News-Miner Editorial
The next AGIA step
Gov. Sarah Palin's gas line decision needs a legislative grilling
Published Friday, May 23, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Gov. Sarah Palin is going with TransCanada as the builder of a pipeline to get Alaska’s gas out of the North Slope and into markets in the Lower 48. The governor made the announcement Thursday at a news conference in Anchorage.
The decision surprises no one, as TransCanada’s was the only proposal to clear a previous hurdle of the governor’s Alaska Gasline Inducement Act.
At this point, it was TransCanada or nothing for the governor and AGIA.
The venue now turns to the Legislature, where lawmakers will need to decide whether to grant the exclusive pipeline license to Calgary-based TransCanada or reject the governor’s request.
Lawmakers are on the spot.
They need to thoroughly examine the TransCanada proposal, not rubber-stamp it and hope for the best simply because they might fear retribution from a governor who derives her popularity from putting herself at odds with the major oil companies. They need to help us understand how the governor arrived at the conclusion that the TransCanada proposal is better than the proposal put forward outside AGIA by ConocoPhillips and BP, two of the three companies holding rights to much of the North Slope’s gas.
It’s just plain difficult to see how TransCanada alone gets a pipeline for Alaska. The company, which would get $500 million from the state as part of the AGIA license, doesn’t have any gas. None.
TransCanada, a company well regarded in the industry, will instead be hoping the major oil companies decide to commit gas to a pipeline when the process reaches what is called an “open season.” But there’s no guarantee the companies will provide the gas to a TransCanada project.
One reason is that the very oil companies that control the North Slope gas have embarked on their own pipeline project that doesn’t yet require anything from the state government and that is expected to achieve certification by the federal government before TransCanada’s proposal does.
There’s a lot that isn’t understood yet by the public and, probably, by many legislators. And there are lots of comments that have been made — and that will be made — that aren’t quite correct. We saw it Thursday, in a news release from the governor, no less.
The governor observed, in a euphoric statement, that giving a license to TransCanada “means that Alaska’s gas will make it into our homes and America’s homes sooner.”
No, it doesn’t mean that at all. That’s because, again, TransCanada has no gas, and there is no guarantee they will get the gas, let alone even build a pipeline.
The Legislature has the job of sorting this out when they convene in special session next month.
Alaska’s future requires they be up to the task.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
The talk of the town that the VECO Times lives on with the Editorial Board of the News-Miner is supported by such outrageous claims within your editorials as, "...they might fear retribution from a governor who derives her popularity from putting herself at odds with the major oil companies."
I've got a news flash for you News-Miner- if a Governor actually takes her oath of office seriously- and tries to defend Alaska's interests, she is doing her job. And the public approval Sarah has garnered is a reflection of that. That is what we elected her to do. Your incessant propaganda that our elected officials are wrong when they don't run around kissing up to the multinationals is getting old.
As far as the decision to move forward with TransCanada- you conveniently disregard within your discussion voter mandates to build the All Alaska Gasline. If Conoco and others of that ilk are considered viable then other proposals should be too. Alaska absolutely has the resources- and the gas- to ensure the voter's wishes are followed. A point you completely ignore.
The state surplus- do you really need to be reminded?- will be over eight billion dollars this year.
These massive surpluses provide enough funding for us to build the All Alaska Gasline ourselves. And we could have gas flowing within five years if we did it right.
And that is what Fairbanks needs. Low cost, clean burning energy. Waiting until the end of the next decade for gas- around 2020- is patiently absurd. Fairbanks will lose, literally, billions if we were to wait that long.
The Editorial board of the News-Miner should sit down and have a long talk with one of Alaska's greatest Governors, Walter Hickle. At almost 90 he is a sincere, credible, and articulate advocate for the idea that Alaska should build the gas line ourselves.
Walter Hickle has the wisdom- born of over half a century of experience dealing with this issue- to know what the right path is.
Is Frank Murkowski an editorial writer for the Daily News Miner???? Sure sounds like it......
Is this the same editorial board who spoke out against increasing the tax rate to BP, Conoco and Exxon? As long as the checks from the producers keep cashing we will have to put up with these outlandish editorials.
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.
The explicit and implicit insults to Palin are not acceptable.
Constant reference to a gas transportation company as having no gas of their own and therefore somehow deficient in ability to build a gas line is irrelevant. How does a gas lease holder become automatically more proficient as a gas line builder? Where does that place the State since the State has an ownership interest?
The straight facts are that it is never in the public interest to have the reserves and distribution systems controlled by one person, company, or group. That gives a monopoly. Much of the friction between the State and the oil companies is a result of that very situation we have with the current oil pipeline.
"They (Legislators) need to help us understand how the governor arrived at the conclusion that the TransCanada proposal is better than the proposal put forward outside AGIA by ConocoPhillips and BP, two of the three companies holding rights to much of the North Slope’s gas." Should it not be encumbent upon the administration to convince the legislators with their "analysis" why it is in the best interest to continue with AGIA and a check for $500 million. Why the road show? Won't deliberations in Juneau serve the process better than going over the same information in each community?
One last thing: "granting an exclusive pipeline license" appears mischaracterized beacause isn't it FERC that grants "licenses"
It's Governor Hickel, not Hickle!
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.