Good article. Alaskans have to by very diligent to keep their legislature from getting fooled (or worse) by the oil companies on issues like this. Norway takes more than 75% of all revenue from their oil, and they still find plenty of oil companies willing to bring it to the market for them.

What everyone fails to see is that while BP, ConocoPhillips, and all the rest of the big oil up here is crying about taxes like little children (and spending millions of dollars in advertising to do it) is that there is a line of other companies just waiting to pay whatever tax we impose on OUR oil. The last thing these douche bags want us to talk about is kicking them out of Alaska and sending someone else to do the job. Just look at how fast Sarah Palin got an offer to leave the governors office. These companies want to rob us blind and still stick it to us up the back side. Anyone who says otherwise is just a big oil puppet.

Judge Gleason's decision may be good news if you live in Barrow, Fairbanks, or Valdez, but not for the great majority of Alaskans who live elsewhere in the State. The increased property taxes that Judge Gleason imposed on TAPS are passed on to the North Slope producers through transportation charges. The producers offset these transportation charges as a business expense reducing taxable income and taxes payable to the State's General Fund. Less taxes in the General Taxes means less revenue available to most citizens in Alaska. This is a problem that has existed since the State created the special property taxes targeted at the oil and gas industry. The law encourages aggressive tax behavior by a few bush communities to the detriment of the general citizenry. It also has caused a distortion of public expenditures. Next time you are in downtown Barrow, look around and ask yourself where literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of oil and gas property taxes have been spent by that city. If anything, the judge's decision should prompt outrage on the part of the general citizenry and a demand that all oil and gas property taxes be directed to the General Fund. The collective citizenry through the Legislature can then decide the appropriate revenues to direct to all communities in the State.

Unfortunately, Amanda Coyne is focusing on the wrong issues and drawing conclusions that are irrelevant - as irrelevant as what Judge Gleason's decision does, or does not, say. The pipeline is simply a vehicle for transporting oil. Whether it can safely do its job at 100 barrels a day or 2 million barrels a day isn't the issue. Even the fact that technical challenges arise at lower levels, that at certain level (not yet pinpointed) trucks will have to move the oil from near Fairbanks to Valdez during the winter, all of these points are irrelevant.

What's important is production...period. No one can argue that production continues to fall. Just in the last four years our daily production is down by 160,000 barrels per day....note that's PER DAY. If this trend continues, the state will be in a dangerous situation considering it's budget continues to grow. I don't think it's "propaganda" to hold the position that if we don't attract investments and increase production, our future generations will face a very different Alaska than we know today. The pipeline could shut down in a few years or in a hundred years. But if it goes a hundred years with a mere fraction of the oil needed to sustain our economy, what's the point? We have to do whatever we can to turn production around. That's the only way to stave off other budget solutions like income taxes, PFD raids or budget cuts.

Amanda seems to think the oil companies are acting punitively with their threats of less investment. I think these are based on economics such as the price of oil (take a look at what it was in the 80s and 90s), return on investment here versus other places where it's higher, operating costs which are higher here than anywhere else, and tax stability). Had she done here research she would have gotten the point rather than made assumptions to make her story more interesting. Finally, she should also look at the hundreds of businesses that are supporting Make Alaska Competitive - none of which are oil companies (they are not allowed to be members). These are mostly Alaska businesses small and large, all of which understand that if we don't do something to turn oil production around, we're in for a rude awakening sooner than later.

The question of "what does a judge know about pipelines?" is indeed a valid one. However, this judge did come up with a more valid assessment than any put forth by any news outlet to date, at least on the life estimate of the pipeline. As to value for taxation; that seems a crapshoot to some degree. If you hang out with enough Alyeska engineers for long enough you'll learn that they have been chuckling about the rumors of the impending demise of the pipeline for many years because they know it's all BS. Here's to Royal Dutch Shell making some good discoveries and Pt Thompson becoming economic to develop. That will change everything. It ain't over till it's over and it's far from over on the north slope. This is a good article. Nowhere near comprehensive, but good.

What, pray tell, does a judge know about pipeline physics? And it is not only the physics but the economics of running the line at low volumes. During the winter at low volumes it will be necessary to heat the oil, further decreasing the economics.

Dear Amanda: Bravo! This article should be mandatory reading by every Alaskan who receives a dividend. Solid as a rock writing. Thank you!