.jpg)
Larry Persily (NGP File Photo), said he thinks the (AGIA/TransCanada) project is "very viable…," but to get someone to sign shipping commitments, "you’re going to have to have a fiscal deal between the state and producers." Check for more complete report tomorrow morning. -dhMore links to yesterday’s hearings: KTVA, Channel 11.
Beginning Comment. Question regarding legislative hearings: Are Alaska’s legislative leaders keeping their collective eye on the ball: filling the oil pipeline to sustain Alaska’s economy? If so, should we be hearing more support for federal approval of Shell’s 2012 Alaska OCS program, more support for federal approval of ConocoPhillips’ CD-5 project, more opposition to the Fish and Wildlife Service plans to lock up ANWR’s designated 1002, oil and gas production area, more support for production tax reform? After all, if TAPS shuts down, we won’t get a gas pipeline and due to a 90% drop in state revenue and resulting outmigration, we won’t need much natural gas to satisfy a teenie in-state demand. -dh
Gas Pipeline Comment. At today’s legislative hearing the Alaska Gas Pipeline Federal Inspector will
provide lawmakers with his view of the status of an Alaska Gas Pipeline Project (Watch streaming video, 9 a.m. AST). Yesterday, we gave an immediate link to Yereth Rosen’s breaking news article revealing TransCanada Pipeline’s lack of shipper commitments. Today, the Anchorage Daily News’ Richard Mauer quotes Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissioner, Cathy Foerster (NGP File Photo), as saying that, "…with oil a far more valuable commodity than gas, it makes sense to use gas to produce oil rather than sell the gas and leave oil in the ground. That factor begins to change in the future as oil reserves dwindle, she said. The oil fields wouldn’t be hurt by the 500 million cubic feet a day that would be drawn by the 24-inch instate line, she said, but the 4.5 billion cubic feet taken daily by the larger line is another matter. But that’s not a reason to shelve the project. The North Slope likely has huge natural gas fields that no one has bothered to explore because there’s no market. Put in a pipeline and that would change — and those "dry" fields wouldn’t limit oil production, she said." We believe Foerster’s logic, unassailable as it is, will be used by intrastate gas pipeline advocates to justify state ownership of a local use pipeline. -dh
| From an earlier editorial: Part of the rationale politicians used for ‘spending and regulating like drunk sailors’ (apologies to the latter), was Article 8, Section 2 of Alaska’s Constitution, ordering that, “The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.” If elected leaders had defined “its people” to include their children, grandchildren and future generations, they might have considered policies designed to develop sustainable investments and jobs to support Alaska’s government and economy for the long term. Instead, when politicians wanted to spend more, tax more or regulate more, they would typically say, “We’re supposed to develop Alaska’s resources for the maximum benefit of the people and, damn it, that’s just what we’re going to do.” |
Oil Tax Comment.
Let’s Don’t Use Alaska’s Constitution To Justify Selfishness
by
Dave Harbour
An Anchorage Daily News Editorial writer this morning meant well and wisely said, "The state’s job is to get the most value it can from its resource for the benefit of all Alaskans. That’s not a matter of discretion. That’s in the state constitution." Well, yes it is but…. But after we define who "Alaskans" are, we might reach a different conclusion than if we just assume the constitution grants this generation the right and obligation to unleash a slash and burn policy only benefitting current Alaskans.
If we want to extract every drop of blood out of a dying turnip for tonight’s family dinner, we’re not looking for ways of sustaining that turnip for the kids’ families. If we do want to sustain turnip output for future generations, we’ll eat a little less tonight and plant a little more in the morning.
Put another way, we agree with the editorial writer if our job is to extract from the Alaska North Slope (ANS) every single dollar possible for this generation to spend. But…if, as I have come to believe, our constitution demands we produce maximum natural resource benefit for this AND future Alaska generations, then we must undertake policies that weigh more heavily in favor of sustaining development for them, than for satisfying this generation’s demands for cash now to spend now on me, now.
Put a final way, don’t you agree that we should not let Alaska’s constitution help us rationalize tax and regulatory policies that have the effect of taking sustained revenue from our kids to satisfy our greed today? Some might still argue in favor of extracting the maximum benefit of natural resource revenue for this generation at the expense of the next. To them, I would gently offer that such a philosophy would also justify spending the kid’s college money and every future PFD check on things that I want for me to satisfy my immediate wants right now.
Come to think of it, I fear the growth of that "maximum benefit for me, now" mentality. It is very self centered. It ignores and disrespects the idea that one generation, through sacrifice, assures a better life for the next. Ultimately, it is an argument for selfishness, for not giving, for not saving, for not loving, for not defending a country with one’s life.
|
NPG Readers: Prepare to Comment Comment Against Federal Government Lockup of ANWR’s 1002 Area Testify: Fairbanks 10-19-11, Anchorage 10-20-11
Written testimony due: 11-15-11
|
Leave A Comment