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: Bridge Player who wrote (259088)	7/24/2008 12:20:21 PM
From: Snowshoe	Respond to of 793820

>>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.<< Governor Murkowski's proposed deal called for the State of Alaska to buy into the pipeline project as a major partner for $5-10 billion. So you had a conservative Republican governor and 3 big oil companies pitching a tent over the camel's nose and advocating socialism! Murkowski's deal also included a tax hike on oil/gas production that was supposed to have long-term fiscal certainty. This is a core issue for the oil companies. They want a stable tax rate before they commit investment funds. The problem, which should have been obvious before several years were wasted in negotiations, is that under our state constitution the legislature can't guarantee fiscal certainty! Any law they pass can be changed by a subsequent legislature. The obvious alternative is a constitutional amendment, but even that could be changed later. Furthermore, Murkowski's deal did not obligate the oil companies to build a pipeline. So they could have waited another 40 years before doing anything. For these reasons, Murkowski's proposal was DOA with the legislature. Palin could have tried to patch it up, but instead chose to start over with the AGIA process. >>TransCanada would route the gas pipeline through Canada, while the COP/BP pipeline would be an all-Alaska pipeline.<< Actually, both of those proposals are for a pipeline thru Canada. There's a third proposal by another group for an instate pipeline to Valdez, where the gas would be converted to LNG and shipped by sea. The Japanese would love to buy our LNG! >>I don't think she's as much of a trust-buster as some corporate interests portray her as.<< I think there's a slight but distinct possibility that she'll wrest control of the gas away from the current lease-holders. Big oil has been focused on developing projects in other parts of the world like Russia and Venezuela, where they ended up getting really burned by Putin and Chavez. Alaskans are wondering why they didn't develop the Alaskan gas instead of wasting their time and money with those bozos. There's plenty of other companies that would love to develop Alaska's gas if they had a chance.