End of the Alaska Pipeline.... (Anchorage, Fairbanks: mineral rights, how much, hotels)

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

Well, yes and no. The Regulatory Requirements for feeder and gathering lines up on the slope was never as stringent as the TAPS Mainline, until after that last accident. So that should change going forward.

However, I don't blame you...but I can't vouch for how BP, Exxon, Conoco, and the other producers do business. But keep in mind, When have you ever heard of a failure of the TAPS Mainline due to corrosion? It's been shot, blown up, sabotaged - but never failed due to neglect.

You have people that want it shut down now, just waiting for an excuse to do it, and these clowns are in our Government.

[YellowstoneDate]

When I drove to Coldfoot, Alaska. I saw the Alaskan Pipeline from the highway. The diameter of the pipeline was kind of small size. I was kind of disappointed. When they asked me to continue to prudhoe bay on the highway I said no. I had to get back to work at Chalet Resort At Denali National Park. They have a very nice campground state park at Coldfoot.

[highlife2]

Originally Posted by starlite9

There will be parts of the State that will do well locally as their small areas keep up with the industry there. The Kenai area will still have oil production in cook inlet, but since most of that is for local sales, that too may suffer since its sales are not exported at this time, but it is a fraction of what comes off the North Slope. Smaller isolated towns with fishing fleets where the fishermen don't run south with their money after the season. But overall, these will be even eaten up by the politicians trying to rape and pillage trying to cover their careers as the house of cards crumbles.

It's not to late to change directions, but too many people have special interests going on and they stop anything that is" change". There would have to be massive cut backs in State services, grants and free programs, subsidies would need to be cut and so forth. But it isn't going to happen, it will keep going until the entire house of cards falls off the cliff, then all bets are of from anything from mineral resource development with little to no regard to enviromental considerations. Just like when the Eco nuts were against building the pipeline in 1969, they kept stopping it until the fake oil shortage in 1973, then they were swept aside in the panic of looming gas rationing. And had to settle for what Congress mandated, and Nixon signed the "TAPS Act", which mandated the pipeline will be built effectively stopping all Eco lawsuits for construction.

History keeps repeating itself, but few people pay attention, so we repeat it regularly.

They will never stop the special interest programs until the money is completely gone, even then they will likely be bailed out by the federal govt just like cali. I mean seriously how is cali not a 3rd world state by now with all the infrastructure shutting down?

The special interests will keep getting money until the entire nation fails.

[GnomadAK]

We recently made a move from AK to the lesser and what we saw really bodes ill for the future of the oil industry in Alaska.

In the Yukon, there is a boom happening in BC centered around Dawson Creek. Having lived through an oil boom in the 80's I recognize a boom when I see one. Huge money is being poured into the industry there and I have heard nothing at all in the Alaska press.

In Alberta, there is yet more industry being built, also, they are putting big money into infrastructure. We drove by miles of new high tension electrical pylons being erected and wired. The fields are full of cows and "nodding donkeys", the roads are new and nice, ranching and oil, the two big drivers of the wealth of Texas, are happily thriving side by side. And once again, no mention of this in the Alaska press.

And then of course there is the Bakken formation in North Dakota, with the potential to actually free the US from the need to import oil. It's the 80's in Alaska on steroids. The landscape is covered in oil wells, some of them newer versions of the old nodding donkey which I reckoned to be 75 feet tall. Large by huge money is going into and coming out of ND, this at least is given some mention in the Alaska media but in a somewhat dismissive tone, not recognizing the full nature of the threat.

Why should the people of Alaska be aware of this? Oil companies are businesses. If it is cheaper to get oil from BC, AB and ND and get a better return on that investment, the money is going to go to those places. Alaska will be left behind. Why put those billions into Alaska when those same billions can be spent closer to the main markets of the lesser 48 for the same or better return? If Alaskans were to see first hand the sheer scope of the competetion, and it is competetion, perhaps they would get alarmed enough to demand a more oil friendly environment. It's not the taxes being extracted from the oil companies driving the economies of the competition, it's the work itself.

As I have said, Alaskans aren't being given the real picture of what is going on in the rest of North America with regards to oil production. Some of you will read this and dismiss it. Some of you might recognize the situation and start planning ahead. I have read the tea leaves but even I didn't really see just how huge the challenge for the state is. I think "doomed" is not too harsh for the situation if Alaska can't, or won't, turn the North Slope around, and it may be too late.

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by flyonpa

Q.. Do you see the Alaska State gov tapping into the Permanent Fund assets to fund the government?

and reducing the dividend over time (due to less asset, then 0 assets) to support the PFD?

That is pretty much what politicions do, they cover their butt and will burn the house down to cover for bad decisions earlier on. In this case they have spent money on projects designed for catching votes and we are at a point if the pipeline even burps they will be in the PFD in a flash.

They have built an unsustainable interstructure that takes billions to maintain for a population that is now close to 700,000. Of that maybe 250,000+- work when you subtract the children, welfare, unemployed, retired and the like that don't work.

Currently the State spends some $15,000 or so for each man, women and child... There is no way even 100% income tax can cover state expenses by those that are producing and income, and when the pipeline quits. Then a large number of those employed will lose their job as well which just compounds that equation to "Worse"!

[AK76]

Originally Posted by flyonpa

Q.. Do you see the Alaska State gov tapping into the Permanent Fund assets to fund the government?

and reducing the dividend over time (due to less asset, then 0 assets) to support the PFD?

Originally Posted by starlite9

That is pretty much what politicions do, they cover their butt and will burn the house down to cover for bad decisions earlier on. In this case they have spent money on projects designed for catching votes and we are at a point if the pipeline even burps they will be in the PFD in a flash.

They have built an unsustainable interstructure that takes billions to maintain for a population that is now close to 700,000. Of that maybe 250,000+- work when you subtract the children, welfare, unemployed, retired and the like that don't work.

Currently the State spends some $15,000 or so for each man, women and child... There is no way even 100% income tax can cover state expenses by those that are producing and income, and when the pipeline quits. Then a large number of those employed will lose their job as well which just compounds that equation to "Worse"!

To do so would be unconstitutional, so the answer is no. If anyone thinks, even for a moment, that Alaskans would let the Legislature amend the State Constitution to allow them to plunder the Permanent Fund, they are smoking crack.

[takuriver]

A guy in the know told me a couple years ago that Alaska is in for some really hard times a few years down the road. He has worked in high levels of govt and as a lobbyist, and a friend of mine. I believe he was honest, and knew what he was talking about.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by AK76

To do so would be unconstitutional, so the answer is no. If anyone thinks, even for a moment, that Alaskans would let the Legislature amend the State Constitution to allow them to plunder the Permanent Fund, they are smoking crack.

By then the State will be so broke that nothing would matter. The only thing that would keep the PDF alive is oil production.

[starlite9]

Originally Posted by AK76

To do so would be unconstitutional, so the answer is no. If anyone thinks, even for a moment, that Alaskans would let the Legislature amend the State Constitution to allow them to plunder the Permanent Fund, they are smoking crack.

Our "Officials" would plunder the fund in a heartbeat under emergency regs they would create if needed. Just like elected officials that took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but then have repeatedly ignored it for their special interest. Gun control, healthcare and a host of other items they have given themselves the authority they don't have, and the public lets them.

When the pipeline ends, it will be quick and swift. The State will be in a panic and will pass one edict after another under the guise of an Emergency. Not until the money is gone in the PFD will they start to cut major and minor services which will really **** off the masses and they don't get the PFD check in the fall.

Best thing to to would just divide up the PFD and dole it out to those that qualify, that just puts the money's in the people's hands instead of the politicians. Won't happen, but by doing that, they could cut major pork spending and nobody would complain with $50,000 in their bank account, until it is way too late to say anything.

Yes it would be nice to have indoor plumbing for a town of 300 that costs millions to maintain because the permafrost shoves buried pipes out of the ground, they can live like they did traditionally, haul water and use an outhouse like I do at my cabin, and I have no problems living like that.

If you want city services then move to where the city that has them and can maintain them.

Bright side is when the dark days come, if you're living a basic lifestyle, then the gloomy afterlife of the pipeline will have very little effect. Nothing worse than having indoor plumbing that doesn't work because funding for it went away. A couple of generations ago, Anchorage was covered with outhouses, we got modern.

[AK76]

Dissolving the PFD and doling it amongst the qualified has been discussed in the past, the last time was fairly recent, 3-4 years ago perhaps, it was soundly opposed as has been any other attempts to plunder the fund, however, I do agree that dissolving and disbursing the $$$ amongst those who qualify may be the best route.


As to the infrastructure in the bush and the billions that has been spent and the future expenditures, I won't even get started, but suffice it to say that I agree with you.

Things that will not evaporate from the Alaskan economy are tourism, freight transportation (Anchorage is the largest hub in North America) and commercial fishing, so there is a viable economy albeit a lesser one.