Well, This is my first post on this forum. If this topic has already been coverd, i aplogize.

I am curious to understand what some of the people of the lower 48 think of Governor Murkowski Trans-Canada Pipeline proposal. The majority of Alaskans despise the thought, as I do. The gas contract lets the oil companies regulate our natural resources in Texas and in London. Alaska WAS an Owner state. The residents of Alaska owned its natural resources. Look at the permanent fud dividend check. It is a payback to the residents from oil companies that develop our resource.

In this contract, the oil companies become the owner and Alaska becomes the "company". We have no control over our resources. Taxes represent how much their net income is. The pipeline through canada creates less jobs for alaskans, less economic income, and no control.

Studies have shown, no matter how the gas gets to the United States, the price will be relatively the same. So where is the benefit?

I am curious to know where some people stand in the states!

Thanks

What studies are these? Do you have a link to them?

Dont know a thing about it, but, I wouldnt consider a pipeline to be a "natural resource". And seems a little presumptuous that Alaskans would "own" a Trans-CANADA Gas Pipeline. Canada might have something to say about that. MARK

HA, the gas pipeline is not the natural resource. THE GAS IS! Alaskans own that gas. Murkowski just signed away our ownership to that gas. And that is also another problem: Canada having part ownership in the pipeline and the construction. There is no economic benefit to it.




Ill work on the link. Its been stated in the news and radio constantly.

You're into those government handouts, huh?

Government handouts such as...? The PFD check? The way Alaska's constitution is set up, we own the natural resources. A part of Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act set up this structure of the PFD. NOW, i would not care or not if the gasline gave us a check or not. I believe the money could be spent better in alaska, such as development of rural areas (i.e. energy, education, sustainability, ect). The reason why i support an all alaskan gas line is due to the fact it would SKYROCKET our economy, we have an easier way to have villages obtain natural gas, and we retain the ownership of the resource!

Hmmm, no responces? Come on guys, I need some sort of heated debate here!

Last I heard Alaska was part of the USA. So that makes it US gas not Alaskan gas. Are these gas reserves on private property or on federal land??

AHHH, glad someone brought that up. It is actually on state property, last I heard. THOUGH, if it wasnt, Alaska should decide were it goes and the best economical benefit, which in turn is ALaska. Our villages are suffering badly because it is so costly to get LNG to them. they rely on deisel. If more wind turbins were to be applied, it wouldnt be as much of a problem, but there are only two as of yet. For instance, if.. say... California found a phenomal Natural gas deposit... The best economical benefit they had was to keep it in state, California would want to keep it in state. There is no shortage of NG in the 48. It wont lower the prices (still looking for link.. sorry). Governor Murkowski (which he just lost the primary two days ago - thankfully) benefitted the oil companies more than alaska with the NG contract. The governor looks out for the state more than the country, such as the pres looks out for the country more than other countries (correct?). If the Trans-Canada gas line was more beneficial to alaska than an all alaska gasline, I would be 100% for it.

It drastically decreases jobs, revenue, and taxation (which Alaska's only economical resource is based off natural resources, i.e. oil). how does that benefit the United states?It doesnt other than an abundance of Natural gas that aint needed at the moment.

State property, OK. Aren't we called the UNITED States? As for your economic poverty, you're not alone. Have you spoken with anyone from Kentucky lately? They could use some of that money too from what I've heard.
Unless Alaska became a separate country the past few days, this isn't debateable.
So they find all this oil or gas in Alaska. Think of the employment opportuinties in getting it. There's your economic benefit. So quit complaining, get off your lazy, the-governement-owes-me-money butts and get to work getting that oil and gas so the WHOLE nation will benefit.

Ok, now we are getting into a bash fest from your end (o quit complaining, get off your lazy, the-governement-owes-me-money butts and get to work getting that oil and gas so the WHOLE nation will benefit.).

Ok first off, you have no idea what you are talking about! Second, where did I ever mention that the government owes me (or anyone in this state) money? Third, How would a gas line to the US benefit the us more than barging it? Probably by a cent or two. Nothing significant.

I never mentioned that the gas should stay only in Alaska. You want to know how an alaska gas line would benefit the states? More taxation and funds will be comming into the state. Less money from the lower 48 will be transferred to alaska. Hense, more projects in the states!!!

Do you have the comprehension of understanding how to read, let alone common sense?

I am still trying to understand where you pulled that ridiculous argument from? How could Kentucky benefit economically by having a gas line built through canada and into Chicago area?

KenRI, I'm confused. First off, like you perhaps, I know nothing about the details of this Trans-Canada pipeline. I do, however, understand something about the STATE owning or being a steward over natural resources.

Do we want this Alaskan income becoming federal income to the US Treasury? I think not. Have you ever heard of either of these universities:

The University of Texas. Texas A & M University. Their endowments are among the top unis in North America. Do you know why?

If the state govt. of Alaska manages the money well (somebody has to manage it), and if the residents of Alaska benefit, who suffers? Big oil doesn't suffer; they make huge profits. The pipeline companies, the construction companies, etc. And somewhere down the line, the folks whose ancestors arrived in Alaska centuries before the Russians arrived, get some money, which may not even be a fair share. I don't think it's a govt. handout; it's the govt. merely acting as a collection agent for the natives and White residents.

I think; I guess; I suppose; maybe, perhaps. Now we see as through a glass, darkly. We're 99% ignorant and 1% arrogant. My signature:

Im glad you can understand Fit! It is like an alaskan making a decision of another states value, resource, ect!

The alaska constitution prohibits the trans alaskan gas line! I dont see where it would (only the governor can)!