TransCanada claims exclusive rights to Alaska gas line

Full story: KTVF Fairbanks 9
JUNEAU, Alaska - A Transcanada Corporation executive Thursday told Alaska lawmakers that his company has exclusive rights to build the Canadian portion of a pipeline carrying North Slope natural gas. Full Story
primemover

United States

#1 Mar 9, 2006
what ever happend to the plan to run a gas line next to the oil pipe line,and ship L.N.G. out of Valdez?
t k in Fairbanks

Anchorage, AK

#2 Mar 18, 2006
By vote of the people, a group of Alaska cities, and Boroughs formed a non-profit government entity called the Port Authority. The Port Authority wants to do the 'all Alaska' route and build the pipeline through bonds and ship it out of Valdez. However, the Governor doesn't want to do that and neither do the oil producers, so the Governor is working with them to find a way to go through Canada, while ignoring the Port Authority.
Hope that helps.
pissed_off27

Dillingham, AK

#3 May 11, 2006
i dont know how our governer can stand giving jobs to Canadians. we have hundreds of unemployed in this state who are willing to be given a job. The only reason for going through Canada is the existing LNG infrastructure. So, he's trying to save us money. On the other hand, we have our new oil tax plan. the plan being deliberated by the legislature calls for a 20 percent oil tax, higher than our current one. But along with this new tax plan, designed to bring in more revenue for the state, has another section that gives tax breaks, incentives, and credit, up to 20 percent. now how do we tax the oil companies if the credits cancel out the tax? What we need to do is elect all new, young representatives who serve the state, not the oil producers. also the new gas plan gives no requirement of building or investing in a gas pipline. it merely outlines the tax situation, which if approved, could not be changed for a minimum of 45 years. and the state would not be able to sue the oil companies in court during that period. it is just not in the best interests of alaskans or our economy. if you are concerned, please voice your opposition in some way.
Al Schuerger

Anchorage, AK

#4 Jun 15, 2006
Who handed out "CANADA my ass, It's Alaska Gas" at the Alaska State Fair.
G_Fairbanks

Anchorage, AK

#5 Jun 18, 2006
Your anger is definitely warranted, but I think you need to think about your solution. In this state, it is the governor who has the real power. Our governor is doing all he can to make sure that the oil companies get the best possible deal by introducing the net profits tax. Now, let's be straight: the current legislators are trying to get the most money for the state by getting the highest net tax rate they can, while providing incentives for more development. What a lot of them don't realize, and this is their main shortfall, is that "net profits" are defined by the accountants at the oil companies. And as Steve Cowper said to me last week, it is the responsibility of every corporation to ensure the maximum profits to its shareholders, no matter what. Need I mention that Alaska is not a shareholder of these oil companies? What proof do we have that the oil companies will give us an honest accounting of their profits? Gubernatorial candidate Eric Croft realizes these things and he voted against the latest PPT tax and he has a plan to make the existing production tax more compatible with this era of higher oil profits. We know the production tax works, we just have to make it pay Alaska for the true value of OUR resource. Also, is it any wonder that the Canadians would want to build a pipeline through their own country? An all-Alaska route provides the most benefit to us. We at least have to consider it, unlike the current administration who just does what the oil companies want. By the way, there are subversive reasons for the oil companies to build a pipeline not entirely under Alaskan control. Be wary of these large corporations--ethics aren't part of their profit structure. Hope this helps.
pissed_off27 wrote:
i dont know how our governer can stand giving jobs to Canadians. we have hundreds of unemployed in this state who are willing to be given a job. The only reason for going through Canada is the existing LNG infrastructure. So, he's trying to save us money. On the other hand, we have our new oil tax plan. the plan being deliberated by the legislature calls for a 20 percent oil tax, higher than our current one. But along with this new tax plan, designed to bring in more revenue for the state, has another section that gives tax breaks, incentives, and credit, up to 20 percent. now how do we tax the oil companies if the credits cancel out the tax? What we need to do is elect all new, young representatives who serve the state, not the oil producers. also the new gas plan gives no requirement of building or investing in a gas pipline. it merely outlines the tax situation, which if approved, could not be changed for a minimum of 45 years. and the state would not be able to sue the oil companies in court during that period. it is just not in the best interests of alaskans or our economy. if you are concerned, please voice your opposition in some way.
Lock Tang

Shanghai, China

#6 Jun 20, 2006
China Gas 2006
G_Fairbanks wrote:
Your anger is definitely warranted, but I think you need to think about your solution. In this state, it is the governor who has the real power. Our governor is doing all he can to make sure that the oil companies get the best possible deal by introducing the net profits tax. Now, let's be straight: the current legislators are trying to get the most money for the state by getting the highest net tax rate they can, while providing incentives for more development. What a lot of them don't realize, and this is their main shortfall, is that "net profits" are defined by the accountants at the oil companies. And as Steve Cowper said to me last week, it is the responsibility of every corporation to ensure the maximum profits to its shareholders, no matter what. Need I mention that Alaska is not a shareholder of these oil companies? What proof do we have that the oil companies will give us an honest accounting of their profits? Gubernatorial candidate Eric Croft realizes these things and he voted against the latest PPT tax and he has a plan to make the existing production tax more compatible with this era of higher oil profits. We know the production tax works, we just have to make it pay Alaska for the true value of OUR resource. Also, is it any wonder that the Canadians would want to build a pipeline through their own country? An all-Alaska route provides the most benefit to us. We at least have to consider it, unlike the current administration who just does what the oil companies want. By the way, there are subversive reasons for the oil companies to build a pipeline not entirely under Alaskan control. Be wary of these large corporations--ethics aren't part of their profit structure. Hope this helps.
<quoted text>
Roger Shen

Shanghai, China

#7 Jun 20, 2006
Metal Mining North-East Asia 2006
Benson Xin

Shanghai, China

#8 Jun 20, 2006
Luxury 2006
Zheng-da Xin

Shanghai, China

#9 Dec 7, 2006
shipwreck and recovery programm union-focus inc.

pisse d_off27 wrote:
i dont know how our governer can stand giving jobs to Canadians. we have hundreds of unemployed in this state who are willing to be given a job. The only reason for going through Canada is the existing LNG infrastructure. So, he's trying to save us money. On the other hand, we have our new oil tax plan. the plan being deliberated by the legislature calls for a 20 percent oil tax, higher than our current one. But along with this new tax plan, designed to bring in more revenue for the state, has another section that gives tax breaks, incentives, and credit, up to 20 percent. now how do we tax the oil companies if the credits cancel out the tax? What we need to do is elect all new, young representatives who serve the state, not the oil producers. also the new gas plan gives no requirement of building or investing in a gas pipline. it merely outlines the tax situation, which if approved, could not be changed for a minimum of 45 years. and the state would not be able to sue the oil companies in court during that period. it is just not in the best interests of alaskans or our economy. if you are concerned, please voice your opposition in some way.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Palmer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
And Now, An Episode Of 'The Wasilla Hillbillies' Sep 18 Jaimie 15
Bruce Birdsell (May '09) Sep 17 The hard-luck you... 12
Todd and Sarah's new restaurant Sep 15 Failin Palin 4
the music thread (Jan '12) Aug '14 Musikologist 153
Samantha mccracken Aug '14 danger 1
Review: Fix IT Man Salvage Aug '14 don 1
TMZ "Reporters" Call Sarah Palin a "Bad Mom" an... Aug '14 Failin Palin 4
•••
•••
•••

Palmer Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Palmer People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Palmer News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Palmer
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••