Video: Palin’s got a fee-vah and the only prescription is more Hopenchange

Baloney, you telling me she didn’t direct for funding from the stimulus package to be directed toward build the road infrastructure for her pipeline? You know better then that.

lowandslow on January 19, 2009 at 9:37 PM

Her pipeline?

Um, that natural gas will benefit the whole country, stooge. You see, infrastructure projects and major energy projects like, say, the Hoover Dam, is an appropriate use of federal dollars. The natural gasline is a huge deal for the US energy market.

And I have answered you time and time again on the issue of AGIA. You keep posting your stupid HuffPost comments about how it’ll “never happen”.

Meanwhile, it’s happening quite steadily. Ten years from now when the valves open on the gasline, you’ll be screaming, “but it cost too much money!” or “but it’s not big enough!” or some other such bs.

I’ve noticed that you never really offer an alternative conservative that you admire. You once suggested Matt Blunt, but quickly backtracked when we showed that his record is not very good on a number of things.

So who is your favorite now? It’s more likely that you have no favorite. I think you’re some sort of offshoot of the infamous “Concern Trolls.”

ramrocks on January 19, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Is that Conservatives for Palin?

CCRWM on January 19, 2009 at 10:02 PM

You betcha! [*insert 'Cuda wink*]

ramrocks on January 19, 2009 at 10:14 PM

lowandslow on January 19, 2009 at 10:12 PM

The pipeline is being built by TransCanada. The state of Alaska put up $500 million in seed money. TransCanada is bound to deliver on their promise to construct the pipeline or return the seed money. TransCanada can apply for federally guaranteed loans in Canada and the US. But this is a private infrastructure project. It will be the largest in North American history. That’s “private” as in not government. Do I need to spell that out for you? P-R-I-V-A-T-E.

When I say that it is moving along steadily, I am referring to things like the signing of the AGIA license to TransCanada last month, which the Petroleum News wrote about (btw, PN is the leading trade paper on everything energy producing related in Alaska — they kinda know what they’re talking about):

Both project sponsors [AGIA and Denali] have expressed a willingness to collaborate under certain conditions. But for now the two projects are proceeding independently, and they may compete for customers during their respective open seasons. TransCanada is planning to complete its initial open season by July 2010; Denali is planning to begin its open season before the end of 2010.

When asked about the prospect of competing open seasons, Kvisle expressed confidence that the major producers would commit to TransCanada’s project.

“I think they do recognize our capabilities to do a big project like this,” he said, noting his company’s collaboration with ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil on the Keystone and Mackenzie Valley pipeline projects. “They recognize the advantages of our Northern Pipeline Act in Canada, and they recognize the advantages of connecting to our system in northern Alberta.”

“But I appreciate … that we need to deliver a commercial proposition to them,” he added. Kvisle said his company would strive to keep the pipeline tariff to $3 or less per million British thermal units from the North Slope to Alberta.

[...]

Fairbanks area lawmakers attending the event [the AGIA license signing to TransCanada] hailed it as a concrete step forward.

“I’m pumped,” said Rep. Mike Kelly, a Fairbanks Republican. “I’m happy with exactly where we are.”

Kelly, Sen. Gene Therriault, a Republican from North Pole, and Rep. David Guttenberg, a Fairbanks Democrat, all said they expect the major producers to team up with TransCanada under AGIA, despite statements from Denali officials calling AGIA’s terms unworkable.

“I believe it will become clear as the clock goes forward that this is going to be done under AGIA,” Kelly said.

I predict an excellent open season. You know why? Because Palin has a huge bargaining tool now. The state has revoked Exxon’s lease to Point Thompson because they sat on it for 30 years without drilling. To put it bluntly (no pun intended — I know how much you love Blunt) she has Exxon by the balls, and she knows it. But you can expect the oil empire and their useful idiots to write editorials about how Palin is “bad”. Yeah, she’s bad for demanding more oil production instead of oil warehousing.

ramrocks on January 19, 2009 at 10:25 PM

promachus on January 19, 2009 at 9:58 PM

Why thank you.

ramrocks on January 19, 2009 at 10:33 PM

You do know Exxon is taking Alaska to court over those leases? You do know the Alaska is going to lose that lawsuit don’t you? She doesn’t have anything to hold over Exxon.

lowandslow on January 19, 2009 at 10:31 PM

Um. yeah. I’m aware of that. Are you aware of the fact that the legal experts have said that Exxon doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on? They are in clear violation of their lease agreement. They never expected an Alaskan politician to go after them on because they had all the politicians in their pocket.

In fact, Exxon has already lost one legal battle over this:

An Alaska court denied a request from Exxon Mobil and its partners for a stay that would have allowed the group to hang on to oil and gas leases at the undeveloped Point Thomson field while they fight a state decision to take the leases back.

[...]

In her ruling, Superior Court Judge Sharon Gleason said the state had “persuasively demonstrated that it is in the public interest” for the Department of Natural Resources to continue with the lease termination process.

Gleason said the companies must pay the state a $20 million fine for violating lease terms or post a $25 million bond with the court while the appeals process continues.

Tom Irwin, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, said the ruling was a clear win for the state. “We’re standing up for the state’s right to protect its resources,” Irwin said. “We want our resources to move to market.”

Alaska oil and gas leases normally expire after five to 10 years if there has been no commercial development. But the Point Thomson leases, some of which date back to the 1960s, received numerous extensions through the years based on the companies’ promises to bring the field into production.

Lawyers specializing in this sort of thing, don’t think Exxon has the upper hand at all:

Houston attorney Cotham, who has long tracked the Point Thomson case, said he believes the state has a strong hand with Exxon. He said his clients in Texas, mostly private landowners, routinely win cases aimed at prodding oil companies to drill more wells on leased acreage.

Companies often sit on acreage because they have prospects with better profit potential elsewhere, Cotham said, and that’s especially true for a global giant such as Exxon.

Like I said, she has them where she wants them. That’s what happened when the Alaskans elected an honest politician.

BTW, you bore me. I won’t respond any more here. Come to my own website and argue with me.

And to everyone else reading this: this guy has no idea what he’s talking about. He doesn’t understand the first thing about the Palin administration’s AGIA or ACES. He just posts a lot of nonsense that he read on anti-Palin sites.

ramrocks on January 19, 2009 at 10:57 PM