Reader Comment

3-26-13

26 March 2013 9:29am

 

Tax Panel Reviews Impact On Coming Generations
 
By
 
Mary Barr
 
The Political Science Association of Alaska and Alaska College Republicans presented a panel last Wednesday (i.e. 3-20-13) at the University of Alaska-Anchorage campus, targeting  the impact of today’s tax policy on future prosperity.
 
Event Chair, Portia Watson, introduced the event moderator, Dave Harbour, publisher of Northern Gas Pipelines.  He opened the evening with a question of “intergenerational equity”.  Do we want the next generation to have the opportunities we now have, and how can we achieve that goal?  How should we proceed with the allocation of Dr. Scott Goldsmith, Oil Taxes, Soft Landing, Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska - Anchorage, Photo by Dave Harbourour resources to assure future prosperity for our children?
 
Dr. Scott Goldsmith (NGP Photo), Professor Emeritus of Economics, contrasted the methods of financing Alaska’s operating budget with techniques used by other state governments.  Where other states support themselves with a diversified variety of taxes and fees, Alaska derives 95% of its state revenue from one source: the petroleum industry.  As production has fallen, state spending has soared creating an unsustainable model.  The question becomes how to find a balance to allow a viable economic future for coming generations.
 
Andrew Halcro, former legislator and current chairman of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce, reviewed the politics of the relationship between the state and the petroleum industry over the last 40 years.  Oil company revenue includes a corporate income tax, property tax, royalty payment, and a severance (i.e. or, production) tax.  Progressivity of the production tax discourages investment, and Alaska’s tax structure has become punitive.  Halcro said that Alaska has become a state that pays people to live here.  Alaskans seem to have no apparent interest in reining in  government spending but are highly focused on continuance of Permanent Fund dividend checks for themselves..
 
Dr. Forest Nabors, Professor of Political science reviewed the lack of diversification in the economy and how the federal tax structure disrupts upward mobility.  The current federal tax code actually creates an assigned strata of “class” that discourages upward mobility.  He said that entrepreneurs create wealth when they’re successful, but that as a business succeeds, taxes become more punitive creating a barrier to obtaining true wealth.  The inheritance tax, he said, makes passing a successful small business to the next generation very difficult.  He noted that Alaska has few if any entrepreneurs due to such political barriers.
 
Harbour wound up the evening with comments on the Norway model of managing taxation and regulation.  “In Norway,” Harbour said, “a deal is a deal”, with tax, regulatory and environmental issues agreed to in advance of an oil company’s investment.  “In Alaska”, he said, “a deal is not necessarily a deal”.  He said that while a company’s bonus bid and lease sale royalty payments provide revenue certainty to Alaska,  the rate paid on each of Alaska’s three oil taxes can increase – even retroactively and with little notice -- upon a vote of the legislature and the signature of a governor. 
 
“Some legislators demand guarantees from the oil industry in return for tax reform”, Harbour said, “but when government acts to increase taxes, no one asks “where is the industry’s guarantee from the state that higher taxes will produce improved state services?”
 
“If the state provides investors with a predictable investment climate,” Harbour said, “the coming generation can have more certainty that their way of life will be filled with as much opportunity as their parents experienced.” 
 
Harbour also asked the audience to define the word, "people", as it is used in Alaska's constitution: "Article 8, Section 2. says, 'The Legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, inclucing land and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people.'"
 
"Here's the question I would leave you with," Harbour said.  "Did the founders intend to define 'people' as limited to today's generation, or does the definition include all present and future generations of Alaskan people?
 
"If the definition includes only today's adults and kids," he said, " then their elected representatives would be right in taxing all productive businesses to the hilt, to benefit the contractors, public employees, entitlement programs and today's other beneficiaries--even if those taxed businesses were not in business a generation from now.
 
"But," he said, "if the definition of 'people' also includes future generations of Alaskans -- you and your kids -- then today's policies should be designed to make Alaska a good place to invest, both now and into the future."
 (Note: NGP always invites participants and knowledgeable readers to provide additions/corrections to our work.  Accuracy is one of our goals.  -ed)

 

Categories:

10-9-12

09 October 2012 5:51am

Here is Cory Renauer's (Photo-r) Alaska Gas Pipeline Risk Analysis (Seeking Alpha)

(Notice: two readers told me they encountered a 'virus warnining' when activating the link above.  I checked the link several times and ran my virus program check on the URL.  It received a clean bill of health.  If anyone has information to the contrary, please advise.  -dh)

Notes:

Alberta's oil fired economy is doing quite well. 

Alaska Support Industry Alliance, www.northerngaspipelines.comTONIGHT: A big night for the Alaska Support Industry Alliance!

 Other Consumer Energy Alliance and American Energy Alliance Daily Energy Links Here. 

For faithful readers, we have posted several new unsolicited testimonials, here.  -dh

(Comment:  We do not believe readers should view this analysis as negative.  It correctly characterizes the large volume of gas on the slope, potential markets and some of the cost advantages it enjoys amid the disadvantages of remoteness, logistics, etc.   What the article should do is motivate Alaska decision makers to rapidly move to make the State's tax climate more competitive so that investors can be more confident that big money invested in the state is likely to produce an acceptable return and unlikely to be expropriated via future tax legislation.  -dh) 

(Excerpt; for the full story go here.) expect America's technological Cory Renauer picture, www.northerngaspipelines.comadvantage regarding natural gas extraction will largely be diminished by the time the proposed pipeline is operational. At the last World Shale Oil & Gas Summit, held in Houston, more than half the attendees were foreign. Their purpose was to soak up whatever knowledge they could about the advanced extraction techniques that are giving the US its edge, so they can be applied at home.
 
China is sitting on natural gas reserves that may rival those of the US. The Chinese Government has recently allowed domestic producers like Sinopec (SHI) and PetroChina (PTR) to partner with foreign firms. Chinese producers will, no doubt, quickly adopt the horizontal drilling and fracking techniques used by their new partners, further lowering profit margins for North Slope produced gas.
 
The most sobering reason to halt construction of the pipeline before it even starts is the fact that it might not even be necessary. The Arcticice that makes an export facility on the north shore of Alaska impossible is rapidly decreasing. Last month Arctic sea ice levels reached record lows, and median ice edge levels are already well off from the shores of Alaska. By the time the proposed pipeline is functional, oil and gas shipping through the Bering Strait might rival the Strait of Hormuz.
Rapidly melting Arctic ice could render the pipeline unnecessary.
 
Summary
A $65 billion dollar price tag spread among Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., BP PLC, and TransCanada is hardly a cause for alarm. Even at currently depressed natural gas prices, there is enough easily extractable gas on Alaska's North Slope to make the proposed pipeline a break-even venture. Over the next 30 years I expect the overall effects of the pipeline on the balance sheets of the companies involved to be neutral. I would neither buy nor sell shares of Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., BP PLC, or TransCanada Corp. based on their involvement in this project.

 

Today's Consumer Energy Alliance Energy Clips:
 
Ryan blamed President Barack Obama for standing in the way of the Keystone XL pipeline and pushing too many environmental regulations that have cost jobs in the coal industry, a thorny issue for the president in southeast Ohio, where coal has a large footprint. He said similar control by Washington has hampered manufacturing growth throughout the Midwest, including Michigan and his home state of Wisconsin.
 
Action needs to be taken now and the current administration needs to start granting permits for oil exploration and drilling on federal lands. Approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline already passed in the House by a 293-127 majority vote with 69 Democrats abandoning the president, but the plan was blocked by Senate Democrats and a veto threat by President Obama. The pipeline would bring 700,000 barrels of oil a day and up to 20,000 jobs to the U.S economy, bringing a fresh start to a crippled nation whose future should be decided in November on strong leadership, not appeasing speeches.
 
State air pollution regulators say California’s air quality isn’t expected to get worse after the governor ordered the release of a dirtier blend of gasoline to help slash record-high pump prices. The California Air Resources Board issued a regulatory advisory a day earlier after Gov. Jerry Brown ordered it to allow so-called “winter-blend” gasoline to be sold in California earlier than usual to increase supply. AAA said the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in California hit $4.668 Monday — the highest price in the nation and an all-time high for the Golden State. Analysts said the spike has been driven by refinery disruptions and corrosion issues in an important pipeline.
 
Concerns over reports Monday of a declining Asian economy helped push crude oil prices down for the second straight trading day. The World Bank downgraded its growth expectations for the Asia-Pacific region, where the Chinese economy is showing signs of flattening. In Europe, meanwhile, trouble continued, though leaders there agreed to set up a $648 billion recovery fund. Though the IMF praised Middle East economies for maintaining a watchful eye on global oil markets, the slide in energy prices continued into the second week of October. OPEC for September predicted more of the same for the global economy, noting few dark clouds were forecast on the horizon. The cartel has stuck to assertions that some growth may return to the global economy next year, a sentiment reinforced by the World Bank.  The OPEC oil market report for October is scheduled for a Wednesday release.
 
The presidential campaigns’ coal war is intensifying, with each candidate promoting himself as the champion for coal and the miners who produce it. As GOP nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama battle over the effects of  environmental regulations on the industry and its workers, a recent study by The Brattle Group concluded that coal’s survival is more dependent on changing market forces than EPA rules. Economists at the consulting firm recently boosted their estimates on impending retirements of coal plants  by 25,000 megawatts, finding that falling natural gas prices and declining demand for electricity have accelerated planned closures.

 

TODAY'S American Energy Alliance Energy Links:

Doubling down on the automobile mandate does make sense, if you are in favor of more deaths on the highway, a $3000 increase in the average price of a car, pricing millions out of the new car market, and limiting consumer choice. White House (10/8/12) reports: “On energy, I’m big on oil and gas, and developing clean coal technology, but I also believe that if we’re ever going to have control of our energy future, then we’ve got to invest in solar and wind and biofuels, and that it does make sense for us to double our fuel-efficiency standards on cars.  And that's not a socialist plot -- (laughter) -- for us to reduce our energy usage.  It’s the smart thing to do.  It’s right for our national energy.  It’s right for our economy.  It’s right for the environment.”
 
“Temporary” right?  The subsidies have been in place for 20 years.  People have been using wind to generate electricity for more than 100 years.  And if this stuff is really cost competitive, why are we subsidizing it? WSJ (10/8/12) reports: “At a time of intense debate over the federal

Categories:

5-21-12 - Intergenerational Inequity, Continued....

21 May 2012 5:21am

ADN Editorial: ... That's what was most frustrating about the state Senate refusing to even hold hearings on House Bill 9, which would have empowered the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. to pursue an in-state "bullet" line with a target of a 2013 open season and given AGDC a seat at the table for discussions on the LNG export project where it could leverage its work and the 417 miles of right of way it possesses.  If Alaska's state senators have an alternative way to get gas to state residents and relieve crippling energy costs, they have yet to present it. They appear content to place the destiny of the state in the hands of others, namely the North Slope producers some legislators so enjoy vilifying.    ...

Comment:  Last week, we linked to our Alaska Business Brad Keithley, Alaska, oil and gas taxes, ACES, BlogMonthly article on Intergenerational Ineqity (See Delta Discovery Letter).  We prepared the draft for submission before reviewing the latest work of the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER).  In the Blog piece, below, Brad Keithley (NGP Photo), identifies from the ISER report a string of logic that demonstrates how current state spending policy is eroding the "nest egg", and threatening the economic future for our kids or, put another way, creating intergenerational inequity.  -dh

Thoughts on Alaska Oil and Gas, by Brad Keithley.  In March, the University of Alaska Anchorage’s highly respected Institute of Social and Economic Research (“ISER”) published a paper entitled “Managing Alaska’s Petroleum Nest Egg for Maximum Sustainable Yield” (.pdf). The paper is the continuation of an effort started last year (.pdf) by ISER’s Scott Goldsmith to determine the appropriate level of annual state government spending, if the objective is generally to maintain a consistent, inflation adjusted level of state spending over time.  ...   "Alaska Fiscal Policy| Like fish, if the current rate of “take” (i.e., state spending) is too high – higher than can be supported by the state’s asset base on a sustained basis – the state’s “nest egg” is eroded and the revenue available for spending in future years is reduced. In short, setting the rate of state spending at higher than sustainable levels will leave future generations of Alaskans worse off than the current generation. ... Sadly, it appears that Alaska’s most recent generation of political leaders has failed to grasp this principle and is leading Alaska off the fiscal cliff." 

THOUGHTFUL THURSDAYS, by Deborah Brollini.  Oil and gas, and pipeline issues are complex and can be intimidating. Alaska Energy Dudes and Divas launched its "Thoughtful Thursdays" series last week to help citizens better understand the issues facing you, your family, and the State of Alaska. Sit down and relax in a fun environment and speak with experts from the oil, gas and energy sectors and have your pressing questions answered. 6/21/12 - Admiral Tom Barrett, President of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company https://www.facebook.com/events/231241090322021/

Categories:

5-9-12

09 May 2012 8:35am


Fox News by Joshua Rhett Miller.  Deep-pocketed environmental groups are collecting millions of dollars from the federal agencies they regularly sue under a little-known federal law, and the government is not even keeping track of the payouts, according to two new studies.
 
Under the Equal Access to Justice Act, or EAJA — which was signed into law by President Carter in 1980 to help the little guy stand up to federal agencies — litigants with modest means who successfully show government agencies wronged them can get their legal fees back from the taxpayer.
 
(Link contributed today by California reader, BH)

Congressman Doc Hastings, OCS, Energy Policy, Photo by Dave HarbourCommentary: Alaska's economy is almost completely based on oil, yet many of Alaska's leaders continue to demonize and criticize Alaska's most reliable and bountiful investors in order to build public support for keeping oil taxes among the highest in the free world.  Keeping oil taxes high benefits liberal constituencies -- environmental extremists and public works labor unions -- for different reasons.  It also benefits many constituencies via a vast wealth redistribution "Capital Projects Budget", which lures many private sector voters into the enticing web of the 'entitlement state'.  But high taxes also make oil less competitive on the world market.  As Richard Peterson's Op-Ed piece below points out, Alaska should be paying more attention to the shifting paradigms of world markets.  Meanwhile, private environmental organizations are working hand in glove with the environmental activists embedded in the Obama administration to stop oil and mining activity wherever possible and delay projects.  Congressman Doc Hastings' (NGP Photo)  statement this morning mostly refers to anti oil federal policy, as does Virginia Governor McDonnell's Wall Street Journal Op-Ed piece last week, noting that, "Virginia is not alone in playing witness to the president's apparent disdain for domestic oil and natural gas production. The administration's perpetual slow-walk approach is especially noticeable in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast."

Groups like CEA are vigilant over all types of federal overreaching actions.  Here, CEA urges Interior to not list the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard as 'endangered'.  Texans are encountering with this possible designation the same threats to economic survival Alaskans face with federal critical habitat listings for the polar bear, steller sea lion and beluga whale, all of whose populations are actually increasing.  -dh

Honest, hardworking Alaskans and their private institutions could be forced out of Alaska's economy -- if these state and federal policies don't change.  Without a vibrant private sector, Alaska could once again -- and soon -- become a ward of the Federal government and its industries vulnerable to nationalization.  We believe that is precisely what some special interests want.  -dh 

 

 

 

Good Bye to Alaska's Prosperous Economy

by 

Richard Peterson (NGP Photo)

(Commenting on Alaskanomics Reference Below)

From Alaskanomics, by Blythe Campbell, Northrim Bank
 
A blog posting by David Hackett examines the reasons behind the recent high prices of North Sea Brent Crude oil  relative to West Texas Intermediate Crude (WTI), noting that these two crudes historically traded at close to the same price. The huge increase in oil production from North Dakota has disrupted traditional oil transportation and supply patterns - there is no efficient way to transport oil south of Oklahoma to the refineries on the Gulf coast.    ...    Hackett predicts that the Canadian producers will work hard to move their oil to the West Coast, potentially displacing Alaska's crude.

Richard Peterson, Gas to Liquids, GTL, CTL, Alaska, Photo by Dave HarbourFor some time we have asked, “why is Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil selling for such a high price”.  This article from Northrim Bank  lays it out and while Alaskans have been basking in the $40/bbl premium soon Canadian producers will break out and reach the West Coast.  We have been aware of a proposal to rail Canadian crude to Delta to ship in TAPS to Valdez.  It doesn’t make economic sense unless you look at the differential.  At $40/bbl even $20/bbl you can do strange things.  We are aware of Bakken producers railing crude to the East and West Coasts.  One just ordered 1200 new tank cars and will soon be flooding the West Coast with much cheaper oil.  When Keystone is built part of the log jam will break.  Another Canadian oil line will be expanded to Vancouver and the Puget Sound pipeline connecting it to Washington State refiners will also be expanded dumping hundreds of thousands of barrels per day into this market.  When you realize that soon BP will be the only Washington State refiner with crude oil on the North Slope you can easily see why this will happen. 

When these things happen ANS will drop $20 or more dollars per barrel but more importantly, ANS will be displaced from Washington State and maybe California refineries.  Its only market, Southern California, will purchase oil at a steep discount.  West Coast transport fuel prices will drop and for the first time in decades, West Coast gasoline and diesel may sell below that of Midwest and Texas.  Adding insult to injury, it is likely to become cheaper for Tesoro to bring refined products from Seattle to Anchorage than oil from Russia to run its Kenai refinery.  When all of this unfolds, Alaska will be running a large financial deficient and its Legislature will blame the oil producers instead of themselves.  
 
With state policy forcing lower investment on state land and federal policy blocking most investment on federal lands, it is not exaggeration to say, "Good bye to Alaska's Prosperity."
 
-Richard Peterson submitted the above commentary as a longtime reader of Northern Gas Pipelines

 

 
“American offshore energy production plays a vital role in our country’s economic security.  It supports over a million American jobs, accounts for 30 percent of our Nation’s oil production, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and generates billions of dollars in federal revenue.
 
Now more than ever, with gasoline prices still hovering near $4 a gallon and unemployment above 8 percent, the United States should be doing everything we can to ensure the timely and responsible production of our domestic energy resources. 
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is instead pursuing an agenda that keeps 85 percent of our offshore areas closed to new American energy production. 
 
Every five years, the federal government releases a plan directing the development of our offshore resources.  It includes specific locations and timelines for where and when energy production will occur.   President Obama’s draft plan includes no new areas, no goals and no new energy resources.  It’s a plan that reinstates the drilling moratoria lifted in 2008 and locks up vital American energy resources. 
 
When President Obama took office, there was a plan in place to conduct lease sales in the new areas that were no longer under moratoria.  Instead of seizing this opportunity to vastly increase American energy production, President Obama tossed aside that plan and canceled lease sales – including one off the coast of Virginia scheduled for 2011. 
 
The draft plan released last fall from the Obama Administration closes the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling, along with parts of the Arctic.  The only areas this plan would allow energy production are in the Gulf of Mexico and, very late in the plan, small parts of Alaska – areas that have been open in some cases for decades. 
 
President Obama claims to support expanded offshore drilling, but the reality is that no new drilling will occur anywhere during President Obama’s term in office, or if this plan is enacted, for the next half decade. 
 
What’s even more troubling is that due to the Obama Administration’s delays, on July 1, 2012 the United States will have no plan to develop our offshore energy resources.
 
Offshore drilling plans are subject to multiple levels of public comment and review.  One of the final steps is that the plan must be submitted to Congress for a 60-day review.  That’s the law.   In order to complete all the legally required steps to have a new plan in place by the time the current one expires on June 30th, the President would have had to submit his plan to Congress by May 1st.  
 
The Obama Administration let that deadline come and go without any action.  This will be the first time the U.S. will not have a plan in place since it became a requirement in the 1970s.
 
I also want to quickly address the Obama Administration’s deliberately misleading claim that their draft plan opens 75 percent of the known offshore resources.  This is a calculated and outdated talking point meant to provide political cover for a failed record on offshore drilling.
 
The Obama Administration is using seismic data from the 1980s to estimate offshore oil and natural gas potential.  Using scientific data from over 30 years ago to shape significant energy policy is not only completely unacceptable but shows a fundamental lack of understanding of offshore energy development.   We don’t know the oil and natural gas potential of new areas offshore until we begin development.   
 
For example, just over a decade ago, the USGS believed that the Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Resources of the Marcellus Formation was 1.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  Today, it is estimated that Marcellus has 44 TIMES that amount.  We know that technology has come a long way in 30 years - certainly no one here is using a computer from 30 years ago - and the Obama Administration shouldn’t be relying on 30 year old data.
 
The United States’ economic competitiveness is at risk if we don’t act now to expand production of our resources.  Last week, the Chinese announced an offshore plan to DOUBLE output by 2030.  World markets are not waiting for us and if we don’t plan for increased energy production now, we will surely pay for it in the future through increased dependence and higher energy prices.   
 
Now is the time to make these important decisions and set the stage for an energy renaissance in the United States.”
Virginia Could Be an Energy Power—If Washington Would Let It
 
In 2010, my state was poised to become the first on the East Coast permitted to produce oil and natural gas offshore. Then politics intervened.
 
When President Obama endorsed an "all of the above" energy strategy in this year's State of the Union address, he gave the impression that he was finally adopting an aggressive policy. Unfortunately, the president's words are worlds apart from his actions—especially when it comes to developing our nation's abundant offshore oil and natural gas resources.
 
To see that disconnect in action, look at the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 2010, Virginia was poised to become the first state on the East Coast permitted to produce oil and natural gas offshore. In 2007, the federal government had designated certain offshore areas as available for oil and gas leases, raising the prospect of thousands of new jobs and significant new revenues for the state and local governments.
 
However, our opportunity was extinguished and the lease sale canceled after November, when the Obama administration abruptly dropped Virginia from the government's latest leasing plan, with little explanation and even less regard for the strong bipartisan and public support for the offshore initiative. At a moment when we should be looking for every opportunity to safely produce more domestic energy, the Obama administration unilaterally declared a seven-year timeout.
 
Three months later, the president announced federal approval of leasing plans for wind-power development off the coast of Virginia. This was a welcome development; we are strong supporters of doing all we can to maximize our offshore wind opportunities in the Commonwealth. Taken together, however, the two decisions reflect a discordant approach to energy policy. There is no reason, other than political calculation, that we couldn't have been home to the East Coast's first offshore oil and natural gas development as well.
 
Virginia is not alone in playing witness to the president's apparent disdain for domestic oil and natural gas production. The administration's perpetual slow-walk approach is especially noticeable in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast.
 
In the Gulf, delays in permitting have resulted in dramatically reduced investments. The Energy Information Administration projects that Gulf production will decrease by over 200,000 barrels per day in 2012 compared with levels before the president assumed office. Some studies, including one published last year by the energy research firm IHS CERA, have indicated that closing this gap could provide between 110,000 to 230,000 jobs across a multitude of sectors.
 
Meanwhile, in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, Shell, for instance, has been forced to spend $4 billion over five years on plan-development costs and other expenses of dealing with repeated permitting delays. These were not the result of deficiencies in proposed operational plans. They were caused by challenges and legal actions by environmental groups to delay or invalidate the proposed permits—actions that the current administration could review but did little to oppose.
It shouldn't take a herculean effort to approve a project that the host state strongly supports and that could generate 55,000 new jobs per year for 50 years, along with $145 billion in new payroll and $193 billion in additional government revenues over the same period.
 
If an "all of the above" energy strategy—one that includes offshore oil and natural gas development—is what the administration seeks, there is an organization willing to work with the president. The Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition is comprised of the governors of seven coastal states, including Virginia, Texas and Alaska.
 
In a letter to the president last month, the coalition outlined a number of steps that can be taken immediately to incorporate offshore energy production into a comprehensive national energy policy. They include increasing the speed and predictability of permitting and expanding access to new reserves. The president can implement all of these recommendations with the stroke of a pen. To date, he has not acknowledged our outreach.
 
During my term as governor, we have focused on making Virginia the energy capital of the East Coast. In just two years our state has taken aggressive actions to harness the power of offshore wind and promote greater utilization of solar energy. Had the president not stopped Virginia's offshore oil and gas efforts, a portion of the revenue from those efforts would have gone—under a law passed during my term of office—to renewable energy research.
 
We remain committed to developing Virginia's offshore oil and gas. Energy is the lifeblood of our nation's economic growth. More energy means more jobs and we need to use all of our domestic energy resources.
 
Mr. McDonnell is governor of Virginia and chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

 

 

 

Categories:

2-26-12 Brennan on Keystone

26 February 2012 6:52am

 Anchorage Daily Planet by Tom Brennan (NGP Photo).  Tom Brennan, ARCO, Anchorage Daily Planet, Anchorage Times, Keystone Pipeline Op-Ed, Obama, Photo by Dave HarbourPresident Barack Obama is pushing for serious damage to the world environment — and the greenies are cheering.  When Obama moved to block the Keystone XL Pipeline project he was virtually assuring that oil from the Athabasca tar sands will be consumed in China under Chinese standards, with a devastating net impact on the atmosphere. The alternative would have been to process in Texas the heavy oil from the tar sands, distributing much of it to American markets, all done under American standards and heavily regulated by federal agencies tasked with protecting the environment.

Categories:

Citizens Rally To The Call For Comment

16 September 2011 5:46am

Scroll down to review current comment periods.

NGP Reader Kaye Laughlin (NGP Photo) sends us this copy of the testimony/comment she provide the USFWS re: the ANWR wilderness threat.  

 

 

Here is a position paper on the ANWR issue provided by Acting Executive Director of the Resource Development Council for Alaska,Carl Portman (NGP Photo-L).  

 

We are aware of hundreds of other comments but have these additional examples for our readers:

Alaska legislator, Representative Bob Lynn (NGP Photo-L), gave the USFWS a comment, reading in part: "I want to see ANWR open to oil exploration and production."

Alaska legislator, Representative Charisse Millett (Photo below) has continued to be -- with Senator Cathy Giessel (Photo below) -- among Alaska's most prolific commenters on federal policy issues.  As examples, for reader reference, we  note comments on: Beluga Whale Critical Habitat, ANWR Conservation Plan Review, BOEM SEIS Chukchi Sea, NMRS Resolution HJR 40 re: Beluga, BOEMRE's 2012-2017 Leasing Program, EPA Air Permits-Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, BOEMRE re: OCS moratoria, BOEMRE's 2007-2012 Leasing Program.

 NPG Readers: Please Comment on OCS before September 26, 2011  
Comment in support of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193, against further delay and 'affirming Lease Sale 193"
 Send Comments:
COMMENTS: Final SEIS, Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 193
c/o Regional Director, BOEMRE Alaska OCS Region
3801 Centerpoint Drive Ste. 500
Anchorage AK 99503-5820.

 NPG Readers: Please Comment on EPA O&G Emissions Regs 
Before October 24, 2011 send comments re: unnecessary natural gas emissions rules that will further slow down America's economy and employment without significant benefit.  Federal Register notice with filing instructions
NPG Readers: Please Comment on ANWR.  Here's how.
Testify: Fairbanks 10-19-11, Anchorage 10-20-11
Written testimony due: 11-15-11
(We are pleased to note House Joint Resolution 11 sponsored by by Charisse Millett (NGP Photo) in the House urging the Congress to not convert the 1002 area of ANWR to a status that prevents oil and gas development.   NGP Readers can refer to this resolution in their own comments and rely on the information conveyed by Representative Millett's resolution.  -dh)

 

October 14 ends the comment period for the Wishbone Hill Coal Permit Renewal and we urge readers to file electronic comments early.  Don't be technical if that's not your background; just say, "I support the Wishbone Hill Coal Permit Renewal".  Here's the state webpage and here is a very good letter penned by Alaska State Senator Cathy Giessel (NGP Photo).  We would be delighted to post other legislative and citizen comments on this and other comment period issues -- such as those coming up in the blocks above.  Write us here. We urge citizens and public officials to take just a few minutes to influence a process that will determine what kind of economy our children will inherit.  -dh
 

 

Categories:
Syndicate content