Headlines

Steven Mufson

Let’s solve our debt problem by selling Alaska

What is Alaska worth today?

There are 3.7 billion barrels of proved oil reserves and 9 trillion cubic feet of proved natural gas reserves in the state, according to the Energy Information Administration. Oil companies are eyeing even bigger potential reserves in unexplored areas. The Interior Department estimates that the Chukchi Sea alone could hold up to 12 billion barrels, equal to half of the country’s proved reserves, and Cook Inlet and the Beaufort Sea as much as 8 billion barrels. The state has large shale areas where new hydraulic fracturing techniques could yield new supplies.

In the mid-1980s, Michael J. Boskin, a Stanford University economist, estimated that Alaska’s oil and gas reserves alone were worth at least $200 billion. But new discoveries have outstripped production, and Boskin was assuming a price of $26 a barrel for oil, less than a third of today’s prices.

Alaska has countless other natural resources, some in areas we hold off limits, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and others on state lands. Mining companies are salivating at the prospect of more than $300 billion worth of copper, gold and molybdenum at their proposed Pebble mine in the southwestern part of the state. The state’s forests could also be exploited.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Let’s compromise and sell California instead.

Jeddite on December 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Let’s compromise and sell California instead.

Jeddite on December 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Beat me to it.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on December 15, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Stupid Washington Post article … sorry about repeating myself there.

IrishSamurai on December 15, 2012 at 9:29 PM

In the mid-1980s, Michael J. Boskin, a Stanford University economist, estimated that Alaska’s oil and gas reserves alone were worth at least $200 billion. But new discoveries have outstripped production, and Boskin was assuming a price of $26 a barrel for oil, less than a third of today’s prices.

First of all, Alaskan resources don’t just belong to the feral government to sell. Secondly, even if we jacked up the value of these to $2 trillion and allowed the demented fantasy that the feral government could sell them for that much, that covers less than a year and a half of the Indonesian’s insane, un-Constitutional, and totally wasteful spending.

There is nothing to be said in defense of the insane spending by Washington. NOTHING. But it’s clear that they’ll eventually try to strip all wealthy people of their wealth, all others of their wealth, all private interests of their resources and pawn off resources on American soil in order to be able to give out 15 months more of welfare and “free” health insurance to illegals and leeches. This nation is a dying star that is imploding on itself and it will burn through all the higher elements in its mad attempt to keep its insane spending going. In the end, we will explode and end up a true black hole, as leftists always wanted and as Barky has been trying to get us to since he first slimed into an office he isn’t even eligible to hold.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I was going to suggest Washington D.C.

Corsair on December 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM

We could sell California and Illinois for one dollar. As in the Newsweek deal, buyer assumes all liabilities.

Mark1971 on December 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM

We could sell Wisconsin but let’s face it, the $3.98 and some pocket lint we would get for the place wouldn’t do much to lower the deficit.

Bishop on December 15, 2012 at 9:31 PM

No need to sell states, which is not possible. Just sell off western lands, which is both possible and necessary.

AshleyTKing on December 15, 2012 at 9:31 PM

You can’t sell California it is like upside house. Plus you wouldn’t need to all of California. Just the first 50 miles from the coast. You can keep the water and nature resources and sell it to coastal California.

Oil Can on December 15, 2012 at 9:31 PM

First of all, Alaskan resources don’t just belong to the feral government to sell.

Exactly one reason why this is a stupid article by a stupid writer working for a stupid paper (evidently they no longer teach American Federalism, the Constitution, how our country was formed, etc.)

Another reason is that selling energy resources with the highest known EROI for a debt obligation (paper … or 1′s and 0′s in a computer) is as stupid on its face as this writer’s premise.

But then this is the Washington Post and all good energy comes from unicorn farts and Obama’s stash.

IrishSamurai on December 15, 2012 at 9:35 PM

feral government

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Feral. Heh.

I say sell Alaska to Sarah Palin for what the feral government paid Russia for it. Seward’s Folly indeed.

platypus on December 15, 2012 at 9:36 PM

The irony is that was how Russia paid for its Crimean war debt. They sold Alaska to the states in 1867.

Ultimately, when you have so much debt, and you are not willing to cut spending to solve it, the only solution is to sell land. Some version of land liquidation is probably what America will do. And they will sell the land that will piss off the fewest people.

keep the change on December 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Ultimately, when you have so much debt, and you are not willing to cut spending to solve it, the only solution is to sell land. Some version of land liquidation is probably what America will do. And they will sell the land that will piss off the fewest people.

keep the change on December 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM

One problem there, chief … D.C. doesn’t own the land in Alaska or any state for that matter … they just manage it, and there is a big difference between the two.

The Federal Government doesn’t own any of the land in any of the United States … but that probably won’t stop TFG from trying to sell some off when the time comes and Boehner is stupid enough to go along with it.

IrishSamurai on December 15, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but, within a couple of years, Alaska could probably leverage the real assets and buy up US Treasuries for pennies on the dollar then wait for the default and foreclose on the other 49 states.

A better plan might be to give the Chinese technology that they’d likely steal anyway, in exchange for retiring chunks of our debt.

trubble on December 15, 2012 at 9:42 PM

keep the change on December 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM

The czar owned Alaska (and the rest of Russia). It was his to sell. We don’t work that way. Of course, Barky and the lunatic left don’t understand that, but we don’t have royalty who own everything and just let us “subjects” live on their whim – though that is the idea that they should be taking all of our money for their tax extortion …

But, here we see how many people don’t understand the difference between America and Czarist Russia. No surprise, as the idiots in this nation elected the Retard Czar back into an office he isn’t even eligible for.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 15, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Or we could, you know, actually extract the energy resources and sell those.

I know, I know, crazy idea. I’m just trying to think outside the box here.

sadarj on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Actually this is a good point, but the author isn’t thinking big enough.

Let’s sell off the land and other assets presently claimed by the Federal Government which are not essential to its constitutional function. I’d love a chance to buy a few hundred acres of southern Oregon’s Coast Range.

This could stimulate an expansion of the American economy the likes of which has not been seen.

Scribbler on December 15, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Or we could, you know, actually extract the energy resources and sell those.

I know, I know, crazy idea. I’m just trying to think outside the box here.

sadarj on December 15, 2012 at 9:44 PM

That would make too much sense. Stop with the crazy talk.

conservative pilgrim on December 15, 2012 at 9:49 PM

One problem there, chief … D.C. doesn’t own the land in Alaska or any state for that matter … they just manage it, and there is a big difference between the two.

The federal government owns 69%. And even if it didn’t own any of it, they would find a way to sell it. Have we learned nothing from the last 4 years?

keep the change on December 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Actually allowing development of resources isn’t such a bad idea, which is sort of the underlying premise here. I’d probably just rather the federal government relinquish the lands to the states to let them handle it–not that that helps the national debt.

theperfecteconomist on December 15, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Let’s solve our debt problem by selling Alaska Washington DC! /sarc (nobody wants it!)

FloatingRock on December 15, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Let’s start by selling States 51 – 57.

Left Coast Right Mind on December 15, 2012 at 10:08 PM

The federal government owns 69%. And even if it didn’t own any of it, they would find a way to sell it. Have we learned nothing from the last 4 years?

keep the change on December 15, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Ayeah, exactly. The feds WOULD find a way.

MelonCollie on December 15, 2012 at 10:24 PM

It is federal debt. Sell federal lands.

AshleyTKing on December 15, 2012 at 10:34 PM

That would be great, if we had a revenue problem. But we don’t. We have a spending problem.

Or we could just make all politicians be prostitutes for the federal government and pimp them out at night, then use the proceeds to pay off the debt. Kind of the opposite of what happens in DC at night…

Nethicus on December 15, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Let’s compromise and sell California instead.

Jeddite on December 15, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Let’s just cut our losses and give it away.

UltimateBob on December 15, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Sell Mexico.

Kenosha Kid on December 15, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Maybe the buyer will rename it something cool like 东黑龙江 :)

DarkCurrent on December 16, 2012 at 1:03 AM

We can’t solve a debt problem that has increased by half-again in the past four years ($11T to $16T) by selling anything — you have to stop spending what you don’t have and live within your means.

cthulhu on December 16, 2012 at 2:55 AM

How stupid, the Federal Government can’t sell a state. Does this moron have the slightest understanding of the rights of states in the US Constitution? This entire piece is a total waste of time and energy.

Dollayo on December 16, 2012 at 7:09 AM

You think the revenue from such a sale — and, naturally, even MORE than that — wouldn’t immediately be SPENT by the federal government?

Hey Moron, Congress and the Executive branch don’t have a REVENUE problem … they’ve got a SPENDING problem.

Stop trying to cure addicts by giving them MORE HEROIN …

ShainS on December 16, 2012 at 8:24 AM

Does he literally mean selling the state to another country, or just selling off the huge amounts of federal land in the state to developers?

Count to 10 on December 16, 2012 at 8:38 AM

ummm… it was a SATIRE!

You all really think Alaskan would let that happen?

upinak on December 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Stopping spending would actually help solve our problem.
But everybody wants their SS & Medicare & other freebies (& YES social programs like that ARE freebies for the many that receive them. Bcs too many DIE before they can get what they paid into it & many get a lot MORE than they ever paid into it. It’s a TAX. None of us have any ‘right’ to this stuff).
So we’ll keep on insisting social programs must go on & we’ll become Europe.

Badger40 on December 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM

We need to call for a constitutional convention and just dissolve the United States of America.

SC.Charlie on December 16, 2012 at 10:00 AM