Comments on: Sarah Palin’s Gas Pipeline

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:29:41 +0000

In the interest of full disclosure, the aforementioned comment came from a Chicago IP address; make of that what you will.

By: James Klich

James Klich — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:21:38 +0000

Aboriginal people have been kicked in the ass for too long. The pipline is a good idea but you need to include aboriginal people from the start. If the project is going on their land, they should have a say in the matter. Also, many of the jobs should go to aboriginal people in the area to raise their standard of living. It is wrong of you Sarah not giving these people the respect they deserve. This is not the way to do business.

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:13:54 +0000

Finally, something substantial…The other day, I almost died when McCain said “Alaska is in close proximity to Russia, so this gives her foreign policy experience”. McCain is making me wish I was a Democrat. Okay, not really, but still…he’s making us all look like fools. I’ll be shocked if we actually win this one.

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:14:10 +0000

Actually they did not enter into a contract with a foreign country. It took a bit of digging to figure out the details. What I had read before was that the pipeline was to bring natural gas from the North Slope to America through Canada–and that is true. But the pipeline in Canada does not have to be built. It already exists and it owned/run by TransCanada.

So the negotiation was not with Canada, but rather a Canadian firm.

More info at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550336/

By: Curious

Curious — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 01:31:04 +0000

I am curious. How can a State enter into a legal contract with a foreign country. I sort of believe the U>S> Government has to deal with Canada on where the pipeline should go. Sounds as if the govenor is only getting a information contract from a Canadian company

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:45:31 +0000

Sources, Scholastica8. Sources. My interpretation of the $500 million license is that they are not guaranteeing the total contract to TransCanada, but insisting that they provide a design for the pipeline. As you might guess, this is an excessively expensive endeavor. So it is not an “incentive”, but rather payment for the first phase–i.e. design. It is certain not for “nothing”.

Who gave Mayor Palin the title “Queen of the Earmarks in the Earmark State” (not very catchy)? It is strange that a Mayor can get that title since earmarks are made by Representatives and Senators.

I’m glad you are such a savvy investor. But that is largely irrelevant for your argument. You are basically using that as a method to make yourself sound like you know something. But what you really look like is a Obama shill.

By: Alaska Gas Pipeline | Smoke, Mirrors and Reality of Current Events

Alaska Gas Pipeline | Smoke, Mirrors and Reality of Current Events — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:18:43 +0000

[...] Sarah Palin can negotiate the largest construction project in US history, where everyone else has failed for 30 years, she is certainly qualified for an executive position [...]

By: Scholastica8

Scholastica8 — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:44:23 +0000

I’ve been reading a little more about the pipeline.

1. Construction has not begun & may never begin. As the tundra thaws from the Arctic’s rising temperatures, the pipelines we already have are becoming unstable & sinking into the new bogs.

2. What was issued was not a contract to build, but a $500 million license, which is an “incentive” to TransCanada to begin to investigate how to build the pipeline.

3. The route for the pipeline is to be determined by the Alaskan legislature. To me that sounds like the old cliche, “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.” Plus, there are Canadian objections. Canada may not approve any route.

So, TransCanada, a foreign company, gets $500 million for pretty much doing nothing.

However, another thing that I’ve found in reading about the pipeline. I was actually thinking of investing when I first started looking.

We all know that Sen. McCain is hostile to “earmarks”… doubtless Gov. Palin will now echo his comments. However, while mayor of Wasilla, she hired a lobbiest in Washington to gain earmarks for Wasilla & over the years gained $27 million for a town of 6700. This is the greatest $$$ per capita of earmarks for any town or city in the US. She earned the title “Queen of the Earmarks in the Earmark State.” She supported the “Bridge to Nowhere” until it became known as the “Bridge to Nowhere.”

BTW… I was for the Bridge to Nowhere… because it was not to nowhere. It was from Ketchican, which is a major stop for cruise ships, to the island where Ketchican’s airport is. Ketchican is accessible only by water & air. However, in winter the port & the strait between Ketchican & the island become very dangerous. So, in winter, the airport, used to supply the town, can be cut off from the town of Ketchican. The only solution is a bridge over a very dangerous strait…. much as the only way across the Golden Gate is a very expensive bridge.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:51:38 +0000

Palin wouldn’t be a very responsible governor of Alaska if she continued to allow that natural gas to be wasted or to just sit in the ground, given growing demand for natural gas and the price of it making the extraction of it profitable.

By: Joel Harris

Joel Harris — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 03:37:07 +0000

I think the reason for the pipeline is more for Alaska than it is for the gas/oil companies. And the reason for the selection of the Canadian company was because they had the best competitive bid.

In other words, they did the best for their State. It will probably end up helping the lower 48 in the process.