Comments by 5050
Page 1 of 11 | Next
Posted on June 1 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amazing, isn't it? A state like Alaska where there is an estimated 234 trillion cubic feet of valuable natural gas within the North Slope Basin that many residents of Alaska are reduced to near poverty.
A back of the envelope calculation shows that at current gas prices of close to 12.00 per MM/BTU Alaska's gas is worth about $4.2 million dollars per Alaskan.
By the Alaska Constitution that gas belongs to you- the people.
Too bad the multinational oil corporations have been able to prevent your elected leaders from opening the North Slope Basin by building a gasline as Alaskan voters have mandated in multiple elections.
Maybe if our representatives had listened the senior citizens out in Ruby wouldn't be wondering why they can't get a little transportation assistance so that they could buy groceries or visit friends.
You'd think that as Alaska has massive, multi- billion dollar, surpluses from high oil prices that our leaders would be smart enough to ask why we just don't go out and build the gasline ourselves.
Posted on May 31 at 1:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This story is confusing.
The Interior Taxpayers Association (ITA) has sponsored the FNSB revenue cap for nearly two decades. Last year borough voters provided ITA enough signatures to get an improved revenue cap on this year's ballot.
The imposter (tax cap) group led by union interests is pushing a watered down revenue cap initiative this year.
Voters should refuse to sign this initiative.
Why?
In 1990 FNSB spending was about 70 million.
This year the spending was about 130 million.
The massive increase came about as FNSB spending grew significantly faster than inflation for most years.
Perks for borough employees have made it difficult for borough residents to afford property taxes and have contributed to the vast increase in borough spending.
What perks? Try almost two months of paid time off for employees with over 7 years service. Or $1,000,000.00 in health care coverage for a small stipend.
That is why union interests are pushing this watered down revenue cap.
And they also do not want to have to explain why property taxes have quintupled over the last 20 years... making homeownership in this borough a burden rather than a pleasure.
DO NOT SIGN THE IMPOSTER TAX CAP. THE ITA sponsored revenue cap is already on the ballot for this year.
Posted on May 31 at 1:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sell state royalty oil to the refinery under contract at an affordable rate- say $25.00 per bbl.
Problem solved.
Anchorage does not have a problem, nor does Southeast. The Interior and rural villages are getting killed. ISER reports thousands are fleeing the villages due, in part, to high living costs. Will the NAEC be happy when the Northern part of the state is depopulated? While there is merit to conservation, the arrogance expressed by van den Berg is beyond belief. And I'd still like NAEC to stop playing games and come out and express support for a Susitna hydroelectric project. Clean, renewable energy... what's not to like? Crazy.
Posted on May 28 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Shore 'nuff, wez heres in dis town liks to gez dem sooper dooper bargins at dem garbige sites.
Wez mitty prouds to bez livin in such a hi class towns lik dis here 'un.
Backs homz in Arkansaws wez never had such a goods living in dem der trash bins.
An wezs also luvs the greet welfares in this here fins place.
Posted on May 28 at 1:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Questions that have not been addressed:
1. What is the total cost to Fairbanks if we have to wait until 2020 for gas as the multinationals and TC indicate would be likely with their schemes?
2. Would we jeopardize losing a major military base due to massive increased costs for energy and no natural gas availability until 2020? Doesn't Ft. Greely run their power plant with fuel oil? Didn't USAF officials cite the high cost of operating Eielson as a major justification for their recommendation to close Eielson? Have we already forgotten about Eielson after BRAC gave us a reprieve?
3. If crude oil goes to $150-$200 dollars per barrel, what happens to most Fairbanks residents when fuel oil climbs to $7.00- $8.00 dollars per gallon? Will that crash our economy? Who will be able to afford electricity if the rates rise to over 30 cents per kwh? Will we lose most residents living on a fixed income?
4. If the state has massive surpluses that could more than pay for the gasline from this, and last, year, why don't they build the gasline? Wouldn't Fairbanks be better off with gas in 2012 than in 2020?
5. How bad will the air quality of Fairbanks become in future winters as many more people burn wood, plastic, waste oil, and tire scraps to keep warm?
6. Has Juneau forgotten about Fairbanks? We know that they have forgotten about the rural areas. Aren't many villages paying about $8.00 for fuel oil now?
On State finds TransCanada project economical, likely to succeed
Posted on May 25 at 1:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An editorial we can all agree on.
Here's to my friends, Manning, Seckman, and Davis who made the ultimate sacrifice when they augured in near Valdez 22 years ago- and to all who have paid with their lives during their service.
Posted on May 25 at 1:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Could Alaska get permission to ship gas abroad? Hmm, do we prevent Florida from shipping oranges abroad? Or do we tell Iowa where they have to ship their corn? Maybe we should tell Washington state that they can only sell their apples in the United States.
Hey- we already DO ship Alaska gas abroad. And we have been shipping Alaska gas abroad- to Japan- for 40 years.
What in the devil is so hard about any of this for people to grasp?
Maybe some should take better notes on their "fact-finding" trips. Export of Alaska gas is already permitted for shipment to Japan, Taiwan and Korea.
But NOT, repeat NOT, repeat NOT, for Canada.
Hmm, so where should we try to ship our gas- according to the smart people with the Palin administration? To the places that will pay premium prices for Alaska's gas and already have export approval? Or to the country that DOES NOT have an export license and will pay the LOWEST price for our gas? If you guessed Canada, go to the front of the class.
So lets ship Alaska's gas, they say, in 2020 to Canada where it will contribute to the environmental devastation that is on going in the tar sands. Miles and miles of man made dams are holding billions of gallons of oily waste generated from the tar sand development. Birds landing in these manmade hell holes get covered in crude oil and drown. Its true. Just a few weeks ago over 500 ducks were killed in a Syncrude lake of death. And it took a whistle blower to report the mass killing. (None of this was reported in Alaska media- but it was front page news all over Canada).
So would we be better off from an environmental viewpoint if we shipped gas to Asia where there would then be less need to burn dirty coal that dumps lead and mercury into the oceans, and particulates into the air that make it over the ocean where it then contaminates OUR Arctic lakes? (And the fish we eat).
Lets get ready Fairbanks. When the legislative hearings come here legislators need to be told in no uncertain terms that Fairbanks must not wait until 2020 for natural gas. Not when we could have gas flowing here by 2012.
If we do not make our case- Anchorage and Juneau certainly will not.
Posted on May 24 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The cuts made to the capital budget highlight the fact that we do not have forward thinking leadership in our legislature.
The legislators have gone on a spending spree- like a small child with a wad of cash they've tried to spend our money on trinkets...
A capital budget is supposed to be for the strategic spending. Roads, damns- the big ticket items that are built by a young, forward thinking, state.
So where are the new roads? Will Alaska always be the biggest state in the country with the fewest roads? Will we never have a road to our West Coast? Will we always be burning dirty coal instead of generating electricity from clean, renewable, hydroelectric power?
The lack of vision within the legislature is disturbing.
If we'd had strategic thinkers in the legislature- instead of people like Jay Ramras who was taking bar bets about whether he would, or would not, say something stupid, (to further embarrass Fairbanks) we would not be in the shape that we are in.
Posted on May 23 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The mandate that the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority was given in a statewide election was to build a gasline from the North Slope to Valdez- a statewide election where the voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of the question.
As for Governor Hickle, the last that I'd heard, he gave away his YPC options to a Catholic charity blind trust. A man who has given more to charity than most people ever earn in a lifetime I should add.
I agree that normally Palin does a good job- but in this instance she has stumbled badly.
We all want what is best for Alaska (unless you represent a multinational corporation) but have different views on how to get there. That is what this upcoming debate will be about. The facts, I am quite certain, will speak for themselves. What we do know, with a great deal of certainty, is that Fairbanks will not get gas until the end of the next decade- around 2020- with the TC plan.
Fairbanks can not wait that long. No way. Many can't afford fuel now- what happens when fuel oil climbs to over $7.00 dollars per gallon like has happened already in the bush?
We also know the multinationals have lied repeatedly about their intentions here in Alaska. The prospect that those multinationals will likely do everything within their power to sabotage TC- or even buy them outright- to prevent a successful project has to be taken seriously.
The voters had the wisdom in a statewide election to mandate a state authority to build this gasline and to ignore that-as the News-Miner has- is just plain wrong.
Page 1 of 11 | Next
Posted on June 1 at 2:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So a doctor tells his patient that he has good news and bad news. "Tell me the good news, doc." "Well", says the doctor, "The good news is we'll have a cure for your disease in 2020." "Well, that's great," says the patient. "What's the bad news?" "The bad news," says the doctor, "Is that you'll be long dead before then."
Such is the state of affairs for Fairbanks. 2020 is when, maybe, we'll get gas according to the Palin team. But how many Fairbanks residents will be able to endure the insane energy prices here until 2020?
So our legislators and the Palin administration should stop offering the intellectually dishonest proposition that we either have to go with TransCanada, and all their problems, or wait for a much worse deal from the multinational corporations.
Is there a better way? Should Alaska use its massive surpluses to hire the private sector to build the gasline from the North Slope to Valdez? Isn't that the first obligation of a state- to ensure that basic infrastructure is built so that citizens have a decent quality of life? Alaska has already built quality hydroelectric projects that produce affordable electricity. Why not fund ANGDA so that they can do the job voters approved in 2002?
Why is this being made harder than it needs to be?
On Lawmakers give Palin high marks for gas presentations