Palin to discuss gas line participation with North Slope producers
Published Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!WASHINGTON – Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, will reach out this week to the state's biggest oil producers about participating in a North Slope natural gas pipeline project being led by TransCanada.
The governor's office on Tuesday confirmed that Palin planned to place preliminary phone calls to executives of BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil in the coming days to discuss the pipeline.
"My understanding was that the plan was to start trying to place the calls tonight," said Sharon Leighow, spokeswoman for the governor.
The calls are expected to cover a range of possible topics, including the state's tax and royalty rates, state oversight of gas-field infrastructure, and the ongoing wrestling match over the fate of Point Thomson.
The participation of Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips – which combined hold rights to roughly 90 percent of the proven gas reserves on the North Slope – is considered by everyone involved essential to the success of a pipeline project.
Palin is expected to ask the companies in the coming days what they need to get onboard with the state-backed TransCanada project.
"The governor is hopeful to have one-on-one conversations with oil industry executives in the near future," Leighow said.
The governor's critics within the oil industry said they were amazed the administration has not undertaken these type of discussions before now, but state officials wanted to wait until legislators approved TransCanada's proposal.
And then the whole vice president thing happened.
Arizona Sen. John McCain tapped Palin on Aug. 29 to be his vice presidential running mate on the GOP ticket. The selection has made it a challenge for Palin to juggle her duties as governor, especially the gas line, which has been her administration's top priority.
The McCain campaign was working with Palin, who was set to return to Alaska on Wednesday evening, to try to schedule time to call each of the oil company executives individually.
"The governor's schedule is very hectic at this time," Leighow said. "Trying to get (her) in touch with top-level oil executives could be a challenge."
The governor's office did not identify the specific oil company executives Palin would be calling.
Representatives of the oil companies declined to speculate on the subject of the call in advance, but all said they support efforts to commercialize their North Slope holdings.
"We share a common objective with the governor to develop energy resources in the state of Alaska," said Charlie Rowton, Conoco spokesman. "We haven't always agreed on the specifics but we share her desire to achieve an outcome beneficial to all stakeholders.
"We would certainly be willing to meet with anyone to discuss issues important to ConocoPhillips and the state," he added.
Exxon spokeswoman Margaret Ross said her company remains committed to developing its gas holdings, which equal about one-third of the North Slope's proven reserves.
"We've said consistently that we agree with the administration that a gas pipeline project will result in the best value to the state and the producers," Ross said. "We're ready to advance it."
A spokesman for BP declined to comment.
Palin has had a rocky relationship with the three companies since coming to power in December 2006.
After dropping direct negotiations with the oil companies pursued by the previous administration, Palin pushed the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, or AGIA, through the Legislature last year, which was tailored to attract competition from third-party players.
One industry official described it as "slamming the door" on the producers.
At the end of August, Palin signed a bill authorizing state officials to award a license to TransCanada to begin developing a 1,715-mile gas pipeline to Alberta, Canada.
The $26 billion pipeline would ship about 4 billion cubic feet of gas per day starting in 2018.
The state license does not guarantee construction of a pipeline but allows TransCanada to pursue costly federal permits and would reimburse the company up to $500 million in start-up costs.
While TransCanada has the state's support, it does not own any gas to fill the pipeline, something her critics have consistently pointed out.
None of the producers submitted applications under AGIA, which they deemed too proscriptive on fiscal terms.
BP and Conoco have partnered on a competing pipeline project similar to the TransCanada proposal. Exxon, so far, has not indicated which project it prefers.
The companies have expressed frustration in the past over what they see as the lack of dialogue with the state on the project.
In an interview in early August, Jim Bowles, president of Conoco Alaska, said there may be a new opportunity for talks with the state now that AGIA is approved.
"In some respects getting the AGIA vote behind us is probably a good thing," Bowles said. "Now that it's passed, we'll see what happens."
While the administration seeks information on reconciling the competing projects, the answer from the companies may be a familiar one.
When Conoco approached the state on fiscal terms earlier this year, the response was that discussion of tax and royalty rates should occur once final cost estimates for the pipeline were complete.
"We thought that made sense," Bowles said.
Conoco and BP hope to have cost estimates for their joint project nailed down by the end of next year.
"At that point we'll be ready to talk to the state about fiscal terms," Bowles said.
News of the governor's plans to talk to the gas owners was seen as a positive sign by industry watchers.
Tom Moskitis, managing director of external affairs at the American Gas Association, said starting a dialogue with the owners of the resources was a good first step.
"We wish them success," Moskitis said. "We want the natural gas from up there to come to market down here where it's needed. My hat's off to her."
Among the questions energy analysts are still curious about is what level of conversations are going on between TransCanada and Exxon, which is still smarting from the shutdown two years ago of the BP-operated trans-Alaska oil pipeline.
TransCanada is not believed to be in talks with BP and Conoco, which have actively opposed the Canadian pipeline company in the halls of the capitol in Juneau.
Contact Washington correspondent R.A. Dillon at dcnews@newsminer.com.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Well as the V.P. nominee maybe she will have a little more juice with the producers.
Really BigMike when was the last well balanced article from this rag?
Denali, and Exxon listen closely, Trans Canada will build the Canadian portion, Denali can build the Alaska Portion and Exxon can fill the line with gas; all under the Trans Canada License as long as you three can work together and make it happen. Time to put up or shut up about being a concerned partner with Alaskans and get the gas moving off the north slope. This is your long term future in Alaska as producers that fits in well with the Picken's Plan. Exxon should be running point on the financials for the ACES Gas tax plan and do the right thing by Alaskans and just maybe we'll let you extend the lease on PT Thompson. It is no secret that Exxon is the most profitable company in the world, and credit for a good deal of those profits belongs to Alaska. We can be partners in development, production, and profits if we are not treated by the big three as if they are the only companies in the world capapble of developing fields and producing gas on the north slope.
ANALYSIS-U.S. LNG importers turn to export markets for help
08.22.08, 11:42 AM ET
United States - By Joe Silha
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. liquefied gas market, traditionally an import-only business, may be poised for some big changes that would allow under-utilized regasification terminals to export the super-cooled gas to more profitable overseas destinations, industry experts said.
While the nation's only liquefaction plant in Alaska has been exporting LNG for 40 years, and some natural gas is exported by pipeline to Mexico, LNG has not yet been shipped overseas from the continental United States and may heighten concerns about having enough supply to meet future demand.
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reut.........
Origin Eyes $8 Billion Joint Venture With Conoco to Fend off BG
By Fayen Wong and Tom Bergin
September 8, 2008
PERTH/LONDON (Reuters) - Australia's Origin Energy Ltd struck a joint venture deal with U.S.-based ConocoPhillips and promised an extra shareholder payout, a move that could either defeat an $11 billion bid from Britain's BG Group Plc or force a higher offer.
Origin and Conoco said in statements on Monday that Conoco would contribute up to $8 billion toward a 50-50 joint venture that will develop the massive coal-seam gas (CSG) assets and build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project.
OPEC Suggests Production Will Be Left Untouched
OPEC president says organization is likely to keep crude output steady
By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria September 9, 2008 (AP)
OPEC oil ministers will likely decide to keep output at present levels, the group's president said Tuesday, suggesting that most members could accept prices at $100 a barrel.
OPEC nations account for two-thirds of the world's known oil reserves, and about 40 percent of the world's oil production, affording them considerable control over the global market.
9-9-08
5 CEOs of some of the biggest oil companies were on Capitol Hill today.
1. Yes Gov. Palin has signed AGIA with T/C but; as of yet she has not forwarded it to the feds for their approval. Which "sets" the deal. Nor has Canada signed their stamp of ok on T/C & AGIA. Canada is "iffy" towards AGIA. Polar bears will stay protected on the endangered list.
2. If we don't have a gasline complete by 2012 tougher new laws will be in effect which grandfather's a existing NGL. If this was 2012; AGIA would not be happening as it is now.
3. Alaska is blessed with natural resources that don't require us to rape Alaska or to bring in T/C. Choose wisely natural resources that will not rape Alaska.
4. Cost & compare all resources from start to finish & maintance. Oil drilling is costly long term if maintained & updated; so it's not. Wind, waves the list goes on.
5. The stiffer laws on future cars that will not depend on fuel but on other power. All new cars are comps on wheels; the tech prevents you from working on your car in most ways.
6. No local company, no business, no community, no department can stop or control old rich oil. Look at us with Valdez, BP & the pipeline, or the recent dumping in the Yukon. You wont be able to save Alaska if they start drilling ANWR. For Alaska's future we have to say no thank you. History of every oil state is very selectively controlled.
7. This is not the 70's or 80's, Alaska has matured a bit. There's money to do it ourselves; contract out as needed. Look around our state the money is in a very limited population now & wont spread out to wide in the next 20-40 years. Where are the lowest prices in Alaska? To a select few. We have a local refinery but our lives are controlled by old oil in Texas & Ok.. We pay the highest prices because we didn't plan 20-40 years ahead.
8. We would gain if we focused on the local resources by areas versus 1 resource statewide. Areas of Alaska are perfect for wind power, or tide power, wave power, oil shale, ect. If I was in one of those lucky villages that has natural gas now; boy would I convert my cars & trucks, ect. to natural gas quick. Couple hundred each to convert to save big time on a fill up every time. Natural gas for cars or trucks is at gas stations for years in the lower 48.
9. Have you been reading about AGIA & T/C in Canadian papers? A change of power is coming in Oct.; will they support AGIA?
10 Or what Alaska has to do to meet Fed requirements? New timelines of old laws both Alaska's & the Feds? Or how much Alaska's population will go up?
11 National security for ANWR? Alaska's security for ANWR? Homeland?
Who'll pay? Us?
12 Don't give up Alaska's freedom or life sytle or future. If anything develop a "Alaskan Safari" on a trans rail or similar concept, start with buses. Alaska's ANWR preserved for generations.
Everyone ask why we pay more in Alaska for fuels here's why.
Read the laws and how they effect us right now with higher fuel, gas prices.
What is written in it. You would understand who, where, how and why we are paying high fuel prices. But not eveyone wants valid facts and not rumors or false statements. The tax breaks for fuel suppliers are added to our price of gas & fuel.
Laws are a great feature to validate without lies from party ties. Compare maps of Ak. of population & natural resources they fit like a sock & shoe together. We have resources in our own locations across the state.
You want some valid and interesting solutions to our energy crisis in Fairbanks and all of AK . http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/ or http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/index.php or http://www.eere.energy.gov/ or http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/commis/
I dare you to look up all of Alaska's resources locations to locations of communities &/or villages. You will see there is a resource that can be developed quick at each. Quicker, cheaper, localized, jobs for that location. No need to wait.
We should look in exporting our NLG and capitalize on it.
ANALYSIS-U.S. LNG importers turn to export markets for help
08.22.08, 11:42 AM ET
United States - By Joe Silha
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. liquefied gas market, traditionally an import-only business, may be poised for some big changes that would allow under-utilized regasification terminals to export the super-cooled gas to more profitable overseas destinations, industry experts said.
While the nation's only liquefaction plant in Alaska has been exporting LNG for 40 years, and some natural gas is exported by pipeline to Mexico, LNG has not yet been shipped overseas from the continental United States and may heighten concerns about having enough supply to meet future demand.
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reut......
P_Davenport,
You are all over the map. Focus and lay off the cafine. Trans Canada has the permits to follow the original gas line proposal route along the ALCAN. There is no way the line is even going to get a stick of rod welded by 2012. First pipe fitting projection is 2016 if my memory serves correctly.
AGIA is meant to replace the oil revenue to the State as our current fields are depleted over the next 20 some odd years. I have no idea why you oppose drilling in ANWR on the coastal plain. I was up there a few weeks ago and it is inaccessible by people. Machines can get there, but they aren't allowed. So... we should just keep it that way rather than actually developing our resources in this state.
Your idea of a Safari, would be great, but there isn't much wildlife along the roads to see. If you would like I can send you the pictures of the three herds of muskox and some sheep along the 500 mile long haul road and a picture of nothing but miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles of nothing. That's the problem with tourism, if the tour isn't worth the money, the tour won't be popular as a tourist destination.
I listened to an excited tourist in Deadhorse that said they saw a 'wolf track' at one of the rest stops. As if no one stops at a road side rest stop and lets their dog out, but for them it had to be a wolf. Had I been their tour guide, I would be swearing by my tourism job that it was most definately a wolf track and that the bus's approach must have scared it away. Aparently everyone fell asleep and dreamed of the wolf that they just missed seeing as the bus passed the muskox that foggy afternoon.
ONAPA
Trans Canada has the permits to follow the original gas line proposal route along the ALCAN.
Wrong...
AGIA is meant to replace the oil revenue to the State as our current fields are depleted over the next 20 some odd years.
wrong....
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.h...
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_su...
http://www.naseo.org/events/annual/index...
http://www.naseo.org/search.asp?cx=01028...
http://firstlook.3tiergroup.com/
http://www.remappingtheworld.com/
http://www.3tiergroup.com/
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes...
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/
http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/ or http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/index.php or http://www.eere.energy.gov/ or http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/commis/
I dare you to look up all of Alaska's resources locations to locations of communities &/or villages. You will see there is a resource that can be developed quick at each. Quicker, cheaper, localized, jobs for that location. We should look in exporting our NLG and capitalize on it.
ANALYSIS-U.S. LNG importers turn to export markets for help
08.22.08, 11:42 AM ET
United States - By Joe Silha
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. liquefied gas market, traditionally an import-only business, may be poised for some big changes that would allow under-utilized regasification terminals to export the super-cooled gas to more profitable overseas destinations, industry experts said.
While the nation's only liquefaction plant in Alaska has been exporting LNG for 40 years, and some natural gas is exported by pipeline to Mexico, LNG has not yet been shipped overseas from the continental United States and may heighten concerns about having enough supply to meet future demand.
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reut......
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_ene...
ONAPA
Sorry I can back up my statements.
Oh...Check the fed site no permit issused for AGIA.
Oh...Check the Canada's site no permit issused for AGIA.
Oh... There's a natural resource map that works like google but on resources.
http://www.remappingtheworld.com/
Use a google map of Alaska beside it for cities.
http://search.nrel.gov/query.html?qt=ala...
"The nation's only liquefaction plant in Alaska."
Do you understand that comment?
What's wrong Alaska with being #1 in the nation for fuel liquefaction?
Why should we give that to Canada? T/C?
And lose our #1 to Canada?? Why?
We are not #1 in oil or fuel no where near it.
I like being #1 in the nation for fuel liquefaction....
What's wrong with Alaska being #1 in the nation for fuel liquefaction?
Alaska Energy Authority Publishes Renewable Energy Atlas
Geographic information systems technology brings together resource maps.
December 2007
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_ene...
In months this was done in villages. Not in years.
Department of Energy Selects Winner of Wind Cooperative of the Year Award
Date: 2/25/2008
Location: Anchorage , AK
U.S. Department of Energy.
WASHINGTON , DC — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced — in partnership with the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) — its selection of the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) of Anchorage, Alaska, as the winner of the 2007 Wind Cooperative of the Year Award. This annual award, in its seventh year, recognizes AVEC for leadership, demonstrated success and innovation in its wind power program. AVEC provides electricity service to 53 small, native villages in rural Alaska and is specifically using wind power to reduce its dependence on diesel power. In collaboration with the wind industry, DOE aims to develop and bring online more clean, domestic, and advanced wind energy technologies to help meet the rapidly growing demand for energy.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/...
All that will help you to see all sides of natural resources in Alaska.
BigMike
12 Don't give up Alaska's freedom or life sytle or future. If anything develop a "Alaskan Safari" on a trans rail or similar concept, start with buses. Alaska's ANWR preserved for generations.
To explain it a lil. Monorails, transrails, such as at Disneyland. Run it on narutral gas. Less impact on ANWR on the coastal plain. Cruise ships stop there or tour businesses take people; to keep ANWR clean, to protect it. Cost affective, jobs, revenue, ect.
Board off the coast line, broad the rail and ride & sightsee around ANWR, above everything. Never to be altered much but enjoyed. Yellowstone and others use mules or hiking.
There's always more than one way to skin a rabbit. Keep ANWR and benefit long term generations.
Run it on narutral gas.
Or by wind like these....
Name Location Power Capacity (MW) Units Turbine Mfr. Developer Owner Power Purchaser Year Online
Kotzebue Wind Project Kotzebue 0.07 1 Vestas Kotzebue Electric Association Kotzebue Elec. Assoc. Kotzebue Elec. Assoc. 2006
Kotzebue Wind Project Kotzebue 0.15 3 Integrity Wind Systems Kotzebue Electric Association Kotzebue Elec. Assoc. Kotzebue Elec. Assoc. 2006
Alaska Village Cooperative Toksook Bay 0.3 3 Northern Power Systems Kotzebue Electric Association Alaska Village Elec Coop Alaska Village Elec Coop 2005
Selawik Wind Project Selawik 0.15 3 Atlantic Orient Co. Kotzebue Electric Association Alaska Village Electric Coop Alaska Village Electric Coop 2004
Kotzebue Wind Project Kotzebue 0.1 1 Northern Power Systems Northwind Kotzebue Electric Association Kotzebue Elec. Assoc. Kotzebue Elec. Assoc. 2002
Wales Wind Energy Project Wales 0.1 2 Atlantic Orient Co. Kotzebue Electric Assoc. Alaska Village Electric Coop Alaska Village Electric Coop 2000
Kotzebue Wind Project, phase II & III Kotzebue 0.35 7 Atlantic Orient Co. Kotzebue Electric Association Kotzebue Electric Assoc. Kotzebue Electric Assoc. 1999
St. Paul Island St. Paul Island 0.23 1 Vestas Tanadgusix Corp. Tanadgusix Corp. Tanadgusix Corp. 1999
Kotzebue Wind Project, phase I Kotzebue 0.15 3 Atlantic Orient Co. Kotzebue Electric Association Kotzebue Electric Assoc. Kotzebue Electric Assoc. 1997
http://www.awea.org/projects/projects.as...
Fairbanks is the red headed step child with frickles to Alaska.
I'm was tired of being used & abused so I looked on offical sites & I found out why,how, who, when,where. Now I know I'm an offical step child of Alaska here in the tanana valley.
Davenport do you suffer from OC disoder?
So.. then the Governor (now VP nominee for one of the two parties) went up against "Big Oil" by having a gas pipeline built by a foreign(even if it is Canada) company, all while we(US)are trying to have independence from these things?
After we dis-reguard Davenport, we can give Palin an opportunity to talk
the Producers into finally supporting the gasline.
draconian,
nice slant to it...but you know better.
It's not a slant. I don't worry about the Canadians. However, imagine if the Russian companies were able to get a contract or two.
Hey, I want that gas pipeline. Will the cost of it being built REALLY be cheaper than what's in the lower 48 (Colorado and surrounding states have more Nat Gas). The Market will determine. The pipeline we want is one to keep our needs, but what will be built is for the world markets.
BigMike.... nope, [big chuckle], I dunno who Davenport is either, maybe I'll drop him a note after I get some other more pressing chores done.
Creativity often looks like Mania before the pie comes out of the oven.
Policy makers really do pay attention to wackos like us sometimes, and the result often looks like pounding square pegs into round holes...
then we trade off and pound round pegs into square holes for a while...
well, at least some pounding gets done.
woodman:
Davenport do you suffer from OC disoder?
After we dis-reguard Davenport, we can give Palin an opportunity to talk the Producers into finally supporting the gasline.******
***
woodman do you know what "OCD" is? I may have "OCD" about lies & truths, just maybe. I may have "OCD" about Alaska, my life here, my future here,equality here, our rights; our resources, our Policy makers, you may be right about my "OCD", just maybe. You are welcome to dis-reguard Davenport all you want. But I'll be the one that's right in the end. Do you ever look up the sites to see if I'm lying? I don't bet but it's a sure chance you didn't. Legal gov. sites don't lie. And that's what I use. I bet you didn't know over 53 villages got wind power in 2008. Did Fairbanks? Truth hurts sometimes in more than 1 way. I accept you don't view things like I do but I don't attack you or attempt to insult you. Why do you feel the need?
BigMike:
P_Davenport = Distant Thunder?
Who do think that BigOil would rather deal with Palin or Obama? They know that Palin will be tough but at least she won't try to nationalize their companies.
My guess is that Palin will have VERY productive phone calls with the Producers.*****
****
Your guess is my fear. Do you know why? Do you Care? Do research on the big oil "if" you don't remember Valdez, or BP on the pipeline? Or the Canada pouring pollution in the Yukon River system last month with "NO" comment from Gov. Palin or the USA? Alaska's resources to them is profit off you and me, everyone. Read about BP internationally, Do Conoco do any on them. Other states or other countries do not care about Alaskans or Alaska read your Alaska history....Truth hurts sometimes in more than 1 way.
P_Davenport=read news, dismiss lies follow up on legal sites for truths. Self thinker after facts.
Distant Thunder=I can not speak for DT
*******
draconianslacker
It's not a slant. I don't worry about the Canadians. However, imagine if the Russian companies were able to get a contract or two.
Hey, I want that gas pipeline. Will the cost of it being built REALLY be cheaper than what's in the lower 48 (Colorado and surrounding states have more Nat Gas). The Market will determine. The pipeline we want is one to keep our needs, but what will be built is for the world markets.
Look up Canadian & Russian & japan companies it will open your eyes.
Will the cost of it being built REALLY be cheaper than what's in the lower 48 (Colorado and surrounding states have more Nat Gas).
Yes if it's instate only.
The pipeline we want is one to keep our needs, but what will be built is for the world markets.
Yes if it's instate only. And Alaska's only. Otherwise we are the last piece of pie. Like now.
****
DistantThunder
Thank you DT for the wackos statement. Anyone who has fought for the right things always get labeled first till people see & get the results of someone fighting for them. Most wont click on the links or follow up on the forbes or BP's or Conoco's sites or gov. sites. Or even own shares or stock in BP or Conoco or Rockefellers or Exxon Mobil. I do I get their "news letters".
I pray Gov. Palin makes no deals with the oil producers because Alaska or Alaskans are not in their profit margin never has been never will be. They want our #1 place of the nation's "only" liquefaction plant in Alaska has been exporting LNG. Some want to give it away. Our only good investment for 40 years.
I hope Gov. Palin says " No Way No How" to the big oil.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make the horse to drink.
"The calls are expected to cover a range of possible topics, including the state's tax and royalty rates, state oversight of gas-field infrastructure, and the ongoing wrestling match over the fate of Point Thomson."
How many readers just scanned thru that paragraph from the column above without seeing the costs to us Alaskans?
The big oil wants it all again.....including the state's tax and royalty rates, state oversight of gas-field infrastructure & Point Thomson. Believe me that's not all the big oil wants. Did you know
Exxon Mobil had it's largest profit year in history because of the Valdez settlement against Alaska & rauise fuel prices to offset paying Alaska? And still share holders protested that Exxon Mobil didn't hit their profit estimate.... Are you aware of their goals of profit?
Origin Eyes $8 Billion Joint Venture With Conoco to Fend off BG
By Fayen Wong and Tom Bergin
September 8, 2008
PERTH/LONDON (Reuters) - Australia's Origin Energy Ltd struck a joint venture deal with U.S.-based ConocoPhillips and promised an extra shareholder payout, a move that could either defeat an $11 billion bid from Britain's BG Group Plc or force a higher offer.
Origin and Conoco said in statements on Monday that Conoco would contribute up to $8 billion toward a 50-50 joint venture that will develop the massive coal-seam gas (CSG) assets and build a liquefied natural gas (LNG) project.
BP & Origin & Conoco makes a deal with Australia's Origin Energy Ltd. for $8 billion toward a 50-50 joint venture on September 8, 2008....
9-9-08
5 CEOs of some of the biggest oil companies were on Capitol Hill today
You following the date timeline of big oil?
Want to see what they offer Alaska?
Want to see what they to use Alaska for?
They will use Alaska to make their profits and share holders happy it's big oil's business.
ONAPA
Trans Canada has the permits to follow the original gas line proposal route along the ALCAN.
****
Trans Canada has the permits to follow the original gas line proposal route along the ALCAN.
Only "if" there is no changes to it...Look it up.
Trans Canada "does not" have the Federal permits to follow the original gas line proposal route along the ALCAN nor for any other gasline in Alaska.
The Federal agency has the final say....The Canadian Gov. has their final say.
Neither has been applied for....Look it up.
I really understand why so many questioning my comments. I just wish some would see why I list sites to show it's facts.
ok ok
Let's take a vote. If you don't want me to post on oil, post a no. If you like the info, post a yes. Then I'll know to post oil info or not. Yes I'm a share holder of BP & Conoco & Exxon Mobil & receive profits & newsletters from them; but I'm a Alaskan first & foremost. That's why I speak out when Alaskans & Alaska are the target. That's why I support the boycott of Sourdough & Flinthills for Alaskans.
Fairbanksgas, I got some vital info for you. Good news.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.