a $10mil 4" plastic-hose into Prudhoe's posterior orifice will make the delirious patient with the persistent bowel obstruction combative, but with enough video cameras in the operating theater the gas will pass, and the delirium will subside.
It doesn't require $500mil exploratory brain surgery followed by a $30billion bypass operation.
Transcanada is not perfect, but at this time it is our best bet to get a project going.
FairbanksGas, I agree. And TC was the only company to submit a proposal within the AGIA process.
DenaliGuy, you know that you and I agree on almost everything!! This is not different, and it IS OUR GAS!! Hey, we are going to try to come down for a bit this weekend, but my darling has to work and if we get down, it will be Saturday and maybe we might can spend the night. I just got back from California last night from firefighting and am TIRED, but we really do want to come down!! I hope you are doing well, and hope to see you soon.
11801N-
Thanks for the help!
How come no one gets that a commitment to build requires financing? Financing is dependent up F/Ts, F/Ts that require possession of a resource. Why would producers ship on a competitors pipeline--a pipeline that will never get built without financing?
I've got a superfantastic idea - We'll ask the President, Congress, The Governor, The State Legislature, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Tooth Fairy to structure a deal just for Fairbanks. It looks something like this:
*A bullet line directly to every home in Fairbanks
*Fairbanksans will pay only 9 cents per MCF for natural gas
*The State and Federal governments will pay to build a Borough owned refinery
*The new refinery will only charge Fairbanks residents 1.10 per gallon for gasoline
*Fairbanksans will all be employed by some major industry entity and will be guaranteed salaries in excess of $75,000 for jobs they don't actually have to go to
*The State of Alaska will amend the payout structure of the dividend so that ONLY Fairbanksans receive a $25,000 annual dividend
*Fairbanksans will receive a minimum of a 1,000 shares in the stock of every energy company doing business in the state of Alaska. . .or any company that can spell Alaska
*All decisions of Alaska State Government must be approved, unanimously, by every registered voter within the boundaries of the Fairbanks North Star Borough
My fear is, that you'd complain about having nothing to complain about.
I am sure glad that over all these months of hardship we had BP and Conico as a friend. I am sure happy that as my neighbors and I struggle to keep gas in our vehicles and fuel in our furnaces that we had BP and Conico there to sacrifice for us and give up their RECORD profits to ease the burden of the people. It makes me warm and fuzzy every time I see their Denali project add playing on the TV with the United We Stand, Divided We Fall, song playing in the background.
I am especially proud of my fellow Alaskans when I see adds and the posts that promote going right back under the loving, caring thumb of the Big Oil Company's and based on the history of how they have treated us surely you can understand why. .
Heath, you might call your Senator and ask him/her how much surplus cash Alaska has this year. I've read that the amount of money we will have in surplus over the next few years will be more than enough to build the gasline. So why are we crazy enough to pay the Canadians 500 million dollars to build a line that we will not own? A line that will not get gas to the Interior for 15 years- if ever.
What the hell is in the drinking water in Juneau? Is it some parasite that eats brain tissue?
I dont even care anymore who gets the project as long as we Alaskans can get some gas to our homes..... and not in 30 years! It seems to me that Trans-Canada is the best bet to actually get it done, instead of the typical Exxon, BP hemming and hawing that goes on forever. My question is , if they built the Alaska Pipeline in 3 years with 1970's technology, why the heck is it gonna take 10 years with current modern technology to see oil or gas off the slope today? Oh it must be all the environmental BS hoops they have to jump through?
TransCanada won't do a dang thing to tick BigOil off because they all have been industry partners from the start.
None of TransCanada's other projects are totally independent of BigOil.
Without BigOil TC would be sunk in 24hrs.
Even though the governor's heart might have started out in the right place a 44year old woman will never survive a walk in the wilderness near these varmints, even if she has an IQ of 190 she can't out run a BizGrizz.
Juneau is an easy cupcake compared to the other places BigOil does biz like Lagos,Nigeria or Baghdad, or Teheran, or Baku...
BigOil's lawyers employ psych-specialists to "game" the personalities of their targets. We all know this happens en-masse in marketing, but forget it happens one-on-one daily too. They spend just as much time on key people in Alaska as the pentagon spent analyzing Saddam Hussein. Does anybody know what it means to be "Krolled" in the world of biz??
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&...
BigOil might be spoiled rotten and on top of the world, but they're not too bright sometimes.
What will you people write about if AGIA passes? Just curious? If it does it will be several years of waiting till the open season.
I am sooo tired of the "If we don't do something stupid now, we'll lose our change to make a bad deal forever!" argument. The governors office & the legislature are trying to pull a fast one with the argument that because TransCanada is the only company that was left after they eliminated the competition, that we should make this bad deal? If the only company left standing isn't offering what Alaska needs, DON'T MAKE THE DEAL. Paying TransCanada $500,000,000.00 to eliminate Alaska's option to deal with anyone is not a good idea. Especially when they don't have to do anything but sit on the money. TransCanada gets 1/2 BILLION & they don't have to produce 1 foot of gas? They'll be laughing all the way to the bank. The Port Authority doesn't didn't do a "good" presentation? What do you expect from a grass roots organization? Gee, maybe they didn't pay as many outside consultants as the rest of the Carpet Baggers.
No act or authorization by the State prevents the Port Authority or Denali from getting private financing to build their lines. I have yet to hear of anyone asking for investment in those lines. All I have heard from either or both of them is "DON'T do the AGIA deal, support our own version of the gas line". Where are their plans, proposals to the state, or anything that substantially deals with their vision for the line they want to build? ALASKANS must have some input for an All Alaska Line to Work. Alaskans MUST have INPUT in the "ALL ALASKA GAS LINE" that some say is going forward with or without Alaskan's input. Is Denali or the Port Authority willing to let us provide our input and will they honor our requirements? "C'mon, C'mon, Let's work together", is a one sided commercial if that only means abandon our requirements.
Late or not the State can work with them and TC to get the line built cooporatively as long as WE have our requirements met in accordance with AGIA, anything less is a violation of State Law. As for timing or not starting construction until 2018. That is close to the original plan, but some people are just now realizing it. The big line is not for in state use so much as it is for getting the gas on the open market to replace the oil revenue after 2025.
Save DistantThunder's plans, no other major pipeline project in Alaska even has a plan to be complete ever! So YES, I am happy with TC's timeline and the State's long term planning for a Gas Line.
The fight was fixed from the start in many different ways..
I've read many different consultants reports submitted to Juneau over the past 10years..
..much of the data and conclusions seemed fiddled and fudged.
I suspect AGPA was playing Marlon Brando..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0waNRaz6...
A big steel "pipeline" [not gasline] like the one Juneau is trying to buy out of the catalog is the most expensive method of moving the gas...
...but in fact the pipeline is dual purpose, like TAPS it's a hermaphrodite pipeline that can be used to ship either gas or oil.
It was originally designed in WW2 to be the service line for Naval Petroleum Reserve #4.
It's not a gasline built to serve the domestic peace and prosperity..
it's a fuel line for battleships and tanks and bombers and jeeps.
It's for fueling the phoney-bogus war-on-terra for the next 100years.
There are already several multilateral military agreements, and battle plans, signed and ratified by generals in the US and Canada militaries to ensure this pipeline gets built under the big-guns.
It's a pipeline originally dreamed up by empire.
The product shipped thru this pipeline will be sold at Baghdad and Bagram Airbase 100years from now..
The people who want this pipeline the most don't care if Fairbanks freezes in the dark.
The Alaska Greed Inducement Act is timed for the big drawdown of overseas troop deployment, just like TAPS was after VietNam...
it's planned as a Workfare-Program in a cyclically-looted economy.
The little circus (house) wimped in with a YEA for AGIA wow! Now on to the the big circus (senate) who will be brazen enough to vote NAY and align with the big oil,big money folks. The same folks that have had the best for all alaskan's at heart for all these years (really). They have been promising a pipeline for lets see hm! 10 nah, 20 nah, 30 some years now. So now that the state has finally got serious and presented AGIA (may not be a perfect plan but better than the 30 years of nothing). And look the big (oil/money) boys cry wolf and try to pull and end around the fair and competitive bid process with DENALI. If you believe for a minute that big oil will build a pipeline with out the threat of competion from AGIA think again. (Or anyone want some ocean front property in Arizona). And yes the latest (built by alaskans, blah, blah, ad) they know that by not
agreeing to the AGIA rules imposed by the state, they can hire outsiders cheaper and will (simply economics dear watson) not so with AGIA. So lets see if the Senate has the backbone we elected them to show! And remember to look close at the NAY votes (VECO did not get all of the bad guys). GAS delivery in 2018 is better than what we have had for the last 30 years.
Still believe it was a good editorial that saw past the smoke and mirrors.
why doesn't Pike's owner finance a pipeline and get our local pipefitters, welders, laborers, etc to build it??? too busy catering to Big Oil sleeping in his hotel and lounging on his deck...make sure they pay cash...is he throwing kelly bostian a going away party there too? hope it's free and we're all invited...
11801N -
I think you missed my point. . .I think we fundamentally agree. As for the surplus amount--you're not correct. We will not have a $30 billion surplus and the $3 billion estimate for the Enstar bullet line is VERY conservative.
I have a basic philosophical conflict with state ownership of a gas line. I don't think State Government should be in the business of owning and operating a gasline. The whole concept is the textbook definition of socialism.
My criticisms of AGIA and the TransCanada proposal have never had anything to do with personal opinions of them as a company. They are indeed a credible, respectable, competent entity. However, the fact that they do not own any gas to commit makes their project far more speculative. I, like most Alaskans, want A pipeline built. AGIA and the TransCanada proposal, as is, does not get us there.
Perhaps "Big Oil" would have moved forward with Denali without AGIA, perhaps they wouldn't have. Who knows. However, they're plan has a FAR greater liklihood of getting financed, and thus built.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.