Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads.
I want gas and oil to be produced in Alaska. I'm not buying into anyone's hype. It appears to me that all sides on this issue are blaming everyone else.
Exxon's excuses on Point Thompson ring hollow because they knew the situation when they first bid on the leases over 30 years ago. If they can't be developed let them go. 31 years is an awful long time to hang onto a lease with excuse after excuse.
Someone here...and perhaps all the players are not operating in good faith.
It is the state's job to get the resources developed. They need to tie the lease holders down to strict timelines or face consequences. I'm not sure, but it sounds like they may be making the lease holders finally face some consequences. It may be a short term problem because the producers will try to punish the state by withholding production, but in the long term things will likely be better if the state really cancels lease holders when they don't perform...like they promise to do in the original leases.
If Exxon really has the equipment on the ground perhaps that gives the state leverage to demand some consequences to not performing before they approve an ice road. At this point it is my understanding that Exxon wants to build an ice road to leased land that has been cancelled. It would not be responsible for the state to approve an ice road to the land until the title to the land has been cleared.
The whole thing is a mess. And the reason it is a mess is that the state was too lax on the producers from the beginning. If you lease land for a particular period and then are not able uphold your end of the lease it should be allowed to expire...not extended for time after time. That was the state's fault.
The more immediate problem is that we are running out of gas very quickly in the south central area. We need gas here soon. Both heating and electric bills will rise in 2009 by at least 20%. We need a gas line from the slope through Fairbanks and down to south central. Either that, or we all need to switch to coal heat.
The lease was to develop all resources, which means Oil first then Gas. However, unlike Prudhoe, Point Thompson is mainly a high pressure gas and condensate field. Developing PT in 1977 would have meant pumping Crude for a few years then putting the field into standby for 3 decades waiting for Prudhoe to free up enough excess Gas capacity to build a Gas line.
Yet they did absolutely nothing but make empty promises to develop, and just sit on the lease for 31 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer
And who's hype are you buying? Palin's?
Try taking a dose of reality: 31 years Exxon had the lease, 23 development plans submitted by Exxon and approved by the State, and NOT ONE DROP OF OIL EVER PRODUCED! You're heard the adage "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" Well Exxon has fooled us 23 times and you still want to give them a 24th shot at screwing us over? Obviously P.T. Barnum was right, "there is a sucker born every minute."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer
I'm not buying anyone's hype. I only observe what is happening. Exxon has equipment on the ground ready to roll as we speak. I've seen it with my own eyes. That demonstrates commitment to me.
Exxon only deployed equipment AFTER the state stripped them of their Point Thompson lease. They had no intention of developing the lease, and they still have no intention of developing the lease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer
Exactly, which leaves Denali. BP and Conoco are already (financially) commited to a 2010-11 open season with full FERC submittal shortly thereafter. The only way for the project to be vaible and include Point Thompson on that timeline is for Exxon to get started now. Any lengthy delays could quite frankly kill the project all together. Alaska isn't the only player in the gas market. There are other sources of Gas that could become available to North American markets making an Alaska Pipeline irrelevant (which is why the TC project timeline is likely doomed before it ever starts).
BP and CONOCO/Phillips may actually work out a natural gas deal. I don't know. I do know that the state has been overly generous giving Exxon approval of 23 development plans and Exxon can't keep ANY of its commitments. So they can go pound sand, we'll find someone else who is a bit more trustworthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer
Just because you don't believe them, doesn't mean they aren't serious.
31 years and 23 Development Plans later with absolutely NOTHING to show for it tells me that Exxon is not serious and should not be in the same category as those producers that actually produce.
Yet they did absolutely nothing but make empty promises to develop, and just sit on the lease for 31 years.
Try taking a dose of reality: 31 years Exxon had the lease, 23 development plans submitted by Exxon and approved by the State, and NOT ONE DROP OF OIL EVER PRODUCED! You're heard the adage "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" Well Exxon has fooled us 23 times and you still want to give them a 24th shot at screwing us over? Obviously P.T. Barnum was right, "there is a sucker born every minute."
Exxon only deployed equipment AFTER the state stripped them of their Point Thompson lease. They had no intention of developing the lease, and they still have no intention of developing the lease.
BP and CONOCO/Phillips may actually work out a natural gas deal. I don't know. I do know that the state has been overly generous giving Exxon approval of 23 development plans and Exxon can't keep ANY of its commitments. So they can go pound sand, we'll find someone else who is a bit more trustworthy.
31 years and 23 Development Plans later with absolutely NOTHING to show for it tells me that Exxon is not serious and should not be in the same category as those producers that actually produce.
No matter what the price is, you can't get away without buying it unless you walk and use the public transit system or even bike. But we still have to buy it no matter what. You guys on the road system shouldn't complain anymore, come out here off the road system and buy gas and heating fuel.
Spending time in the bush has given a greater appreciation for all the hardships that people endure. This year, I have only gone to St. Paul, Chalkyitsik, and Kwethluk. The cost of fuel in Kwethluk was over $8 a gallon. We were paying $3.29 or so. They didn't get a fuel barge this winter and are having to fly their fuel in, and looking at a rise to $10 a gallon.
Of course, Hawaii is the HIGHEST in the nation at whatever price they're paying. What? $3.20?
Spending time in the bush has given a greater appreciation for all the hardships that people endure. This year, I have only gone to St. Paul, Chalkyitsik, and Kwethluk. The cost of fuel in Kwethluk was over $8 a gallon. We were paying $3.29 or so. They didn't get a fuel barge this winter and are having to fly their fuel in, and looking at a rise to $10 a gallon.
Of course, Hawaii is the HIGHEST in the nation at whatever price they're paying. What? $3.20?
Gas in Oahu right now is around $2.20 to $2.50 per gallon, $2.00 at Costco. Alaska always has the highest cost.
On My Side Of Oklahoma City it is 1.39 a gallon for unleaded.
And 1.45 for premium.
I think that yall should have LOWER prices because that is outragous.
Especially when you all have alot of gas in your state.
Well...since it has been proven by Hawaii that they can import gas and oil cheaper (from thousands of miles away!), than we can produce it locally (refinery 2 hours away), and that our state politicians are (seemingly) totally and completely baffled and mystified by our high prices, and are doing NOTHING about it, perhaps we should just stop getting our fuel locally. Forget about refining crude here...it's apparently not economically feasable. Let's just ship 100% of our raw oil out. Then let's import our gas and fuel oil all the way from California...just like Hawaii does...if they can do it for cheaper, then so can we.
Dec 3rd: regular unleaded still $3.19 here...diesel right at a dollar more. Can somebody explain why we are $.60 higher than Anchorage? Does it cost $.60 more per gallon, to transport fuel to Seward, than to Anchorage? (NO WAY!) Somebody is getting filthy rich, and it's for sure not the consumer. How many years will this continue, before Alaskans finally get around to addressing this issue? Yes, I have considered running this problem through the local Seward newspaper, but guesss what: we have ONE fuel oil bulk distributor in town...ONE! If I whine too loudly, and tick them off, will they then refuse to deliver fuel oil to my home? Then what would I do? Spend the winter freezing? Fuel prices are magnified two to three times in the villages, where this gets REALLY serious. People are going to freeze to death...
The news on NPR on Tuesday said the highest US gas prices were in Hawaii. Obviously, Ketchikan and the other communities off of the highway system are not in the US.
I wanted to call Melissa Blanc and Daniel Shore and let them in on our little secret, but they might not care.
I know the populations are small, but no one on the news has even mentioned rural Alaska. Nome is paying $4.99 for gas, 5.59 for diesel. The villages are hit even worse with some of them paying up to $9.00 a gallon! These are people who make less than most and no one even mentiones it when they talk about the highest gas prices. If the media is going to report at all about gas prices in rural, roadless areas, they should include these numbers! We won't see a decrease in our prices unti lthe barge comes in June.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Linear Mode
