‘Backbone’ attack backfires by claiming deceased leaders would oppose Palin
Published Monday, July 14, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!The latest incarnation of Wally Hickel’s “Backbone” organization misfired with its claim that more than five dozen dead Alaska leaders would oppose Gov. Sarah Palin’s pipeline plan.
It’s equally dubious to brand everyone from former Gov. Tony Knowles and the Palin administration to the North Slope oil companies as opponents of “Alaska control” over the state’s resources.
Or to claim Marty Rutherford and Palin’s gas line team are in league with Bill Allen, VECO and the Corrupt Bastards Club.
First off, the statement that the late Bob Bartlett, Ernest Gruening, Bill Egan, John Butrovich, Irene Ryan, Bob Atwood and Jay Hammond would oppose Gov. Sarah Palin’s AGIA plan is bizarre.
I was half expecting to see James Wickersham and Charles Bunnell on the list.
Those remarkable Alaskans are no longer here to represent themselves. They would not speak with one voice.
In addition, more than 50 delegates to Alaska’s Constitutional Convention are also deceased, but Backbone puts them in the “anti-AGIA” camp.
Palin said it is “nonsensical” to assume that those who are deceased would oppose AGIA.
Enlisting political support from those who have already reaped their heavenly rewards reminds me of the effort by oil industry supporters two years ago when Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Oliver Wendell Holmes and even Karl Marx were used in ads to fight higher oil taxes.
Malcolm Roberts of Anchorage, a longtime aide to Hickel, wrote me Sunday to say that it was a mistake to place Rutherford and other Palin administration officials in with the Corrupt Bastards Club, so the revised version of the ad does not list the CBC as supporting Canadian control of Alaska’s future.
The Hickel group distorts the challenge facing Alaska by asserting that supporting Palin’s TransCanada plan is a vote for control of Alaska’s future by Canada, while support of a state-owned gas pipeline to Valdez would mean that Alaska will be able to control Alaska’s future by selling gas to China.
The Alaska project long favored by Hickel rests on the idea that liquefied natural gas will be shipped from Valdez to foreign markets. The higher demand for LNG in China would provide more money to Alaska and make a trans-Alaska line economically feasible, the supporters argue.
Hickel’s ad urging that the Legislature reject the TransCanada plan includes this line: “Note to Legislators: The All-Alaska LNG project has had an export license since 1989.”
That’s irrelevant.
Any move to export a sizable percentage of North Slope gas would attract immediate opposition from all parts of the federal government and every national leader.
The president, Congress and the bureaucracy would come close to speaking with one voice on this topic.
It doesn’t matter that an Alaska project that was never built had an export license, dating from 1989, that was never used.
In May, state consultants who looked at the export idea said the obstacles facing any attempt to use that old license and apply it to a new project to ship gas to Asia might be insurmountable.
I would go beyond that and say the political obstacles are insurmountable.
At a time when energy and its cost is the major political issue in every state, an export project would be politically impossible to pull off. Any politician in the Lower 48 who hopes to remain a politician would fight it. This would be a much bigger and easier target than continuing to export gas from Cook Inlet.
“With LNG, we will serve the world,” Hickel says. “We will move our gas to the highest and best markets, and we will keep the jobs here at home.”
On the contrary, because of the critical federal role, the export project envisioned by Hickel would not be controlled by Alaska, and the best markets will be out of reach.
If we want to create a powerful anti-Alaska movement in the Lower 48 — one that could lead to scrutiny of the tens of billions we have stashed away — all we have to do is announce that Alaska wants to ship natural gas to China.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Pssst. Hey Dermot. Want to know a few well- established facts that destroy your arguments?
Maybe you've heard that Alaska has been shipping LNG to Japan for almost 40 years?
Where's the hue and cry from Congress about that? Didn't DOE just extend that particular export license a month or two ago?
I'll share another little secret with you, and your readers, Dermot. The estimated reserves on the North Slope of 234 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are adequate to ship 2.7 billion cubic feet a day out of Valdez for...drum roll please... 237 years!
Do the math, Dermot.
237 years.
That's five years longer than the USA has even been a country. One would look pretty foolish trying to deny Alaska the ability to export her resources with such a vast supply.
And where's your Alaska sprit, man? Has it been beaten out of you by all the decades of Big Oil propaganda? How long would a columnist working for a Florida newspaper last if he suggested that Florida didn't have the right to export its oranges to the most valuable markets? Or a Washington state columnist proclaiming that Boeing wouldn't be allowed to ship its airplanes overseas?
Please.
The existing, and perfectly valid export license that has already been issued for the All Alaska line to Valdez line is good for 25 years- FROM THE DATE OF FIRST SHIPMENT.
Want one more crtical fact? Massive, new natural gas discoveries within the lower 48 exceed 500 trillion cubic feet. Some estimates place new discoveries at over 1,000 trillion cubic feet.
Spend some time with Daniel Yergin of CERA and he can tell you that his group- the best in the energy forecasting business- have said that the Lower 48 markets are closed to a 50 billion dollar gas line project that would carry our gas there.
That project is way too expensive. One can't amortize the debt. The point? The Lower 48 can do just fine without our gas. You might be forgiven for not knowing this- this announcement happened June 12 at a private energy conference and the News-Miner does not have the money to join CERA.
By the way, Dermot- it is Japan that pays the highest premium price for natural gas. Security of supply to a country like Japan that imports 99% of its energy is way more important than price. Far more so than China. (And the 25 year export license includes Japan.)
So you see, my dear Dermot- respectfully- the facts point in an entirely different direction than your opinion does.
Guess that's why they call this an opinion column.
Right on Big Mike, it is time that the truth come out about the Port Authority and how it used the public funds it received. The FBI needs to do an investigation on this group and the use of public funds. What is the difference between Hickel's threats and the actions of Bill Allen and VECO in trying to influence the legislators on a vote. Influence peddeling no matter how you look at it.
SamBam raises some very interesting points here... :-)
Read all of this stuff first....
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/client/mcs/...
Then read this....
http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/Engine...
Then read this....
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Pa...
There will be another test tomorrow..
just like there's been a test everyday for the past 100years, or more.
....It's very possible that a big overpriced steel pipeline will be like WPPSS was for WA-state, an overblown boondoggle.
[fortunately nat-gas is mostly non-radioactive]
People don't have an energy crisis..
they just have a mental health crisis.
Is BigOil and/or Juneau manipulating the access to Arctic Resources like the diamond cartel is doing in Yellowknife?
We must always strive for simplicity and efficiency in our architecture, or we will strangle ourselves in our web of deceptions.
......flash/rumble
The enormous economic and political problems facing an LNG export project are detailed in two recent reports for the Palin administration and one for the Legislature.
Bold and anonymous proclamations on the News-Miner Web site will not diminish these problems.
The reports linked below are worth reading.
About exports, one group of consultants for the administration found:
"We anticipate that an LNG project sponsor might assert that, in order to address
potential federal regulatory hurdles, it could simply purchase the permits of, or the company holding the permits for, the Yukon Pacific facility, and pick up where that failed project left off by making use of all authorizations issued to Yukon Pacific.
This scenario, however, would face significant, perhaps insurmountable obstacles. In particular, this approach would still require FERC review because FERC authorizations are non-transferable without prior Commission approval. . . "
Meanwhile, consultants for the Legislature, said it would be "very difficult" to get federal approval and there will be arguments about national security and harming Lower 48 consumers.
The Kenai exports and the process that led to a short-term agreement are not comparable.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/agia/pdf/find...
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/agia/pdf/find...
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/ssess/6-20-...
Abraham Lincoln for the All-Alaskan Gasline!
That "influence peddling" woodman cited must be supernaturally effective.
Bold, anonymous proclamations on this website are not reliable? Oh man where am I gonna get my facts now?
""Economics of LNG relative to pipeline not compelling
enough to suggest that the State needs to “intervene”
to make LNG happen at expense of pipeline""
The findings by EconOne were a pretty soft "no" against using LNG in the mix for exporting the superabundance of ArcticGas.
1000trillion CuFt potential...wow!
...there won't be enough oxygen left.
Paging, Albert Gore, you're wanted at the North Pole Albert.
I agree with Dermot that the LNG-Shipping Plan as described in the findings by the paid consultants falls short of being able to move all of the NS-gas to market.
[but I'll bet if you let a bunch of Japanese college students work on the challenge they could figure out how to make LNG-shipping work at a big profit, then email the results to some UAF undergrads so they could plagiarize the report and make it look like Americans thought of it first.]
Of course I don't presume to believe that maritime LNG-shipping will be able to move all of Alaska's gas to market.
I've read a lot of different reports about Alaskan-LNG shipping over the years, and they all seem to fall short of "playing with a full deck".
[eg: None of the reports considered the CoGen capabilities of using the liquefaction-waste-heat for heating 10,000acres of greenhouses in Kenai]
This big steel pipeline is like a 1967 Corvette with dual-Holley 850CFM-carbs..
..cute but impractical.
[it seemed like a good idea when someone was designing it in the middle of WorldWarTwo]
The architecture of the design process is as important as the architecture of the project itself.
The-DNM would do well to consider adapting a Wiki-webpage to manage a discussion forum about this project.
PESWiki would likely have a webpage hyperlink and software-template to offer for free to a non-profit affiliate.
Meanwhile, rapid progress is being made on FT-GTL & BTL..
a series of gas to liquids plants could be built on the south side of the Brooks, and a TCF of methane from CNG-lines can be converted to a billion cubic feet of dimethylester syn-diesel that can be shipped out of TAPS [after we waterboard BigOil in the Beaufort.. what companies are hogging into Iraq this month?]
..or, shipped thru Driscopipe [Conoco can thank me later for not waterboarding them, boring Texans]
Most college grads worldwide are fully aware that oil prices are driving global inflation, and are always disproportionately high.
$500million is cheap fire insurance..
I vote for AGIA under protest knowing it's gonna waste $20billion later..
the dollar is doomed anyway, thx to U-no-Hoo
Anybody wanna donate a lightning rod to the North Slope???
3000words....
Dermot, more opinions?
Political problems? Would the latest Dittman poll that found 80% of Alaskans want a gas line built to Valdez- like they mandated- be a "political" problem? (Maybe for politicians who want a Canadian line).
Economic problems? A 12 billion dollar gas line to take gas to a 8 billion dollar liquefaction facility to carry gas to premium world markets would not appear to be an economic problem.
Did you crunch the numbers yet, Dermot? The DNR estimates of North Slope gas reserves (234 TCF)- found within those AGIA documents, make our gas worth about $5 trillion dollars at the current Japanese LNG price of over $20.00 MMBTU. The same gas is worth only 2.8 trillion if sold within the North American market. Economic problems? Yes, we if are shipping our gas for trillions less into Canada...
You may have seen those big, full page ads where the companies interested in earning profits have joined the All Alaska Gas line consortium?
Think they would have joined on, if they saw economic problems? Hmm? Think that maybe those companies know more about the benefits of this project than the administration's consultants who made numerous mistakes and refuse to stand behind their work?
You might recall Pedro Van Meurs? A big wig consultant who was hired by the last administration who was telling Frank Murkowski one thing behind closed doors- and telling legislators something completely different. Sorry- not impressed. Companies that are in the gas business walk the talk, while consultants hide behind disclaimers. Read 'em, Dermot, the first pages of the consultant's work are filled with disclaimers. It is all available on the DNR web site.
Dermot, why not contact Backbone and get a copy of the export license? They have said that they would send a copy to anyone who asked.
...on second thought, my vote for AGIA is still in suspension.
These are my must have's-->
TransCanada gets METHANE only.
[unless they want CO2 and H2S too]
TransCanada only gets Alaska's surplus ETHANE[C2H6] when we allow it.
Alaska does not have a surplus of propane or butane, or helium,etc.
Hands Off!
Alaska does have a shortage of smarts for keeping NS-propane off the local market for 30years.
The 500mcfd take-off limit must be removed from the contract.
This is just plain stupid in proportion to the total available resource, and hands TC 99% of the pot.
I don't see enough adequate "bridge shipper" language.
but knowing modern lawyers this contract isn't worth the paper it's written on..
..that being the case, we should only allow Canadian Women to work in Alaska..
"We got the Gas if you got the Girls"
if we're gonna get screwed we might as well get some sex too!
It's ok to restrict competing parallel pipelines to the same market during the construction phase.
It's ok for TransCanada to do other related business in Alaska too.
If they want to buy AK-methane and convert it to FT-diesel,ok.
Alaska has a huge methane fire-hazard.
$500mil is cheap fire insurance to keep Prudhoe from burning down and blowing up.
BigOil gets their fire-insurance bought for them by AK.
[but plastic-pipe will still remove the excess flammables quicker and cheaper]
TransCanada shouldn't gripe if we use some of the methane to make GTL-diesel, after all Canada will be getting some of the cheap-clean diesel too.
This big-steal-pipeline must never be allowed to be marshalled-over by any governments military, US or Canada or anybody else, this is a peace and prosperity pipeline, not an instrument for global conquest to be operated for fueling another runaway world war...
...I propose that an emergency shut-off valve be installed that is operated by a public affairs committee of Alaskans.
If TransCanada used a dozen 24" HDPE-RTP gaslines they would still ship more methane quicker and cheaper to more different markets over the next 20years than using a big 48" steel pipeline. Rapidly amortizing low-risk NS-gas could be reaching markets as soon as Spring-09.
Did you know you can fire big slugs of methane-hydrate hundreds of miles thru HDPE-pipe ?
And there's many idled US-Flag and other freezer-ships that can haul methane-hydrate to all-ports for a profit without much environmental hazard.
I'll bet TC steals my idea about dropping a plastic gasline in the bottom of the McKenzie River.
Study Frank Pringle's work very carefully...
http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/Engine...
..this technology will soon totally revolutionize how humans work with hydrocarbons, and the AOGCC will have to throw all of their old 1950's TexasTech Textbooks away.
http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/Applic...
BETTER FOR TAR-SANDS TOO !!!
Mike, read a little further down in the poll. That's where you'll see that 80% number in support of a line to Valdez.
Claims that the US market is closed to Alaska gas are false. First, if the US has more than enough gas, they sell it as an export item and it lowers US prices increasing the dollar value on a broad basis. Comodities are just that, materials to be bartered and traded. When one nation has more than enough of a product they barter with other nations to get other goods. Money is just a means to account for that trade.
Also, futures trading will be affected when the gas comes online. More world supply (no matter which route it takes to the end users) will result in stabilizing prices. We do not need to worry about transporting directly to Japan, China, or Taiwan. We simply need to get the supply to a place where it can be bought and sold on the open market.
The facts are that Alaska needs to get the gas on the north slope to market yesterday and BP (our long time partners that decided to opt out of the gasline partnership) just announced that they are going forward with drilling the Liberty Field on Federal leases. That activity will further reduce the throughput of oil from the State leases which they can sit on until the price comes down or they run out of more profitable oil. You can bet that if they strike it big in Liberty, they will reduce their production on State land and claim it's because the Federal lease is more profitable.
Open your eyes SamBam, Alaska is getting taken to the cleaners daily by the producers and the Port Authority that expect the State to drop our requirements for the gas pipeline. Alaska's commitment to TC is 500 million. TC assumes the rest of the risk and already has committed to build. Alaska's commitment to the Port Authority or Denali will be in the billions just to build it and they want us to give up some or all of our requirements. How much do we have to scratch their back before we get a back scratcher? They won't say publicly. NONE OF THEM!
HOLD THE LINE ON AGIA.
We can build a bullet line as well if someone comes out with a plan to do so rather than just trying to divert the business at hand in the name of a more profitable venture for their own company. If it is so economic now, the Port Authority should apply for a loan and build the line on their own like Denali is supposedly doing. Otherwise, maybe they can join Denali and invest in their line, or join the State and invest in AGIA.
BigMike, SamBam, Dermot, and whoever else who might be reading this...
If an angel investor showed up and provided me with a shipload of HDPE-pellets and a dozen HDPE-pipe extrusion machines to install in a few buildings in Fairbanks, so we could make 1000miles of 4" to 12" HDPE-gasline to stretch anywhere we wanted..
..where would you think would be a good route, or routes?
Personally I like the routes depicted in www.fairbanksgas.com photoalbum...
Ethane can be batch shipped during -20F temps to Fairbanks railbelt by a small 4"HDPE-gasline too
$100mil would build a 4"HDPE-gasline to Fairbanks and would pay for itself in a year.
4"HDPE gasline can be laid by a small crew at a rate of 7000' per day using one FastFusion machine.
[that's right, seven thousand feet per day, maybe more]
I'm guessing $1billion[properly planted and watered] would totally transform Alaska's outlook on being a major plastics exporter.
10% of NS-gas is Ethane[C2H6]
Ethane makes the best Polyethylene, MDPE, HDPE
...better virgin feedstock than coal.
If we insist, we should be able to keep at least 80,000BPD of ethane in Alaska.
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/ssess/6-12-...
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&am...
-------
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&am...
-------
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&am...
-------
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&am...
...I can help provide best-price sources for the pipe extrusion equipment, and other HDPE pipe network supplies.
The Anchorage Daily News posted that the house will vote on AGIA next Tuesday, July 22 and then move it to the Senate. The article indicated there were enough votes in both the house and Senate to pass AGIA.
One thing that Mr. Cole revealed that he most probably didn't know is that articles, letters, speeches, advertisements, etc., all made under Governor Hickel's name, have been written for years by Malcom Roberts. Governor Hickel, who is frail, is kept under wraps as much as possible.
And, again, I encourage folks to look where the right of way money goes if a pipeline is ever built on the right of way owned by Yukon Pacific Company - started by Governor Hickel as a private corporation to get Alaska gas to market. CSX is now the majority owner. Governor Hiclel's charity trusts get 12%. Who gets the rest?
One comment made by an anonymous legislator (not from Fairbanks) about the Port Authority: "I wish someone would put a stake through the heart of that thing."
Mr. Averge guy here. Will the Public have a vote (as in the general, or maybe a special, election), as what we want OUR money to be spent on? Concerning OUR gas resource??
In the meantine, I'm expecting to spend most of my money (which is meager at best)on my heating, electric, car fuel, and food bill's. I, along with many others, can pretty much kiss thankgiving, any sort of vacaion (not that I can usually take one), and Christmas giving goodbye.
It's time to start checking out the transfer stations on a regular basis, I think.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.