Alaska governor urges opening of ANWR

[Judi Lynn]

Tuesday | Oct 21, 2003

Alaska governor urges opening of ANWR
Last Update 11:02 pm

By Scott Sonner
ASSOCIATED PRESS
10/20/2003 11:02 pm
Two Western governors joined a top federal land manager Monday in urging more emphasis on new energy production to accompany calls for conservation.

Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat from New Mexico who was U.S. energy secretary under President Clinton, and Gov. Frank Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, told 200 oil and gas producers that additional access to fossil fuels on federal lands is critical to the strength of the U.S. economy.

“We can’t conserve our way out of our energy challenges,” Richardson told the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

“Nor can we also drill our way out of it. We have to have a little bit of a combination of increased access to public lands, additional capacity, replacement of aging infrastructure and new technology,” he said. (snip/...)

http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2003/10/20/54606.php?sp1=rgj&sp2=News&sp3=Local+News&sp5=RGJ.com&sp6=news&sp7=local_news

[La_Serpiente]

1. Oh geez

Screw the Democratic Party.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Hard to say what motivated this

Is he up for reelection?

“We can’t conserve our way out of our energy challenges,”

Sorry Bill, but in the end, that's ALL we can do.

[salmonhorse]

4. It is simple...

The North Slope is being produced to its end and Alaska has grown very used to the petro-money that has supported virtually all social services, provided either jobs or excuses to not care about what goes on in 'the lower 48'. Now it is all coming to an end. It is time for Alaska to get busy again = ANWR

[BenFranklinUSA]

16. This is Alaskan business

I may be liberal, but I am very much a states-rights kinda guy.
If Alaskans want to live down wind (or flow) in exchange for $, so be it.
Federal Land should NOT EVER be Feds-Only. Any use should be agreed upon by the State and The US Govt.

So, are Alaskans going to give this a 'thumbs-up????'

[salmonhorse]

18. Then the south should fly The Rebel Flag ~

With a PO Bx in California you are allowed to clear cut The Redwoods. With a similar PO Bx where applicable you can scrape Yellowstone Park down to the bed rock. Make The Grand Canyon a landfill. I understand what you're saying and have worked in the oil industry; built as well some of the platforms up on the North Slope. But if every state is allowed to merely develop whatever resource they may or may not have for what turns out to be, in the scheme of things, short term gain then there will be nothing left.

Develop renewables now!!

http://www.nrel.gov

ps, otherwise you know damn straight Alaska has this "US Govt's" approval as if there were any doubt...

[tlcandie]

33. The wilderness areas belong to the people and the Feds are trustees...

WE the people of the US decide about our preserved wildernesses and each state agreed when these were set aside.

[roguevalley]

35. No way in hell.

I will never be this desperate.
As for dough, we've had hard times
and drilling on our few pristine areas
isn't going to save us. We are as messed
up here as anyone anywhere.

NO ON ANWR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[knowledgeispower]

25. Alaska's economy is ready to collapse in a big way

The oil on the North Slope is running out. Commercial fishing is no longer feasible thanks to the lower priced farmed fish (it actually costs MORE for fishermen to fish now, with high fuel prices and all, then they get from their catch). Likewise, the timber industry is dead because Alaskan timber isn't very good, and the federal government has thankfully decided to stop subsidizing companies to cut down our trees.

So that leaves Alaska with NO economy at all. We have no industry, nothing is made up here, there are no factories, and so forth.

This is why ANWR will be drilled in to soon, like it or not. Otherwise I predict a complete economic collapse and a mass exodus within the next decade.

[Frodo]

28. Maybe we can cut a deal then.

Remove oil drilling from the existing North Slope fields and make THAT area off-limits. Then start drilling in ANWR.

Just trade the "protected" area. Heck, don't tell anyone, just pretend "ANWR" is the North Slope, then change the maps. :-)

[girl gone mad]

3. Of course

the gov. of Alaska wants to open ANWR to drilling. Doesn't every Alaskan citizen get paid hundreds or is it thousands of dollars per year from the government for drilling in the state. Alaskans stand to gain financially from opening up ANWR.

[izzie]

6. Can not believe it is up to $1000s but

in 80s it was $1oos. Do we do any conserving in the US? I do my self but it is a personal belief and makes little differce when every one I know drives big cars and claims they must keep their homes at 72.If I recall the cut in speed cut the use of oil down when they did that but that is even gone.

[Frodo]

10. 2002's Alaska Permanent Fund dividend payout was $1,540.76

Which is actually down considerably from the record payout in 2000 of nearly $2,000.

Payouts are down in part due to decreased production (as the reserves are depleted in the fields they now work they get less and less each year). But the largest reason is market activity. They don't really get paid a portion of the oilt revenue each year, they get a dividend payout on an investment portfolio purchased with years of that income. So poor market performance over the Bush years has "baked" each Alaskan to the tune of about $500/yr.

[Bandit]

19. You have contradicted yourself

"Payouts are down in part due to decreased production"
"They don't really get paid a portion of the oilt revenue each year,"
Your second statement is the correct one.

[Frodo]

21. Not really

Oil revenues have been going down about 6%/yr for the last few years. That puts less money into the fund, which means smaller checks when it isn't enough to offsett growing the population eligible for payout (another reason checks are smaller).

Payout is based on average investment returns over the previous five years, so they probably have not hit bottom yet.


BTW, they payout is down to $1107.56 this year.

[knowledgeispower]

29. You are wrong

The fund is not added too each year. It was a lump sum of money that Alaska put away back in the 70's (if memory serves me right), and its value since then has depended ONLY on how well the investments of this money has paid off.

[Frodo]

30. I'm used to it... but not in this case - A copy of my earlier post.

The reserved assets (the principal of the fund)come from three sources:


1) Dedicated mineral revenues are automatically deposited in the reserved assets (principal) in accordance with the Alaska Constitution and laws. Since the Fund's inception, dedicated mineral revenues - primarily from oil - have deposited $7.7 billion into reserved assets.


2) Special appropriations by the legislature. Over the years, the legislature has contributed an additional $7.3 billion into reserved assets. The source for these appropriations have been both the Fund's unreserved assets that were not used for dividends or inflation-proofing and the state's General Fund.(Which, of ocurse, comes from oil revenue.)


3) Inflation proofing, which is the annual transfer (by legislative appropraition) of a portion of Fund income to principal to protect the value of the principal from inflation. Over time, $7.9 billion has come into the principal through inflation-proofing.

[Frodo]

32. From the sixth grade lesson plan the Permanent Fund provides...

7. How does money get into the Permanent Fund principal?

A The legislature often puts money from the earnings into the principal.
B The legislature adds money to the principal each year to offset inflation.
C From oil revenue
D All of the above

[knowledgeispower]

27. More than that...this year's PFD only 1,100

Which is really incredible, because the dividends are spread out over a five year average. Just goes to show how much the market has gone to shit under Bush.

[Bandit]

17. Wrong

Alaskans do not get paid hundreds or thousands from oil. Sometimes I really wonder at the ignorance expoused on these boards. Alaskans have a "Permanent Fund" (A Bank Account) that they receive interest on. That interest is divided among Alaska's residents. Granted the fund was originally funded by oil revenues twenty five years ago but it has been standing on it's own for over a decade.

[Frodo]

24. Do you need to be insulting?

It looks to me like you're wrong. But do I go off wondering at your ignorance?



The reserved assets (the principal of the fund)come from three sources:


1) Dedicated mineral revenues are automatically deposited in the reserved assets (principal) in accordance with the Alaska Constitution and laws. Since the Fund's inception, dedicated mineral revenues - primarily from oil - have deposited $7.7 billion into reserved assets.


2) Special appropriations by the legislature. Over the years, the legislature has contributed an additional $7.3 billion into reserved assets. The source for these appropriations have been both the Fund's unreserved assets that were not used for dividends or inflation-proofing and the state's General Fund.(Which, of ocurse, comes from oil revenue.)


3) Inflation proofing, which is the annual transfer (by legislative appropraition) of a portion of Fund income to principal to protect the value of the principal from inflation. Over time, $7.9 billion has come into the principal through inflation-proofing.

[roguevalley]

37. There are royalties paid into the state's permanent fund.

A dividend is granted to every qualified citizen every year based on what the royalties have accrued. Crude goes up, we do better. It goes down, we suck wind.

It was $1107.56 this year. We are taxed federal on this money and pay no income tax to the state. So basically, its nice but chump change. It certainly doesn't pay much on the cost of living here and the strains the environment puts on people from cold, darkness and other things.

I suppose you can say we would gain but we would lose more in my opinion. As for financial gain, there would be the same crap all over again about local hire. Too damned many of the people working the booms are from other places, not here. They don't hire here without a gun to their head so we would get screwed in every direction and lose our beautiful slope site.

ANWR would be no trade off for the slope. They may say it would only mean a few square miles but there are roads, etc that would mar the site forever. It is estimated it takes 200 years for an arctic desert, which ANWR is, to recover from any mars or mishaps.

NO TO ANWR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bluestateguy]

5. Um, no

The decision has been made over and over and over again: the ANWR is not a playground for the oil companies. Now if I may borrow some of their side's rhetoric from December of 2000 "You lost, get over it!"

[Malva Zebrina]

7. stupid men--obssessed with destroying beauty

if they keep harping on it like this, it will eventually come to pass--greed and destruction for the sake of making more money than they can ever spend in their lifetime. I was traveling in the White Mountain Natonal Forest last week--stunning in it's fall color at it's peak, The campgrounds in the National Forest , I realized, were run by private corporations now -- we paid the fee to a corporation who in turn, I suppose is responsible for upkeep as such--a man I spoke to there said it has been that way for the past three years and that there were many complaints about the corporation already --Bush gave it to more of his campaign contribution buddies I suppose. Just outside the campground, they are in the process of building a very large building--i was told it was going to be a conference center or education center--it was quite large--I think the National Forest campgrounds and the many hiking trails will become more commercialized--they are still pretty simple -- there may be coke machines installed at every campsite instead of water next, and of course the price will go up -- there is a fee charged already to even park your car and hike on the trails.

[dusty64]

8. Richardson teaming up

with murkowski (one of my most loathed repigs). Why bother, this "Democratic" turncoating is getting a bit too much to bear. Where is the opposition in this country, are we the only ones left who give a shit?

[tlb]

9. I never got how ANWR became such a litmus test issue.

If the Alaskans want the drilling I'd suspect they have a better grasp of the enviromental pros and cons then most city dwellers in the lower 48.

I've recognized most of the objections to drilling in ANWR as recycled from the old Alaskan Pipeline debates. The old doomsday predictions never came true. Why is it unreasonable or right-wing to be skeptical of them the second time around ?

To write off Richardson just becaue of this is totally overboard.

[Frodo]

12. A few points

"The old doomsday predictions never came true" is a poor argument since they could come true tomorrow.

"...objections to drilling in ANWR (are) recycled from the old Alaskan Pipeline debates." If that were true, the same people would be out there worrying about the NEW pipeline. Instead it has overwhelming support from greens and both parties.

What IS silly is for a bunch of people who will never see Alaska (let alone the northern regions of Alaska) to be all hot to disagree with decisions BOTH parties IN Alaska seem to agree with. But we've painted ourselves into a corner politically and can't let shrub have the "win".

[Noordam]

11. Alaska wants to live off the Govt...Oil AND GAS money

On 60 minutes was a piece on natural gas in Alaska. Alaska wants to have the government build this expensive gas pipeline right next to the oil pipeline. There is a second much much cheaper pipeline on the drawing board that goes from the north shore to Canada and meets up with a Canadian pipeline. Then gas in that line could reach the lower 48.

But Alaska FIRST wants the jobs building the pipeline, then like the oil pipeline years $$$$$$$$$ from the gas in the line.

[Frodo]

13. And both parties (and greens) strongly support it.

If we're ever going to cut down on the emissions from all of these coal fired electricity plants AND cut down on the home-heating costs of half of the country we MUST get that natural gas down here to the lower 48.

It's perfectly reasonable for Alaska (and Alaskans) to profit from it since it's their gas.

They are already "mining" enourmous quantities of NG and just "pumping" it back into the ground because they have no way to get it anywhere.

[Noordam]

14. Oh really Mr. 700 Club member LOL

The 60 Minutes piece out that under the plan Alaska wants, the Federal Government would have to pay MOST of the cost to build it. The GAS companies are demanding a PRICE FLOOR that the gas would have to be priced above.

The Canadian route is cheaper and FASTER and still gets the natural gas down to the lower 48. BUT very few jobs OVER MANY YEARS for Alaska workers.

[Frodo]

15. Hey!, you're right!

DO I have to start preaching?

"Agree with me or go to he11"???

The Canadian route no doubt brings a fair amount of money to Canada. Not a real high priority to the US Congress. And why are jobs in Alaska a bad thing?

The price floor is supposedly substantially below what we pay now, and economists have said we would likely never see it. IF it DID happen? It would mean that we were paying MUCH lower gas prices here in the lower 48. Heating costs in the winter hit LOTS of poorer families. Why would this be a bad thing? I suspect that they are worried that if they start shipping big amounts of NG down south it could drastically lower the cost of their product. Great!

It will also make it much cheaper to convert more and more coal-fired plants to natural gas. Mom will love it!

[Bandit]

20. I would try and find another source than a TV show for your information

If you are truly interested in Natural Gas for Americans instead of OIL you may want to do more research. Frodo is correct in that all liberal groups strongly support accessing the natural gas and piping it down to the lower forty-eight. If it goes through Canada, so be it. It would be a much longer pipeline with more possibility for sabatage but it would still give Americans access. It is a good thing either way the pipeline goes.

[Noordam]

22. Well here is one

From here


For more than 20 years, the proponents of two potential routes for a trans-North America natural gas pipeline have vied for approval. As the map shows, one route travels from Alaska's Prudhoe Bay to Canada's Mackenzie Delta and down the Mackenzie River Valley to Edmonton. The second route requires two pipelines, one running from Prudhoe Bay across Alaska to Fairbanks, then along the Trans-Alaska Highway to northeast British Columbia and from there into Alberta, where it connects to a second line running from the Mackenzie Delta through the Mackenzie River Valley. Both routes end at Edmonton. However:

1. The single-line route would cost an estimated $8 billion to construct, just over half the approximately $15 billion cost of the dual-line route.
   
2. At current gas prices, the single-line route could be expected to produce gross revenues of $20 billion to $25 billion and deliver tax and royalty revenues to Alaska alone of up to $5 billion over the life of the project.
   
3. The dual-line route would require significant tax subsidies; last year Congress considered a $15 billion to $45 billion tax subsidy to make its construction attractive.
   
4. The single-line route would be less than 1,700 miles long, whereas the dual-line route would stretch almost 3,500 miles, with more than 900 miles crossing mountainous terrain.
   
5. Because it requires fewer pipeline miles and avoids environmentally sensitive areas, the single-line route is environmentally preferable.

For all of these reasons, politically diverse public interest groups including the American Conservative Union, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the National Environmental Trust have opposed subsidies to build an Alaska natural gas pipeline. Perhaps out of a concern for short-term job gains from pipeline construction, and despite the obvious advantages of the single-line route, Alaska legislators continue lobbying to have the national energy plan mandate the dual-line route."

[Judi Lynn]

23. Thanks for the illustration and info., Noordam

The U.S. taxpayers would be getting totally reamed underwriting the Alaskan pork route. What a debacle.

[Frodo]

26. Question about item #5

I though the gas line was to run next to the existing oil line?
How can it not be "avoid(ing) environmentally sesitive areas" if there is already a crude oil line right there?

[knowledgeispower]

31. Natural gas prices are too low though

They need to go up before it would be economically feasible for Alaska to spend the money on the pipeline.

It could be argued, of course, that building the pipeline NOW would mean that it would already be there when prices DO go up (as they most certainly will), but that would require some foresight that is quite rare in politics.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

34. Why can't we spend 87 billion on a switch

to alternatively fuelled vehicles & heating systems and non-petrol lubricants; so we don't need anybody's friggin oil?

[roguevalley]

38. We had better do something before our own greed ends us all.

THere HAS to be unspoiled places. ANWR must be
saved. It must. If not ANWR, then nowhere. This
makes me crazy. Just crazy.

RV, whose dad worked on the first pipeline and
I can tell you, oil companies lie through their
buck teeth about what they do.

When Exxon wrecked up here, they bought about
150,000$ worth of booms and clean up shit from
my sister and brother-in-law's business and
shipped it to Homer. did they use it? No. But
they had that expenditure on the freaking
books.

Don't trust an oil company. They're the worst
liars on this planet. I will never forget birds
floating dead in the water as it came around
the Kenai Peninsula from the Sound, birds that
had died and drifted in the water from being
poisoned. ANd don't forget, Exxon also took
tax credits for their fines and are now taking
Alaska back to court to LOWER THEIR PENALTIES!!!

Do we want to give ANWR to this kind of people?!

[Frodo]

40. I suspect that wouldn't be a drop in the bucket.

What is that... $300-$350 per person? My hybrid cost an extra $7,000 and that doesn't really qualify as "alternative fuel" anyway.

[samsingh]

36. nutcase

i understand that the Alaska governor is somewhat of a nutcase and the subject of possible recall action.

[roguevalley]

39. He is. He ended the longevity bonus which was a contract

with the elderly, based on how long you lived here, to help them stay in the state. Many of our olders go away when they can't live on their own easily. It ranged from 100-250 a month.

He ended it, the bastard, and a lot of old people are in a world of hurt. He is doing a program of one year to 'transition' people into welfare.

Yes, welfare. We got a letter from him offering 'alternatives' including welfare. But you have to be like 350% below the poverty line or some such shit before you qualify. One man wrote that he lost 14% of his income over this. It makes me sick to think about it.

He appointed his daughter to his senate seat. Ben Stevens, Ted's son, wisely turned down the job first.

I loathe recalls but I would probably sign this one.

[brainshrub]

41. Give up on Anwar? Yes.

It breaks my heart to say this, but drilling in ANWR in inevitable.
With Peak Oil on the horizon, there is no force on earth that will be able to stop the corporations from drilling there eventually. The demand & profit margins will be to high.
Save your strength for other fights.

[Polemonium]

42. Too much giving up

While, I feel ANWAR has served as an unintentional Red Herring for the environmental pillaging of the current administration, giving up is just dumb. The support to keep this thing from happening is there, and if anything we need to step up the oppostition to show that a few more drops of black gold is not worth the price. Alternative energy etc. We should build on popular ideas, not roll over.