Single Page
The Concerned: Should Alaska create a state-owned oil company?TO: The Alaska Legislature Dear Lawmakers, Wow, we The Concerned certainly don't envy you as the new session gears up. It seems like just yesterday you ended the last one. The big debate that hamstrung the 2011 session is poised to dominate 2012, too: the long-term future of Alaska's biggest industry and largest source of tax revenue. Throughput in the trans-Alaska pipeline remains in slow decline, a big batch of court documents now suggest the pipeline could be viable decades longer than anyone thought, and Alaskans -- including we The Concerned -- are as divided as ever about what to do about it all. In practical terms, it means that you'll have just that much less time to deal with everything except oil. Which concerns us, as is our habit. Regardless of how much oil is being produced over the next two or three decades, a time will come when there is none of it left in commercial quantities on state land. Then what? Well, who knows, but it won't be good unless Alaska has something else going. Despite new information about what BP has been telling Securities and Exchange Commission regulators about the oil pipeline's lifespan, the debate is apparently reaching a new point of stasis. Old ideas are being resurrected in hopes of doing everything from building a natural gas pipeline to slowing the rate of oil production decline. Some have suggested that an Alaska oil company could compete with the major North Slope oil producers -- or somehow coerce them to invest in new production, which is something they so far have shown no interest in doing. We're afraid that instead of exhibiting the rumored Alaskan “can-do” spirit, a state oil company is just another instance of the deep and apparently mutual distrust between Alaskans and their major industry. Not that there aren't legitimate reasons for mistrust on both sides; it seems like every time we The Concerned turn around lately, there's another legal dispute, a previously unknown piece of information, dire or rosy press releases or statutory blind spots. Unfortunately, every time we turn around lately, it also seems there's another big investment overseas or in North America, another “shale boom,” or another LNG tanker heading to Asia from somewhere that isn't Alaska. Although there is global precedent for state-backed oil companies, and several of them are doing very well driving investment, we're afraid that Alaska's pride is leading to the entertainment of politically impossible ideas. We also worry that instead of being a benediction sung in harmony by an owner state and its industry partners, a state petroleum company would feel pressure to become the roar of an avenging angel. Alaska's chance to create a state oil company on par with any of the majors came decades ago, and the current debate climate means that even if one were created, public sentiment might help turn it into yet another large-scale public failure, an Alaska-sized boondoggle. Many of the world's most successful state-backed petroleum companies sit in partnership with private companies atop large, producing reserves. Such reserves very probably don't exist anymore on Alaska state land. Some of those other state-backed companies, outside the U.S., solved the problem of no reserves by just waiting for private companies to make discoveries or start production -- and then proceeded to confiscate or "nationalize" the bounty. And maybe sending a thank-you note. But no matter how serious Alaska gets about being an owner state, and no matter how populist it gets, we The Concerned think that's simply not an option here. The most successful of the state-backed companies also are, to a greater or lesser degree, independent of their governments. If Alaskans are suspicious that a governor with ties to the industry is giving away the farm in an agreement with big companies, how suspicious would they be of a state oil company, which by necessity would be full of people with ties to industry?
Scott Woodman has long since demonstrated his fealty to the oil companies. One may think of Scott as one of many in the press who are the oil companies 5th columist laying in ambush to seduce Alaskans to faults premise. Scott Woodhams statement Scott as oil company propogandist left out the fact that under the leases and Alaska's Constitution the oil companies are required to develop. Now the lie is "... or somehow coerce ... .". A State oil compamy would join with or compete with just as oil companies do now, just as Norway's Statoil does. There is no interest bludgeoning anyone into anyting , that is waste time and money. Scott is not only an oil company progandist but also an oil company lier. There is defference. You may want to remember that in the future. Mr. Woodham, The State is already in business with the producers. It just comes in the form of a royalty interest and taxation which equate to the largest financial interest, but little access to information or power in decision making. Whether you call it a state oil company or a public trust, the State should be acting as sovereign countries do all over the world and exchange a royalty interest for a working one when possible. That doesn't mean we're nationalizing already existing rights or even becoming operators (which the State would not be technically competent to do for decades even if it had a state oil company). If Alaska took a 20-30% working interest in new developments - via a production sharing arrangement or more traditional lease structure - at least the State would get to know what's going on and to have a seat at the table to advance our own agenda. Since that ownership share would come with investment obligations, industry might even support the move. Craig Richards It would also be appropriate for this state oil company to sell discounted gasoline to Alaska residents, especially in rural Alaska, considering the substantial markups we see at the pump. Forget "Alaska State Oil Company"... Tired of playing "Heads I WIN, Tails you LOSE" ?? A state owned company which we have, permanent fund (successful in staving off political correctness),Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Alaska Railroad all successfully done. We used to build great things in this country... What has happened to our "can do" spirit? I'll back this only if Bill Sheffield is in charge. ..It is an even LARGER risk to give away Alaska`s fair and equitable share of it`s commonly owned resources without a quid-pro-quo increase in TAPS throughput, AND building the gasline that was originally planned, designed,and engineered to run beside the TAPS line all the way to Valdez. Maybe the companies claims that all the gas was needed to pressurize ALL THEIR OIL (?) was true at one time. That is up for debate. Certainly now there is a surplus to that need on the order of 3 bcf per day, and growing with each new gas and gas liquids discovery. The biggest risk to Alaska right now is to NOT build at least a 3bcf-a-day gasline to Valdez. That is the single largest event that will alter the economic course of this state for the better, and will insure energy security and affordability in-state for the next 100 years!, as well as insure a healthy and robust growth environment for new industry and quality job growth. Just imagine if half the money spent in Alaska on heat and power is returned to the people of the state as discretionary income! If some economic guru out there could figure that out I`m sure the figure would astound Alaskans. That would be "the best benefit" we could achieve with our gas resource as defined in the state constitution. If one believes otherwise, please tell me what and why another course would be better and the reasoning behind it Governor. Utah Phillips said it best. "We the American people are enormously wealthy, you know that? http://www.the-get.com/ Forget "Alaska State Oil Company"... https://gas4alaska.info/Propane.html Crude Oil is old inefficient messy stinky deeply entrenched obsolete technology.. Gas is not just gas, it's a blend of light alkanes C1-to-C5 methane to pentane.. finally over the past two years more than 50% of Alaskans finally got this simple fact memorized, they still don't fully understand all the differences between different molecules, but they finally know that propane is not methane.. many thanks to ANGDA for educating stubborn-stupid Alaskans.. AGIA would have dumped $500billion worth of propane into Canada and paid them $500million to do it... this is like telling China we will pay them $500million to come take all our fish because we're too stupid to know how to cook fish on propane. Since 1977 every carbon atom that has gone down TAPS without having at least 3.5 hydrogen atoms attached to it has been a terrible waste of an expensive pipeline.. 95% of CRUDEoil should be gasified before being put into a pipeline. ~~ The Key to the Future is HYDROGEN ~~ Carbon is nature's best carrier for hydrogen.. http://www.ucg-gtl.com/australian-UCG-underground-coal-gasification-process.html Get some Clues.. Connect the Dots.. If we make the best use of hydrogen we can all be driving muscle-cars that get over 200mpg. If we do this with 21stCentury technology the biggest waste byproduct in Alaska will be OXYGEN. "..I told you in 1975, and I'm still telling you now: Stupid is as stupid does... , you will never convince them, DT. 21stCentury.. good stuff. "I coulda been a Contenda." "95% of CRUDEoil should be gasified before being put into a pipeline. 1)Hire the best lobbyist money can buy. 2)Hire 1 other person. Sole job is to caucus with all of the remote villages and legislative districts that that do not have affordable energy. 3)Read and understand all of ANGDA'a studies on propane distribution AND WHY it is every bit as critical as natural gas. 4)Build a "temporary" 6"-8" propane line to Fairbanks putting in pre-fab fueling stations every 50 miles. 5)First customers at Yukon Bridge. Second customer at Livengood. Third customer GVEA. 6)Fourth customer a poly-pipe manufacturing plant 7)Use equipment that runs on propane instead of diesel to build the natural gas pipe line. Then the state would be able to build the natural gas pipeline at a greatly reduced cost because fuel is available, the pipe is made locally, and the money from the propane customers would for a large part pay for the building of the large diameter line to Valdez. This is the quickest way to get energy to the most families and has many other benefits. Read more: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - The voice of Interior Alaska since 1903 http://newsminer.com/pages/full_story/push?content_instance=17158672&need_to_add=true&id=17158672 Oil companies have refused to disclose how much money they have been cashing out from their Alaska North Slope operations. I wonder why? Are they laughing all the way to the bank? What are their profits from Alaska? Are they trying to hide something? What's the bottom line? By the way I don't support a State oil company-- we'd be even worse. |
Comments