Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (259070)	7/24/2008 11:12:08 AM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793818

Thanks for the info. I understand that the big oil and gas companies in Alaska are not thrilled with her. But I think the issues are complex. As I understand it, Murkowski had proposed very significant tax breaks and subsidies, involving long-term reductions in their tax rates, to build a natural gas pipeline to the U.S. Also including some other provisions that would have adversely affected Alaska state govt. interests. These seem somewhat obscure and I can't pinpoint them. She didn't think the tax incentives were necessary because the demand for natural gas is continuing to be strong and felt the project should be attractive on it's own economic merits. That's where AGIA came in, which is the result of a lot of wheeling and dealing with industry, their legislature, public interests, etc. My guess is that they are unhappy with Palin because she started to put the Alaska's state interests and those of the public ahead of the big oil and gas interests, cancelling a lot of the sweetheart deals that they had under Murkowski. If that's the case, I don't think I lose any respect for her, much as I understand the need for energy from Alaska. Here's a clip I found that seems to be one of the more objective that I've found. *************************************************** The Alaskan Gas Pipeline Controversy For months now - off and on - I have been trying to wrap my head around the controversy over the proposed gas pipeline for Alaska. As a shareholder and former employee of ConocoPhillips - one of the involved parties - I have a vested interest. However, that’s also one of the reasons I haven’t written about this before, as I wanted to better understand the issue before writing about it. I saw that the headline story in yesterday’s Drumbeat at The Oil Drum was a story from Newsweek dealing with the controversy, and that prompted me to go ahead and write something: Pipe Dreams I am going to post some excerpts from the story in an attempt to summarize the key issues: Beginning this week, the Alaska State Legislature will debate how to usher in a natural-gas boom. Two pipeline proposals are on the table. One hails from a Canadian pipeline builder and is endorsed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a Republican who has drawn surprising comparisons with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez for her tough stance against Big Oil. The other proposal comes from BP and ConocoPhillips, two oil behemoths that hold leases on much of the state’s natural gas. But only one giant pipeline is needed, and Palin has set the stage so that only the Canadian proposal will be considered. State lawmakers must decide whether or not to give a $500 million state subsidy to TransCanada Corp. to lay a $26 billion, 1,700-mile-long pipeline from the Alaskan Arctic to Alberta, Canada, where other lines would transport the natural gas to American markets. At the same time, BP and ConocoPhillips recently announced that they are embarking on their own $30 billion project to pump Alaska’s gas reserves through a 2,000-mile-long pipeline. They say they don’t need the state’s $500 million and will proceed regardless if the state throws its support behind TransCanada. The TransCanada proposal is born out of an attempt by Palin to force the hand of the big oil companies—BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil Corp.—to execute their gas leases, from which the state hopes to raise tens of billions in tax revenue. Uncertainties over natural-gas prices and state taxes have long left the companies skittish about committing to a project. Alaska owns the natural gas; BP and Conoco, along with Exxon, hold most of the leases to develop it. The companies have long talked of tapping the reserves, but have consistently deemed the pipeline too financially risky without the state first agreeing to favorable terms on gas production taxes. Unlike Palin’s predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski, who wanted to give the companies generous tax breaks, she has refused to budge. As I understand it - and everything I have read seems to confirm this - the real sticking point seems to be that Governor Palin refuses to make a long-term commitment on the tax rates for the project. For a $30 billion project, it is pretty important to understand the economics of the project pretty far in advance. What I don’t know are specific details of what is being proposed - nor whether the tax rates being asked for are in some way unreasonable. But I do think it should be reasonable to at least agree in advance not to change the rules during the game. That is, after all, what Hugo Chavez has become famous for. And Palin’s threats to tear up existing contracts with XOM do provide a cause for concern. TransCanada would route the gas pipeline through Canada, while the COP/BP pipeline would be an all-Alaska pipeline. The risk for TransCanada, of course, is that they don’t own any gas. I think you have to presume that if they build the line, COP and BP are going to put their gas in. But they will only do so under favorable terms. The risk for COP and BP is that gas prices come back down and their $30 billion investment suddenly doesn’t look so good. That’s why they need certainty on the tax rates. A lot of money is at stake. Per this article, there are 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves that the pipeline would tap into. There is also a blog devoted specifically to discussing this issue. I recently read through a number of articles there in order to gain a better understanding of the issues involved. That blog is called The Alaska Gas Pipeline, and the author generally opposes the approach Palin has taken. ************************************************* I don't think she's as much of a trust-buster as some corporate interests portray her as. As I said, the issues are very complex. In any event, I don't live there and I gather that you do, so on that basis alone I have to respect your views. Thanks again for the input.