Today’s Headline From Argus: “State Agency Takes Over Troubled Alaska LNG Project“.
Today’s Logic: if some of the largest energy investors in the world (i.e. BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil) believe now is not the time for an Alaska North Slope gas export project, why would a state bureaucracy (i.e. Governor) enmeshed in fiscal crisis hang on for dear life to an economically infeasible, multi-hundred million dollar, risky, volatile, commodity-based, private-sector energy project — when consumer-friendly, low LNG/gas prices and over supply continue to dominate gas markets?
“Hope” is often the staple of political campaigns and bureaucratic arguments.
Private sector risk takers assume risk when those providing the money, through boards of directors primarily, agree that the potential reward of investing their own money exceeds the risks…
…and, private sector investors know that hope is not a realistic strategy.
Soon the world will discover whether America’s only Arctic state is correct to risk its citizens’ future on the prospect that “hope is a reasonable strategy when the bureaucracy is risking hundreds of millions of dollars of other peoples’ money.”)
Our reader & friend, Rich Berkowitz drew our attention this morning to this piece by NYT reporter . We believe the article highlights a very reasonable effort by the Koch Brothers to demonstrate the importance of a rational energy policy to America’s monority community, among other constituencies. (Although we wish the NYT would devote as much ink to the anti-democratic, anti-fossil fuel, anti-free market message spewed out daily by the plethora of George Soros-funded “non-profit” propaganda machines.)
This outreach serves the public interest because as energy prices rise, the elderly and poor (i.e. which includes much of the minority demographic) are first to suffer. When oil, gas, coal prices move lower, poor families and our elders on fixed incomes are the first to benefit.
Traditionally, environmental activists attack energy production when prices are high by demonizing the industry providing it. When prices are low, the activists go into high gear, attemptng to increase regulations and lawsuits that delay and destroy the economics of energy projects. Both of these tactics are anti-poor and anti-public interest and the sooner the monority and fixed-income communities realize it, the sooner our country’s energy policies can become attractive, stable and responsible as well.
Accordingly, it is in the interest of all citizens — especially the poor — to support the new Administration’s effort to remove unreasonable, expense energy regulations and provide tax reform that lowers the cost of energy while increasing energy supplies.