And once she was in office she served the folks who put her into office and that meant supporting the oil companies. And the best way to support them was to create a myth that she "oppose" them.
Since the late 1970s a natural gas pipeline from Alaska has been approved and a goal of every Alaskan Governor. By the time Governor Murkowski was in office there were two competing proposals:
Two primary paths for a pipeline are currently on the table. One path, proposed by the Alaska Gasline Port Authority (AGPA) -- a coalition formed by several Alaskan cities, including the city of Valdez -- would rescue the "stranded" gas by piping it along a route that follows the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System from Prudhoe Bay to the Port of Valdez. There, the gas would be compressed into liquified natural gas (LNG), shipped to Kitimat, Canada, and transported by pipeline to Edmonton.
That project -- touted by its proponents as an "all-Alaska" pipeline because it keeps potential future jobs in Alaska, rather than Canada -- hinges on the construction of a plant to convert the gas to its liquid state to reduce its volume. [snip]
The second proposed pipeline would also follow the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System to Delta Junction, but would then track the Alaska Highway east into Canada. That route, known as the "southern route," was first approved by President Carter and Congress in 1977, when the reserves at Prudhoe Bay were discovered. It is still the favored route by many, including both Murkowski and environmental groups, such as the Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
When she ran for Governor, Sarah Palin supported the "all-Alaska" pipeline and went after Murkowski on the pipeline route that would go through Canada. Once she was elected, she flipped, she flopped and abandoned the idea of an "all-Alaska" pipeline.
She pushed through legislation she called the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA). This set out a series of requirements to build a pipeline. The law firm that Palin hired to put any AGIA deal together, review the applications and defend the winning bid was Greenberg Traurig (GT). Not only were they Jack Abramoff's employer at the height of his corruption, they are also tied to many, many other scandals and questionable deals. While Jack was a lobbyist for GT he hired an Alaskan lobbyist, Steven Silver, to work on "Issues Relating to Indian/Native American Policy" and "Exploration for Oil and Gas". It turns out that  Silver was also Palin's lobbyist and that Jack hired him at the same time that GT moved into the "Oil & Gas" business by opening offices in Texas. This is a curious "coincidence" and it should raise a red flag or two, but I digress.
The requirements of AGIA were crafted so that only one company would win and that was TransCanada. Suddenly, there was a third player in the pipeline battle. It was argued that they were a better choice because they were not an oil company; instead they built and maintained pipelines.
The AGIA legislation did not guarantee that a pipeline would ever be built, but it did give the winning company access to $500 million from Alaskan taxpayers. This is money that TransCanada will use to promote an unique legal theory to get a proposed pipeline through US and Canadian regulations and application processes.
Naturally, the Alaskans in favor of the "All-Alaskan" route felt a bit betrayed by Governor Palin, but this was business and the Alberta tar sands needed the gas. During the fight to push through her AGIA legislation one of Governor Palin's key supporters in the Alaskan House, Rep. Carl Gatto, explained why the TransCanada deal had to be approved (emphasis added):
TransCanada tells us it has all the permits required to build in Canada. Is that important? It's invaluable. The pipeline route goes through First Nations Property. Without current permits it would take some time (if not forever) to obtain them. I recall the lengthy legal process to build the Alaska pipeline across Alaska Native lands. Likewise, in Canada it's nearly impossible to cross First Nations, unless you already have the permits. TransCanada has legal access.
Canadian petroleum production is regulated by the National Energy Board while in the USA it is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Both governments eagerly await a pipeline. Canada needs Alaska gas in Alberta to produce oil from the Alberta Tar Sands. The tar sands hold more oil than Saudi Arabia. Alaska needs a pipeline for scores of reasons known for years: regional economies, local/national market demands, contribution to U.S. energy independence, and contending with the exorbitant cost of energy in Alaska. For both Alaska and Canada, the Alaska-Canada gas pipeline is a natural marriage.
Once the deal was pushed through, Wally Hickel a former Governor of Alaska condemned the diversion of gas to the tar sands and punctured the "lie" that the gas was needed in the Lower 48 (emphasis added):
This was a terrible blunder. There are not many Alaskans who believe that a Canadian company will do a better job than we would in looking out for Alaska's interests. At a time of high energy costs in Alaska and a national economy threatened with recession, we need action. This decision will only cause delay. [snip]
It's time our leaders admitted that the South 48 doesn't need Alaska gas. As the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month, thousands of wells are being drilled in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, and analysts are talking about a "gas glut."
And they need to be honest that the motivation for a Canadian line is not to get Alaska gas to America after all. The oil producers want to use our gas to heat up the Alberta tar sands to produce crude oil, an environmental disaster in the making.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
