Comments by ONAPA
Page 1 of 14 | Next
Posted on July 3 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Also, DenaliGuy, AGIA does not prohibit a privately funded competing line, it prohibits the state from giving financial support to a line capable of carrying over 500 million CF/Day. That is one of the requirements that the experts recommended to the state last year when drafting AGIA to avoid a competing line beating the state sponsored line.
Posted on July 3 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What if the state royalty oil was sold to the refinery and used to make the in-state consumed fuel at production cost? We can't do that, it wouldn't be fair, we would lose millions in revenue from the refineries, it wouldn't affect local prices.
Then tell me the solution. We own the raw resource, we already subsidize the production, transportation, refinement, and sale to the consumers in this state so why are we paying the most and why shouldn't we be paying the least? The small ammount we use in royalty oil is nothing compared to the huge ammount of profit from ACES.
Posted on July 3 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SamBam, consulting the people on AGIA happened last year in the regular session OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. The whole process played out on public TV. I am sorry if you didn't participate then, and if you are not communicating with your legislators, then you are not participating now. The "public" hearings are not hearings, they are information briefings to the few that can show up. There is no statewide public broadcast of the public hearings so instead of hearing what is going on, we are hearing what is being published. We spent millions retrofitting our congressional buildings to be able to watch and listen to their deliberations and how is that being used? By spending millions carting the legislature around the state where there is no broadcast capacity.
What if Representative Ramras is on the mark? If that is the case then he is not laying out a very good argument against AGIA. He is not helping the process by presenting an alternative to build a line instead of finding ways to make the proposal work. If FERC is a potential problem as he says, shouldn't he and his fellow legislators be getting together with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deconflict any problems and expedite the process?
The same question goes for the producers being a problem. Shouldn't we be asking our partners holding the leases why they won't deliver the gas? Last year we did and they won't, so our government needs to get the State into a position to force the hand of those that are not willing to develop the resouce. As for supporting the TC proposal, it is the only one that has met the state's requirements. The proposal came in on time. It puts the state in a strong positon to get the gas to market. If the producers don't produce, then they are in violation of their lease, and they are gambling with losing everything.
Denali Group should also be looking at TC's proposal and trying to help get it through the legislature and FERC process. They won't make a dime if the gas rights are forfeited for lack of production. Denali has the ear of Representative Ramras. Denali is experienced in dealing with regulations and knows how to speed up the process or slow it down to increase their profit margins. Does our represntative represent the people or special interest?
Posted on July 3 at 1:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you ask me the hearings are a waste of time. Gas to Fairbanks has nothing to do with gas to the open market before the oil is gone and 12-15 years is a good estimate. Gas to Fairbanks at the earliest is two years out if a bullet line is started this year and won't do any good unless we start ordering conversion kits that might get here before the gas.
Posted on July 3 at 1:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's a good one NoGutsNoGlory,
I forgot about the organized labor unions. I wonder if a foreign company has to hire union laborers to complete a contract.
Posted on July 3 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Backing TC and making an investment to proceed is the right thing to do. I am glad to see that the majority of our delegation is continuing to support building a gas pipeline that meets Alaska's requirements as well as federal regulations.
Denali supporters have been delaying a gas pipeline at our expense for the past twenty years. What would it have cost BP and Conoco twenty years ago compared to starting now? Representative Ramras is not on the side of the people.
Posted on July 3 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Q: Are you struggling to make ends meet?
A: I am not currently struggling but I am on a fixed budget.
Q: How much more inflation can you take before it affects your persuit of happiness?
A: Momma ain't happy with the price of groceries and gas and when momma ain't happy nobody is happy.
Q: If oil doubles again in the next year, are you willing to use a honey bucket?
A: If crapping in a bucket is what it takes to be considered a "real Alaskan" then I would call you a whimp for not going outside at 40 below! My family has been here seven years. We made it here too late to just claim land, but we saved our money and bought a few acres then built our home. We haven't been scared off by hard work, hard times, or a few sourghdoughs that are dillusional about the good old days when moose season was year round because there was no beef to eat.
The questions you should be asking your legislators:
How was $1200 decided as the ammount of the resource rebate when the state has a 9 billion dollar surplus? The rebate is 1.2 billion dollars approximately based on the PFD applications. I think it needs to be based on a percentage of the overall uncommitted surplus instead of an arbitrary ammount.
What is the long term plan for a resource rebate when ACES produces another huge surplus? We contribute to the high cost of energy by taxing our resources at increasingly higher rates as oil goes up in price. ACES is doing what it was designed to do, increase the wealth of all Alaskans and secure the State's financial future.
What immediate energy assistance is the state looking at providing to individuals and communities until the State has a comprehensive plan? Currently the Governor has proposed canceling the fuel tax which ammounts to 40 million dollars and developing solutions on a community basis. The State is already providing subsidies to the refinery, AHFC, and GVEA.
What input have you provided your representatives to help them make informed decisions about how you want your government to spend your money? You can bet the businesses making money on energy have their hands in our pockets. GVEA is an example. Instead of using profits from their most efficient plant to assist their members by reducing their rates, they are raising rates and asking for state assistance.
It is our money that the Government is trusted to spend for our benefit. I trust the Governor, but the legislators are still in bed with the corporate hand that feeds them until and unless we demand representation. Below is the link to the legislature you can get e-mail contacts for them and ask the questions you want answered.
Posted on July 2 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where and how does health care fall into the discussion? The answer lies in the cost of living incurred by all because of the price of fuel. Everything is going up and to say that one resident Alaskan should be able to take care of their family's costs with one pittance is unfair distribution of the people's money. Last time I checked even children under 18 are citizens and are entitled to share equally in the state's resouces. I cannot imagine having to feed, clothe, house, and pay medical costs for ten people.
Yes, according to the constitution even the residents that choose to live in a cabin and are self sufficient and use no energy deserve a share of the surplus. Those residents that are in military housing don't get enough cost of living increase to keep up with the recent rise in fuel and every thing else prices. The commissary and exchanges also have to keep up with the local prices to avoid competing with the local economy. Those that are not present in the state but are Alaska residents also deserve a share of the 100% tax we pay to the state for oil revenue in lieu of having mineral rights. Read, understand, and abide by the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
From Article 1:
§ 1. Inherent Rights - This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.
§ 2. Source of Government - All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates with the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole.
§ 3. Civil Rights - No person is to be denied the enjoyment of any civil or political right because of race, color, creed, sex, or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section.
Also pertinent to this discussion is Article 8 which lays out that the oil revenue belongs to the people not the Government. We allow the Government to tax 100% of the revenue and use it for the maximum benefit of the people. Returning a fraction of the surplus resulting from ACES to the people that are the source and purpose of government would benefit the maximim number of Alaska's people.
Posted on July 2 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree that this is not an emergency, I simply paraphrased the borough's use of the term to point out that even wisely spending money for capital projects won't solve the problem. Conservation of our property tax dollars will help. If they can save some money then maybe they can reduce the mil rate more next year.
On Energy funds
Page 1 of 14 | Next
Posted on July 4 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
woodman,
21 billion = 30 thousand per resident. If we build the all Alaska pipeline then we do incur the entire cost in tens of billions. I agree that the danger is big government. 120 million spent to study a dam that won't be built and 300 on a power plant that is mothballed. Now they are proposing to spend the surplus for years into the future to "study" ways to replace oil as our primary fuel source. Not on an actual construction project, but just on a hunch that one of the plans might someday be feesable. Mr Speaker and Mayor Whitaker have you lost your minds along with your sense of good judgement?
If the state had put their dollars wasted on those projects with another 80 million seven years ago, the gas line would be only three years from completion. Now, if they put their money where their mouth is, they could get the gas line started by a company that specializes in building natural gas lines in arctic environments and maybe we will save the state from going bankrupt in twenty years. Building gas lines is what Trans Canada does best and the State still doesn't have a clue how to get it done even when they have spent hundreds of millions of dollars studying it. As for the alternative, there isn't one, Denali, aka BP/Conoco, has never built a gas line in Alaska or anywhere else. Trans Canada has the one thing we lack in Alaska, EXPERIENCE in building a line and making it work.
Soon we will have another election and people will move out of office and leave their messes behind. AGIA is the next mess that had great intentions, but got bogged down by the politicians. In the mean time, we wont move forward with getting our gas to market before the oil supply runs dry and we will end up with a budget deficit rather than a surplus. You want an all Alaska line, and it's a nice idea, but not a practical one, and ten years from now we will be broke, without a gas line, saying we should have spent half a billion instead of tens of billons just so we could sell gas to the world.
I trust our government to do the right thing, we are already putting 250 million into alternative energy research and development. We deserve to see some results from spending that money before we commit another 21 billion dollars.
On Harris, Whitaker call for multibillion-dollar action on Alaska energy plan