Fairbanks chamber board votes again to send gas line letter to Palin
Originally published Monday, June 23, 2008 at 3:20 p.m.
Updated Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 9:18 a.m.
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS -- The Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors decided today to proceed with plans to send a letter to Gov. Sarah Palin and the Legislature evaluating two natural gas pipeline proposals and encouraging officials to approve ExxonMobil’s plans to develop the Point Thomson Unit on the North Slope.
The letter, drafted by the chamber’s governmental relations committee, was approved on a 12-1 vote last week, but it quickly became the subject of controversy. Chair-elect Jack Wilbur, whose signature would be on the letter, asked that the letter be held.
Sen. Gary Wilken, R-Fairbanks, said at an executive board meeting Wednesday to discuss the letter, which he saw as favoring a proposal by ConocoPhillips and BP and said the chamber should reconsider. Wilbur sent out an e-mail to the 12 members who had voted in favor of the letter previously, offering reconsideration if at least two people requested it. Three people asked for reconsideration.
Board members on Monday rejected, in an 8-9 vote, a motion to rescind the board’s approval of the letter.
The motion, had it been approved, would have opened the door to reconsideration of the letter, which evaluated two gas pipeline proposals and offered analysis of ExxonMobil’s plans to develop natural gas at Point Thomson.
TransCanada applied for state incentives through the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, while the BP-ConocoPhillips proposal, called Denali, is proceeding on its own. The letter concluded by urging companies, producers and the state to work together for the greatest likelihood of success.
Approval of that letter last week prompted chamber CEO Jewelz Nutter’s immediate resignation. In her letter of resignation, she voiced concerns that by favoring one proposal over the other, the chamber was creating a perception in the community that board chairman Rick Solie, who works for ConocoPhillips, had undue influence in chamber business.
Solie and John Ringstad, who works for BP, did not participate in the committee and board discussions about the pipeline proposals, according to Solie and to Wilbur, who presided over the June 16 discussion.
Wilken, a chamber member but not a member of the executive board, said Monday he was disappointed in the chamber’s action. He said the letter clearly favors one proposal over the other, and he questioned the chamber’s ability to study all sides of the issue in a short time frame.
“We essentially made a snap decision on a hundred-year proposal,” Wilken said. “That’s sad for our chamber and it’s a sad day for Fairbanks. We should have spent more time, did more work to understand, because the letter clearly has been interpreted, regardless of intent, to favor one project over another. That’s not where the people advising the Legislature think we should be.”
Wilken said chamber members did not have all the facts before them before making a vote.
“With all respect to the government affairs committee, I’m going to listen to people that have their life involved in these decisions and their reputation on the line. Those are the people that are standing on the side of Alaska,” Wilken said.
Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, a former chamber director himself, said the committee and board processes worked well despite the “dicey issues” under consideration. He spoke with the chamber’s executive committee last week.
“My thought was just to sit down with the chamber ... and just see if the message could be that the chamber supports both parties going forward, Denali and TransCanada, and try to convince the chamber that if that is their message, then try to make it clearer,” Kelly said. He said the letter was “very long, very detailed” and that the timing of Nutter’s resignation and a misleading headline in the Daily News-Miner created misperceptions in the community of the letter’s meaning.
Members of the chamber’s governmental relations committee said the letter was not intended to promote one gas line proposal over the other but rather to encourage the state to bring stakeholders to a common table to get a gas line built. However, the letter states that the Denali plan by BP and Conoco is more likely to succeed than TransCanada’s because Denali has “strategic partnerships” with the gas producers. The letter concludes with three recommendations to legislators, urging them to resolve issues of fiscal stability; to encourage the administration to approve ExxonMobil’s Point Thomson plan of development; and to encourage the administration to engage all stakeholders, including U.S. and Canadian federal authorities, state government, gas producers and the pipeline builder.
Board member Margaret Russell defended the committee’s process to other board members.
“We looked at it as comprehensively as any business organization can look at this,” Russell said. “To say we did not have input from the Interior delegation would, I believe, not be a fair statement, We had input from the Interior delegation, we had input from other members of the Legislature.”
Russell urged the board not to reconsider the letter and questioned why some legislators were hoping to refine the chamber’s message.
“The question will be raised as to why the letter is now being word-smithed by the very people it is going to,” Russell said.
Board treasurer Bart LeBon presided over the discussion and said the letter, following Monday’s vote, would be mailed immediately.
Gov. Palin’s deputy press secretary, Sharon Leighow, was not sure whether the governor had seen the letter in advance, as some legislators did.
“The governor remains confident that AGIA puts the state of Alaska on a path that will lead to a successful gas pipeline,” she said, adding that a successful gas pipeline would protect the state’s long-term interests and meet the needs of gas shippers.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Well we have seen who owns the local chamber, not much news there. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its probably a duck..... VECO anyone... MRD
I think Bill Robertsons Letter to the editor had merit in asking whom the Chamber Board is representing? Does this vote and letter represent the Chamber Membership?
Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce, GFCC...hum-m-m
Might change the name to to GF Sham-er of Monkey Business, GFSoMB.
The 9 to 8 vote looks like a few more Board members voted this time. And the near unanimous 12 to 1 first vote isn't quiet the same slam-dunk, with this 9 to 8 vote.
Senator Gary Wilken's "disappointed and embarrassed for the chamber." Yep, might add that a whole bunch more here in Fairbanks agree with the Senator, too. The "Welcome Wagon" must have got lost with the VECO crowd in control.
Sure hope that GFSoMB letter doesn't scare off the Governor and Legislature's consideration of A gas line going through the FNSB and all the other pork for local needs.
AKCANDOR...your question was rhetorical, right?
Is it a secret ballot? Can we see who voted and how? I want to know what businesses to support or not.
From their we page: "The Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce is an influential pro-active business organization that provides visionary direction for the Fairbanks community through political and economic development leadership. It is a non-profit, membership driven organization with over 750 members. The Chamber has been an advocate for Fairbanks businesses for over 50 years and strives to represent the membership and address the multiple needs of the business community."
Unlike the government, they are a special interest organization and are not required to report their votes on influencing our representatives. We don't have to get permission to send letters to our legislators who sometimes need a reminder that they represent people not businesses.
By the way here's a little interesting fact: Rick Solie, 2008 GFCC Chairman is the Director of Northern Region Office for ConocoPhillips. I don't see any conflict of interests there! I am sure if you are a member of the GFCC you can get the results of the vote, but I am just an Alaska citizen and they aren't required to make the minutes of their meetings public.
C'mon guys. I actually read the letter and it was good! These are people who come from all sectors of business across the community. Is it AGIA treason to provide input? It's been decades now that we have wished for a pipeline so we could enjoy less expensive energy in the Interior. Every business in town wants the same thing - as soon as possible. They could care less who delivers it. The way I see it, the GFCC encouraged something similar to mediated consideration by all the parties. If that saves $500,000,000.00 and still gets the gas to market (and to us) quicker and for less tariff, I'm for it. Denali (who has the gas) has started their field work. Trans Canada (who has no gas) is still waiting for a meaningless state "license" - a pseudonym for a half of a billion state (yours and mine) dollars. I'm certainly not "embarassed" by the Chamber's actions. I am "encouraged" that somebody agrees with me that we need to quit all the back shooting and get this show on the road and that they didn't fold under what was apparently pretty intense political pressure. If that's not what the letter said, tell me where I'm wrong.
Danali doesnt have the gas. We do. All alaskans own the gas as stated in the constitution. Get your History straight Darkhorse. We already allowed Denali to pump our oil for us. Considering the job they have been doing with hiking up the price of shipping, bribing public officials through veco, and everything else that has been on the news recently I dont think they have done a very good job. I STATE AGAIN FOR THE READING IMPAIRED DENALI DOESN'T HAVE ANY GAS!!!!!!!!! IT OURS AND WE DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH IT AND WHO PUMPS IT FOR US!!!!! Since denali has done such a horrible job moving alaskan's oil without trying to screw everyone over, again i site recent news, Lets give some else a shot. Someone who at least can submit a proposal based on our rules!!!!! ( HINT) Transcanade? (HINT)
Darkhorse someplace else your wrong.
That meaningless state license you talk about. well since all alaskans are stakeholders in all our natuaral resources, from gold to oil to gas to even the fish, and since we choose Gov. Palin to represent us in these sort of issues by a popular state wide vote, and since Gov. Palin issues that license..... Well I'll be d*****! I guess that means that "Meaningless" license is actually the stakeholders, a.k.a. the entire populaton of alaska, giving the go ahead to go in there and start pumping our gas for us. to take it without or permission, otherwise known as stdealing, by not having a license to pump it is a smack in the face to all alaskans and last i knew stealing is a crime in just about any state i can think of. Personally I wouldn't want someone coming into the bank and messing with my money without giving my consent. And since gas = money... well i guess you can see where im going with this. Basically speaking Darkhorse you got everything wrong. The question is did you get anything right????
The original vote was 12-1 to send the letter. The second vote was 8-9 to not send the letter.
So who are the 9 members of the GFCC board who would send a letter to the Governor that is totally biased in favor of the Producers?
You can find the list of board members here:
http://fairbankschamber.org/chamber/2008...
Well, let me guess...
Margaret Russell (E)
Seekins Ford Lincoln Mercury
Jack Wilbur, Chair-Elect
Design Alaska, President
Richard Schok (E)
Flowline Alaska, Inc.
Rick Solie, Chair
ConocoPhillips Alaska
Director of Northern Region Office
Warren Christian (A)
Doyon Industrial
General Manager
There are a couple of bankers on that list -- I wonder how they voted.
Wrong again, BadByrd. The State leased the rights to harvest the gas to the high bidders a long time ago. Alaska gets royalty, severance tax, property tax, and income tax as their share. The "this is our gas and we'll decide what to do with it" is a myth at best. Check the courts and you'll see. And, by the way, it's the legislature that represents the people. The Governor is the chief administrator. Back to Civics 101 and a remedial course on the State Constitution big boy!
My question is do the 750 members of chamber support the decision of 9 board members?
Also I have not heard of any other chamber organizations across the state taking similar positions.
Wow Darkhorse hate to say it but you obviousely don't know what your talking about.
1. yes we leased the oil to them and the gas, key word being leased and as the owners we have the right to pull that lease, which if you had kept up with local affairs you would know that Palin has already threatened to do.
Second we are represented by both legislature and Gov, it's called checks and balances, keep digging that hole buddy, your already in over your head.
Sorry, BadBird. You still have it wrong. Threats don't hold up in Court. Only facts. Alaska is bound by the lease agreements. Go read them. No, it's not checks and balances. It's three branches of government - each with different powers and responsibilities. Ever wonder why some are called Representatives? Do yourself a favor and read the Constitution to find out what the powers of each branch are. I know you'll be surprised.
Big Mike: What poll did you take to determine what reaction "most Fairbanks residents" have had? You must run in a pretty small circle. Most want affordable gas NOW! They don't care WHO.
By the way, where do you think TransCanada will have their Alaska pipeline headquarters? I'm betting on Calgary, Alberta. Just checked the TransCanada web site for news releases. They don't yet mention any headquarters in Delta. Got a contact number?
How about gas to Fairbanks by winter 2009?
www.fairbanksgas.com
...you're all crazy. There's not only gas at Point Thompson, but oil too, oil that's never been touched. The gas is needed to inject into the oil field to recover the oil. Only as the oil runs out is it then sensible to begin taking out the gas.
and Exxon wants to get to the oil in the next 30-40 years?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.