Nothing new under the midnight sun in the ongoing gas line saga _________________________
adn.com
Published: October 13, 2006
Last Modified: October 13, 2006 at 03:40 AM
Stop me if you've read this before:
Supporters of a proposed trans-Canada gas pipeline and a competing trans-Alaska pipeline squared off again, with each side asserting that its project would cost less and get gas to market more quickly.
Or this:
Frank Murkowski told state lawmakers today that moving ahead on the Alaska natural gas pipeline is his highest priority. Alaska should take advantage of its energy wealth to help solve America's energy problems, and improve the state's image, (he) said during an address to a joint session of the Legislature.
Ripped from the headlines, right?
Right. Except the words were written back in the days of hot lead and typewriters.
The first excerpt is from a 30-year-old article that appeared in The Anchorage Times on Feb. 13, 1976. The second is from a story that appeared on May 4, 1981.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
As Alaskans size up candidates in the governor's race, the No. 1 issue for just about everyone is the gas pipeline. Whoever wins the election will negotiate a contract that will define Alaska's future for the next half-century.
Or so we're told.
History tells us otherwise. We've been down this road before, and still no pipeline.
"Gas line accord expected in 60 days'' and "Gas line financing pact 'imminent,' '' said a pair of April 1981 headlines. And then two months later: "Gas may not flow till 1986.''
Articles spanning 10 years from the mid-70s to the mid-80s fill 14 loose-leaf binders with news and editorials about the gas pipeline. Browsing through them is like reading last week's newspaper.
There are dueling routes ("Which gas pipeline: A battle by no means over,'' Dec. 14, 1975). There's speculation that the state should be ponying up some of the costs ("State advised to back line with $3 billion,'' April 1, 1982). There's a former governor stirring the pot ("Hickel says Alaska natural gas held hostage,'' Nov. 8, 1983).
It all makes you wonder if this is what the oil companies want: to occupy us with debate about routes, finances, permits and market demand so we forget the gas is still sitting in the ground, going nowhere.
The parallels are eerie. This summer while pushing for approval of its secretly negotiated contract with oil companies, the Murkowski administration invoked the name of Vice President Dick Cheney, who called on the Legislature to approve the deal.
Well, we'll see you a Dick Cheney and raise you a Ronald Reagan: "Sponsors of the Alaska natural gas pipeline ... are getting Reagan administration backing for a financing project that could mean higher bills for millions of consumers, sources say.'' (Oct. 7, 1981).
Heck, we'll even throw in a Richard Nixon: "President Nixon yesterday gave a major new boost to rapid construction of a natural gas line from the North Slope.'' (Jan. 24, 1974).
While traveling in our Wayback Machine (you do remember Bullwinkle, right?), we learn how Ted Stevens manages to stay in office: "Stevens explains stand; endorses neither route.'' (May 29, 1974).
While refusing to pick one route over the other, Stevens said the same thing Tony Knowles and Sarah Palin are saying now as they call for negotiations that consider all options and that don't concede too much to Big Oil. Only he said it more colorfully: "The time is long gone when Alaskans have to fall over and play dead to a bunch of Texas oilmen.'' No wonder he's senator for life.
Among the hundreds of column inches pasted into the binders are a number of Chicken Little stories warning that the window for a gas pipeline is narrow and closing soon. Thirty years later, we hear the same thing. And yet there's still a sky overhead.
At least one aspect of the gas pipeline has come to pass -- the promise of jobs. So far, it has kept two generations of reporters busy writing variations of the same stories. |
