• Clear sky
  • 39°
    Clear sky
http://sealaska.com
  • Comment

Empire Editorial: Congress: Don't restrict Alaska's right to export natural gas

Posted: March 22, 2012 - 12:08am

Alaska is revving-up its economic engines to develop natural gas pipelines that would export gas from the North Slope or Cook Inlet, but here comes U.S. Rep. Ed Markey with some sugar for the gas tank.

Markey is sponsoring two toxic bills aimed at barring Alaska from sending any domestically-produced natural gas into foreign markets.

Our hands are already tied by the federal government’s massively inefficient permitting procedures for oil and gas development and exploration, so the East Coast congressman wishes to tie our feet as well.

Markey has done some great work on the environmental front, but the Democratic lion has also gained a well-earned reputation as the malfunctioning air raid siren of the environmental movement. He sounds off on just about everything. His current project is restricting Alaska’s natural gas exports.

As the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, he’s in a position to do a lot of damage to Alaska’s economy, an economy already restricted and regulated in a state where the natural resources are on or under ground treated by the feds as park land.

His press release proudly states that one bill mandates “that any natural gas extracted from taxpayer-owned federal lands would have to be resold to American consumers. The other bill would prevent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from approving new terminals that would export domestic natural gas.”

Then comes the part that sounds like it was written for the satirical publication “The Onion.”

“When we bought Alaska from the Russians for only $7 million, we got a great deal,” Markey says in his press release. “If America now turns around and allows the big oil companies to sell off America’s natural gas resources in Alaska and elsewhere to the Chinese, Uncle Sam really would deserve to be called Uncle Sucker.”

“This is America’s natural gas, not BP’s and certainly not China’s,” Markey continued. “If we export America’s natural gas to China, we might as well export our manufacturing jobs with it.”

Huh? The pipelines needed would create manufacturing and construction jobs, as well as food service and other support jobs for the crews.

Markey sees natural gas as the necessary tool to rebuild America’s manufacturing and steel industries. Yet he isn’t proposing a pipeline through Canada to bring it to the East Coast, Midwest or anywhere else.

Following Markey’s line of paranoid logic, coal from America should have to stay in America, as should wood from American trees and lime and other construction-grade materials harvested from American ground. Other countries could be our enemies, and they want to steal our stuff.

Further following this line of reasoning, America would do well to stop trading with economies like China. And with those pesky Russians. The Canadians are getting a little uppity, too, developing vast natural resources. Perhaps a bill restricting the import of Canadian products derived from tar sands would put another nail in our national economy’s coffin.

Well, Rep. Markey, America bought Alaska from the Russians, but it isn’t a city park.

Alaska is one of our 50 states and its residents have a right to develop a strong economy from the resources we can legally and safely harvest, even if that means partnering with big, bad oil companies Markey seems to loathe.

There is far too much paternalism, as well as xenophobia and economic isolationism, in Markey’s words, and absolutely no economic and national security logic in his bills.

Alaska is not and should not be America’s natural resource piggy bank.

We’re a thriving, growing state, and we need tools to get our clean-burning natural gas to market — wherever that market may be as long as the buyer can legally buy American products.

  • Comment

Comments (9)

Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
kiki
1329
Points
kiki 03/22/12 - 07:50 am
1
0

Let's see

How long has Alaska been fighting within our own government about a gas line? Seems to me we need to agree on getting one built first, and build it, then lets worry about where the product will be sold. It would seem to me if we truly want energy independence, why wouldnt we want to try to sell it in the U.S. first. But we already send the majority of our oil overseas, why should the gas be any different. We can continue to whine about gas and enery prices that way. Markey's bill wont go anywhere, we all know it, and we can all continue to blame the sitting President for high energy prices.

islander
1193
Points
islander 03/22/12 - 08:58 am
0
0

Pipeline-Pipedream

With little hope of seeing a pipeline actually built does it matter where the gas can be sold? Industry, the free market, see no way to build the line using private funding. That should tell us something about the basic idea.

Meanwhile politicians like to rant and rave while never gaining footing with their lines on BS. I'd rank this legislation in the group of the "see I tried" line of political moves to get reelected.

ken dunker II
3341
Points
ken dunker II 03/22/12 - 11:27 am
1
1

What would happen?

Exactly what would happen if Alaska defied Federal ownership claims and simply trespassed to produce? Would Obama send in the troops?

alaskabobc
3923
Points
alaskabobc 03/22/12 - 02:25 pm
1
0

There is a way Ken.

Alaska could use eminant domain and take the land and resource for the benifit of Alaskans, if that includes selling it overseas and it adds to the perminant fund? GREAT Do it in a STATE court.

Mpeterson
0
Points
Mpeterson 03/22/12 - 04:44 pm
1
0

Our Gas?

“This is America’s natural gas, not BP’s and certainly not China’s,” Markey continued. “If we export America’s natural gas to China, we might as well export our manufacturing jobs with it.”

If it's OUR GAS, and we SELL it, we alter the balance of trade and buy back some of the dollars the Chinese hold. It's just like having a manufactured trinket to sell them, but you pump it.
If the gas is worldwide price, it DOES NOT MATTER where it comes from to the consumer, only the seller. If Markey says it would be cheaper to get it from within the borders, he doesn't understand capitalism. The companies will charge what the market will bear, which is the worldwide price. If he wants to change that dynamic and tell the company to charge a lower price, that's price-fixing, something we don't really condone.

highflyer
517
Points
highflyer 03/22/12 - 05:50 pm
0
2

Lets clean up the toxic mess

Lets clean up the toxic mess in Cook Inlet before we worry about making more money from exporting gas!

Cook Inlet is the ONLY coastal waterbody in the United States where EPA allows the oil and gas industry to dump toxic drilling and production wastes into important subsistence, commercial and recreational fisheries.

This industry is "permited" to discharge 100,000 gallons of oil and over 835,000 pounds of toxic metals each year into the 180-mile body of water, right into the Endangered Beluga whales home. Might explain a few things, don't you think.

highflyer
517
Points
highflyer 03/22/12 - 05:58 pm
0
2

We don't want companies

We don't want companies exporting jobs, seems to me that this falls in line with that. I hope this applies to coal as well.

ken dunker II
3341
Points
ken dunker II 03/22/12 - 07:08 pm
0
0

eminent domain?

Thought that only applied to private ownership. Legal recourse against the Feds? First you need to ask the Feds for permission to sue them. Besides, who would step to the plate? The Feds would simply shut off the money spigot. After all, isn't that the only real leverage the Feds hold over our Republic?
By the way, when was the last time Alaskans blocked development or resource sales for another state?
Let's change our logo from the 'last frontier' to 'The Great Land'. Maybe if the lower 48 states were not constantly reminded that Alaska was their last chance to do it right they would leave us alone.

alaskabobc
3923
Points
alaskabobc 03/22/12 - 08:58 pm
0
0

More needed.

Utah has a case of eminant domain against the federal government. I believe more states should do the same thing. The 10th. amendment lists the avenue to do so.

I like "The Great Land" idea, problem is, most or a large segment, of the posters here do not convey that impression, most are pretty small minded.

Back to Top

Spotted

Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376863/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/359852/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376858/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376853/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376843/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/368637/
  • title http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376838/ http://spotted.juneauempire.com/galleries/376833/
Fire Academy Graduation

CONTACT US

  • Switchboard: 907-586-3740
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-586-3740
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-586-3028
  • Business Fax: 907-586-9097
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-523-2270
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback

ADVERTISING

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES

SOCIAL NETWORKING