Posted on 10/12/2006 7:30:40 PM PDT by thackney
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Outgoing Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski said on Thursday he may sign a deal for a $20 billion North Slope natural gas pipeline even if state lawmakers fail to approve the measure, which has been criticized as too generous to oil companies.
Murkowski leaves office on December 4 after losing a reelection bid in August.
"We're looking at that as an alternative, but it's far too early to make a definitive determination," he said at a news conference.
"We're going to continue to work on it. We might have a surprise before we leave," he said.
Even if Murkowski forges ahead without lawmaker consent, the action may not be binding. A June 22 opinion by Alaska's legislative counsel said the contract Murkowski wants would be illegal. The legislature has refused to change those laws.
Rep. Eric Croft, an Anchorage Democrat, said, "We all agree, Republican or Democrat, that Frank Murkowski shouldn't make any irrevocable decisions."
Democratic Rep. Les Gara of Anchorage said any attempt to sign the deal in the next few weeks would lead to litigation and more delays in getting a gas pipeline.
"He can't sign it. It's just completely illegal," said Gara. "He just simply can't sign a contract that violates our tax laws."
Murkowski, who finished third in the Republican primary, told reporters quick action is needed to ensure that a deal to build the pipeline is secured.
Even fellow Republicans are against Murkowski on this one, including House Majority Leader John Coghill of North Pole, a suburb of Fairbanks.
Coghill said the contract remains unfinished, so it can't be signed.
The governor said falling natural gas prices and the prospect of new competition from imported liquefied natural gas make it imperative to sign the deal he negotiated with ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and BP to build the pipeline project, estimated to cost more than $20 billion.
"What I'm concerned about is losing the opportunity," he said. "Most Alaskans assume that this is a slam dunk. It isn't by any means."
Most Alaska lawmakers criticize Murkowski's proposed contract as too generous to oil companies and perhaps an unconstitutional giveaway of state powers. Lawmakers have resisted Murkowski's calls for a special session on the subject.
Republican Coghill said Murkowski should not call for another special session.
Lawmakers object to Murkowski's plan for freezing oil taxes for several decades, having the state pay 20 percent of pipeline construction costs, and allowing oil and gas companies to pay state taxes in the form of natural gas rather than cash. This would require the state to market the natural gas.
Also, Murkowski wants to protect energy companies from lawsuits.
This duck isn't lame, he's been cut off at the ankles. Is this his way of getting back at the constituents who no longer want him?
"Lawmakers object to Murkowski's plan for freezing oil taxes for several decades, having the state pay 20 percent of pipeline construction costs, and allowing oil and gas companies to pay state taxes in the form of natural gas rather than cash. This would require the state to market the natural gas."
If true, it sounds like a sh** contract.
I view as completing the job he was supposed to do. His job did not end at the primary election. I wish our legislatures would take the same attitude and get this done.
The oil companies need to commit $20~25 Billion dollars for the largest private project in the history of the world. So once the get it built it would be okay to jack the rates up triple or quadruple? They are committing for the long term, the state should do the same. It is a fixed percentage rate, not a fixed dollar figure. If the price of gas goes up, the revenue to the state would still go up.
having the state pay 20 percent of pipeline construction costs
That is very misleading. It is an option, not a requirement. And it is not just paying 20% of the construction cost, is buying 20% of the pipeline and sharing 20% of the profits. I don't like that actually; to me it is a conflict of interest. The State is a regulating board for the pipeline. We should not be an owner. We can make enough money off the taxes and royalties.
allowing oil and gas companies to pay state taxes in the form of natural gas rather than cash
Which is what we do now with the oil pipeline for many years. The state takes the oil and sells it to local refineries. It has worked well and there is no arguing over cost or price value of the oil, we take our percentage in oil. There is a market in Alaska for the gas, the state would sell it to local distribution companies and industry.
Thank you for the further info, especially about the state paying 20% of construction misnomer.
Leave it to the media to ignore important information that might not fit the premise of their story. Still, if there is bipartisan agreement in the legislature about this bill, then what is he doing trying to bypass the legislature on his way out of office? Of course, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Republicans actually approve, and the writer went quote mining to support his cause. I don't really trust the writer anymore now that I know the state's option is to own 20%, not just pay for 20%.
Thanks.
I also like this source of data, but it is a couple years old and a few items are changing, but a good overview.
ConocoPhillips and Alaska North Slope Gas (PDF)
http://www.conocophillipsalaska.com/347-149GasBrochure.pdf
and a short version
Get the Facts on Alaska's Natural Gas Pipeline Project
http://alaska.bp.com/alaska/NewsCenter/PressOffice/docs/Gas%20Brochure.pdf
Frank, do us all a favor and SHUT UP, you lost, take it like a man. Leave the gas pipeline for the next Governor to fix and finish.
I'm predicting that if he does this, Lisa is toast in 2010. The Murkowski name will be a millstone around her neck.
Unfortunately an empty gesture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.