Comments by HeathEdward
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on July 29 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sdoownek -
Unfortunately it's not up only to them and gee, I've had EXTENSIVE conversations with numerous people in MLW and oddly enough, I did not get the same story.
I suppose it's a good thing that it also requires approval from DEC, Fish and Game, US Fish and Wildlife, the EPA, and numerous other agencies as well.
What else you got?
Posted on July 29 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems like Daniel has some of his numbers confused. His statement that mines pay no royalties is misleading. While indeed metal mines do not pay royalties to the State, coal mines do. Also, his comment seems to suggest that mining gets a "free ride" in this State which is highly inaccurate. In 2007, mining operations generated approximately $189 million in revenue to state and local government throughout Alaska. More importantly though is that number represents a five fold increase in that revenue stream since 2004.
If you doubt me, I encourage you to read the Alaska Revenue Source Book (http://www.tax.alaska.gov/programs/docum... - Page 23) or the McDowell report on the economic impact of mining (http://www.alaskaminers.org/mcd07sum.pdf...). Mining represents one of the strongest and fastest growth industries, in terms of new job creation, in Alaska with one of the highest average wages amongst any industry sector (http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/ee...). To try and compare its impact to oil and gas is at best silly and at worst unfair.
The reality is that even the courts and the Department of Law are unsure what the practical effect of the initiative will be on existing mining operations, let alone those in the future. The one thing is for sure, that even with this language no existing mine operation will be able to expand their operations in the future.
For anyone who believes the arguments presented by the proponents of initiative 4, ask them how the existing permitting process is deficient. They won't be able to tell you.
Henry - Your statement about Pebble being DESIGNED to dump toxic chemicals into the headwaters is flatly untrue. Any such design would be immediately rejected by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conversation and the US Environmental Protection Agency.
I think that in addition to reading the actual initiative language, more people should take a look at the Department of Natural Resources' presentation on large mine permitting. It may not change your mind, but it will give you a more realistic perspective. You can find here: http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/mlw/mining/la...
Posted on July 25 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
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.
Posted on July 24 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good to know. Authority should be questioned EXCEPT when uttered by the infallible mouth Palin.
Posted on July 24 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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.
Posted on July 18 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Imusuallyright -
Are you one of the few who hasn't drank the poisoned palinade?
Posted on July 18 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be even nicer if the Governor would be open and transparent about the motivations for firing Commissioner Monegan. Even if you completely disregard the issue with the former brother-in-law, don't you think the issue with Kopp should be investigated just a bit further? Perhaps there is nothing there, but the Legislature does confirm these positions.
Posted on July 16 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is one MAJOR flaw in the logic presented in this guest opinion. . .
This is not a case of "if you build it, they will come" it is a case of "you CAN'T build it, UNLESS they come."
Producer gas is essential in order to finance construction. Regardless of AGIA or FERC, if there's no money committed to build it, it doesn't happen. All other arguments are just an example of some three card monty.
Posted on June 26 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm. . .looking more and more like a real project--and one with actual gas to ship.
Page 1 of 5 | Next
Posted on August 4 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You mean a bike that requires mining in order to be manufactured and petroleum extraction necessary for the lubricants for the gears?
On Measure 4