Do you know anything about this? Exxon had no interest in developing Point Thompson till they absolutely had to. Why? Because it isn’t a high profit venture. The cost to ship the gas is too high. When faced with this particular lease expiring they had no choice, it had nothing to do with Palin. She, just like her predecessor used the “evil big oil” canard and failed. It may play well in Alaska and elsewhere but it isn’t based in reality.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 1:07 PM

OK, Exxon was not going to proceed with development because it was not cost-effective; now Exxon is going to proceed with development.

“Your job is to convince me that the pattern has been changed,” Irwin said at a hearing in April.

And Exxon may have done that. Irwin has now partially reversed his decision to revoke Exxon’s leases at the Point Thomson natural gas field, Alaska’s second-largest.

“The appeal hearing gave Exxon and its partners the opportunity to present evidence of their unconditional commitment to develop these lands, and the commissioner’s decision simply provides them a further opportunity to demonstrate that commitment,” said Kurt Gibson, a deputy director of the Oil and Gas Division at DNR.

Irwin issued an interim decision Tuesday conditionally reinstating two of the 31 leases in the Point Thomson area.

Exxon and its partners — including BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips — has “… unconditionally committed to drilling two wells on two leases, including initiating actual drilling during this winter season, completing the two wells by 2010, and unconditionally committed to commencing production from these two wells by 2014 …,” Irwin said in a press release.

In addition to reinstating the two leases, Irwin also authorized the processing of an ice road permit, which Exxon said would allow it to start its drilling commitments this winter if approved by the end of the month.

Here. So, what’s your problem?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Can’t make an argument so you obfuscate, nothing new here.

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Do you know anything about this? Exxon had no interest in developing Point Thompson till they absolutely had to. Why? Because it isn’t a high profit venture. The cost to ship the gas is too high. When faced with this particular lease expiring they had no choice, it had nothing to do with Palin. She, just like her predecessor used the “evil big oil” canard and failed. It may play well in Alaska and elsewhere but it isn’t based in reality.

Why do you keep posting when you don’t know a damn thing about this? Exxon’s plan that Myers is talking about is the exact same plan Exxon is now using, Exxon didn’t change anything, it’s the exact same proposal Palin rejected till faced with losing her argument in court. In other words, Palin was in the wrong. Why can’t you admit just it.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM

For one thing, I can selectively read as well as you can. You’re obviously no expert on the situation either. For another, If development of resources commences, I couldn’t care less who gets the credit or blame. You can find some other thing to blast Palin about. Maybe her glasses or something?

That’s the point, she didn’t push anything, she hindered drilling at Point Thompson and to now declare they’re drilling because of her is an outright lie.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM

And the governors before her were just playing the populist game and hindering Exxon from developing. Riiiiiight.

So, instead of pushing for development, what do you think Palin should have done? Status quo?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:25 PM

What? She wasn’t pushing for development she was playing the populist game of taking on big oil. If Palin got her way and the leases were revoked it would be ten years before another company could get the engineering, reservoir studies, permitting, etc. done to begin drilling at Point Thompson. That’s the point, she didn’t push anything, she hindered drilling at Point Thompson and to now declare they’re drilling because of her is an outright lie.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM

So, instead of pushing for development, what do you think Palin should have done? Status quo?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM

Her actions in this should be condemned by all conservetives. Palin rejected the 23rd plan also, solely on the basis that she didn’t trust them then revoked their lease, violating the very terms of the lease. She kept up this charade till faced with losing in court. This is the same bullying tactics everyone here pissed and moaned about when Obama uses them. Why is it outrageous when he does it and not when Palin does?

The 22nd plan was not accepted and the 23rd plan is being offered as a remedy, or second chance, to restore an acceptable plan.

Exxon has offered assurances to the state that Haymes said are a first for the company. Those include a draft court order giving the Department of Natural Resources the authority to terminate the development plan if Exxon fails to meet milestones, including online production by 2014. Exxon is prepared to start engineering within a month of the state approving a plan, Haymes said.

From here. Face it, lowandslow, anything — ANYTHING — Palin does is going to be condemned by you. ANYTHING.

Have you taken a look at the lease agreement?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Why do I have to look at the lease agreements? Palin was the one the withdrew their court challenge because she was going to lose.

Myers faulted the plan’s lack of a firm commitment to produce oil and gas. He said Exxon’s “30-year record of nondevelopment and delay … makes a mockery” of lease obligations.

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Why do you keep posting when you don’t know a damn thing about this? Exxon’s plan that Myers is talking about is the exact same plan Exxon is now using, Exxon didn’t change anything, it’s the exact same proposal Palin rejected till faced with losing her argument in court. In other words, Palin was in the wrong. Why can’t you admit just it.

They didn’t drill because it wasn’t economically viable for them to do so, it still isn’t but they’re abiding by the leases they signed, it has nothing to do with Palin. If Palin was concerned about recovering Alaskan resources she should work with the producers, not against them, it’s as simple as that.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Have you taken a look at the lease agreement?

What does that prove? So you have more then one Governor of Alaska trying to violate Exxon’s contractual rights, it’s that supposed to make what Palin did okay? The bottom line is Palin did nothing to get Exxon to drill at Point Thompson, nothing, it was only after being faced with having her ass handed to her in court did she cave in and agree to Exxon’s drilling proposal. Then to make matters worse she still continued down her obstructionist position by denying Exxon’s proposal for an iceroad so they couldn’t get started.
To now try to claim credit for Exxon’s drilling is an outright lie.

lowandslow on May 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM

It’s on her watch.

Re- friggin’- READ.

The state’s move to reclaim Point Thomson began under former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration in 2005, when the state’s oil and gas director at the time, Mark Myers, rejected Exxon’s “plan of development” for the field. It was the 22nd such plan the company had filed over the years.

Myers faulted the plan’s lack of a firm commitment to produce oil and gas. He said Exxon’s “30-year record of nondevelopment and delay … makes a mockery” of lease obligations.

Hey, Downlowandslow, if you are so worried about property rights, how those AIG/Chrysler bondholders doing?

ddrintn on May 9, 2009 at 9:09 AM

What does that prove? So you have more then one Governor of Alaska trying to violate Exxon’s contractual rights, it’s that supposed to make what Palin did okay? The bottom line is Palin did nothing to get Exxon to drill at Point Thompson, nothing, it was only after being faced with having her ass handed to her in court did she cave in and agree to Exxon’s drilling proposal. Then to make matters worse she still continued down her obstructionist position by denying Exxon’s proposal for an iceroad so they couldn’t get started.
To now try to claim credit for Exxon’s drilling is an outright lie.

How it started

The state’s move to reclaim Point Thomson began under former Gov. Frank Murkowski’s administration in 2005, when the state’s oil and gas director at the time, Mark Myers, rejected Exxon’s “plan of development” for the field. It was the 22nd such plan the company had filed over the years.

Myers faulted the plan’s lack of a firm commitment to produce oil and gas. He said Exxon’s “30-year record of nondevelopment and delay … makes a mockery” of lease obligations.

The state had moved to cancel leases before, but never on such a prize as Point Thomson, or against so formidable an opponent as Exxon.

“Some have questioned our rationale,” Murkowski would tell Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce audience. “Some have questioned our sanity.”

After Gov. Sarah Palin unseated her fellow Republican in the 2006 election, she picked up what Murkowski started and has continued efforts to wrest control of Point Thomson away from Exxon and the other leaseholders.

In fact, Point Thomson has been a frustration for a long string of Alaska governors.

Former Gov. Wally Hickel, near the end of his second term in 1994, considered trying to take back the field. Hickel, now 89 years old, is still advocating such action.

It’s the mania of Palin detractors that’s unbelievable.

link to prove that rather strong assertion …

or STFU.

Buckaroo on May 9, 2009 at 4:35 AM

Point Thomson lease fight hits peak
NORTH SLOPE: Court hearing set as state tries to evict Exxon.

There’s your link. The hypocrisy of Palin supporters never fails to amaze me. This is exactly the same violation of contract law Obama tried to pull with the hedge fund owners, yet when Palin did it she’s hailed as being tough on big oil.
Palin didn’t do anything to force Exxon to drill at Point Thompson. she obstructed them from drilling.

link to prove that rather strong assertion …

or STFU.

BTW, if you want more substantial news, Exxon Mobil started drilling at Point Thompson. Only one person is responsible for that, Gov.Palin.

promachus on May 8, 2009 at 10:39 PM

An absolute lie. Exxon drilling at Pt. Thompson was not because of Palin, just the opposite. If she had her way, Exxon would not be drilling at Pt. Thompson. You people are unbelievable.

Meanwhile… gotta love Palin. She is the bomb. As a side… Do you think Hillary ever calls any of Billy Bob’s Bimbos?

RalphyBoy on May 8, 2009 at 11:23 PM

sure…..she probably calls them a lot of things…..

Strong women are much sexier than weak women, which is why conservative women look happier and are more assured of themselves. They have the respect that only comes from strength and genuineness. Sarah! is a great example of this.

platypus on May 8, 2009 at 10:38 PM

+1000

Strong women are much sexier than weak women, which is why conservative women look happier and are more assured of themselves.

-
Always found that to be true… I dated a prison guard for a few years. 120 lbs of blond haired sexy. She carried every where; concerts, night clubs, food shopping, even to family stuff. Her credo was “I got this”, and she always did have it too.
-
Meanwhile… gotta love Palin. She is the bomb. As a side… Do you think Hillary ever calls any of Billy Bob’s Bimbos?