We must base opinion of Exxon-TransCanada proposal on merits, not politics

Many will want us to make a decision, one way or the other, based on our views of the governor and Exxon. But the decision has to be made on the merits, not on suspicion, and political allegiance.

It also doesn't appear the governor had a lot to do with this. The deal being announced today appears to have been negotiated by TransCanada and Exxon, not by legislators, and not by the governor. So those who'll want to render an opinion on this deal based on support or opposition to the governor will, I think, miss the mark.

Here are a few early thoughts. A gas pipeline is important, and will in some way - like it or not - have to involve the biggest oil companies in the state - Conoco, Exxon and BP.  They hold the major North Slope gas leases for the gas we need to make a pipeline economical. That's an inescapable fact. We just have to make sure we don't let them leverage their gas lease ownership by demanding unfair concessions from the state as a condition for moving ahead with a pipeline. So any deal needs to be looked at objectively, and we all need to put politics and emotion aside.

I and others asked during public hearings in 2008 what would happen if Exxon tried to partner with TransCanada. The answer was on the record.  The AGIA contract allows any oil company, Exxon, BP and/or Conoco included, to do that. The state has a power to approve or disapprove of any new owners, and that will certainly receive a lot of debate. At present the deal doesn't appear to involve a majority ownership stake by Exxon - something I think is important, personally. It might not involve an ownership stake at all, though time will tell.

When the Legislature passed AGIA, we all knew a third party could join the venture, and wrote rules to regulate the pipeline with that in mind. The point of AGIA was to set public interest ground rules on how a pipeline would have to operate, even if owned by a company we don't like. The announcement is that Exxon has signed on in some form to the AGIA deal, apparently accepting AGIA's terms, so it will be regulated. The question is whether it can be regulated effectively, and in the end you always want a trustworthy partner.

Under AGIA the pipeline operator will have to agree to promote fair shipment rates to competitors, in-state gas use at fair shipment rates, and a project labor agreement that can help with Alaska hire.  I'd want to know if Exxon somehow objected to those terms.

Some who support BP and Conoco's competing Denali proposal may argue Exxon isn't a trustworthy partner. It's a point to consider. But again, they'll be supporting a Denali proposal that has even fewer protections for the public, and the same conflict of ownership by those whose gas will be shipped.

In the end, the right question is whether this moves a pipeline project that complies with Alaska's gas pipeline law protections forward, in the public's interests.  And, on a personal note, I'd say Exxon would do well to pay the Exxon Valdez verdict and quit its court delay tactics in this 20 year-old case.  If they want to partner with the Alaskans, they'd do well not to keep poking Alaskans in the eye.

For now, I hope folks, including the governor, take a measured approach towards this instead of trying to seek credit or score political points over it.