Alaska Dispatch

Dear Mr. Noah,

After hearing about your presentation to the House Resources Committee, we totally understand why you'd want to resign your post as the Parnell administration's in-state natural gas czar. What a frustrating mess. The whole energy picture in Alaska seems way more complicated than cherries at your family's orchard. If a cherry's ripe, you know it. But because natural gas is colorless, odorless and tasteless, it's probably much harder to tell when a pipeline project is ripe.

We were only a little concerned when you decided to step down, but we got really concerned when we read about you comparing the atmosphere of competition surrounding the various energy plans Alaska's dealing with to a "civil war." We were also sorry to hear that, in Sen. Charlie Huggins' words, you might be the first "casualty" of the war. We had already been concerned that this whole process was getting too militarized, what with all this talk of a "bullet" line and various lawmakers "taking aim" at various projects, but that civil war thing seriously escalated our worry, especially now that there are casualties.

We're worried what calling the situation a civil war implies, and we hope it doesn't distort the picture too much or make the legislature's decision harder. A little distortion when it comes to "political dynamite," as you rightly called it, is to be expected, but the historic U.S. Civil War only had two sides, and Alaska is facing a much more complex conflict.

What's more, one of the historic Civil War's sides was defending a morally dubious position (although they may not have thought so at the time). We really wish you had told the committee which groups in Alaska's energy fight you think are taking the human-trafficking side. Or, at least which side lacks the industrial capacity to compete. That information could really help lawmakers narrow down Alaska's choices.

Also worrisome is where Alaskans fit in. Do Alaskans represent emancipated slaves? Are we behind enemy lines? Should we beware of raiders? The last thing Alaska needs is Reconstruction, carpetbaggers, gloating victors and frustrated lynch mobs staffed by the conquered. Do we really have to choose now? Can we wait to pick a side until we know which projects are going to win? Come to think of it, maybe the Legislature is on to something here.

We also take issue with that graphic you used to illustrate Alaska's energy "tug of war." It shows a big energy sale at the North Slope and in-state energy supply (which seem universally agreed-upon) in the center with eight separate plans tied to it, all ostensibly pulling in different directions. Not to nitpick, but you left out an option which gets more and more plausible each day: The massive bucket brigade Alaskans might create to hand carry the gas out of frustration from the Slope through Canada, or to Valdez, or, if they live in Southcentral, to their own furnaces (whatever makes the most sense at the time).

According to Commissioner Tom Irwin's response to allegations that the administration is trying to take the bullet line out of the realm of possibility, the in-state line is still "one of the arrows in the quiver." A statement which makes us think that the thing can pretty much be crossed off the list, in pencil at least. Bringing a quiver of arrows to a civil war is like bringing a knife to a cannon fight.

However worried you made us with this civil war business, we think you might have been right when you said Alaska is confusing everyone by using its huge disposable income to back so many alternative projects at once, in essence distorting the marketplace. And then there's Alaska's Damocletian option, the possibility that the state could just forego private industry and build energy projects itself (viz. the bucket brigade, above). On the bright side, though, if this thing lasts a whole lot longer, Alaska won't have to worry about having enough income to confuse anyone.

At any rate, we wish you all the best and hope you have a great harvest.