This article from USA TODAY, Palin ‘governed from the center,’ went after big oil, describes Sarah Palin’s biggest accomplishment as governor, dismantling the oil industry’s control of Alaskan politics, forcing the oil companies to pay the state and its citizens a bigger royalty, and taking away a pipeline deal from Exxon to give it to a Canadian company at better terms for Alaska.
Will the Democrats who keep maintaining that the Republicans are in the control of the big oil companies at least give her credit for this?
23 comments ↓
Ok. Easy to google and find articles that seem to be from objective sources….. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. Thank God for Google when politicians lie and stretch the truth!
What makes Palin so dangerous is she lies by implication and she does it really well. With carefully couched language that contains a germ of truth, she creates a false impression that the McCain campaign spins into conventional wisdom. The pipeline statement in her speech is a classic example.
The Anchorage Daily News
http://www.adn.com/politics/story/515517.html
takes note and debunks the spin saying, “In fact, no building has begun and actual construction is years away, if it ever happens.” The piece goes on to summarize the situation but readers here are likely to be aware of the basics by now.
Meanwhile, Andrew Halcro gets deep into the weeds of the pipeline project and fills in a lot of details. It’s a long piece not easily excerpted, but these two poll questions give you a sense of the flaws and potential landmines in the deal.
Congress passed a loan guarantee for $18 million dollars in 2004 to help promote the development and building of the gas pipeline. But TransCanada proposes to use that $18 million dollars, not to get going, which is the purpose of the loan, but to use some portion of the money to cover its cost overruns. What this means is TransCanada is asking US taxpayers to pay for any cost overruns of the project that TransCanada is managing.
TransCanada’s plan asks for the U.S. Government to assume some of the project risk by agreeing to pay billions of dollars in pipeline transportation fees as a “bridge shipper,” in case initial gas commitments from the major oil companies are not enough to run the gas line at full capacity.
A majority of Alaskans don’t think it’s worth the risk and prefer an alternate proposal.
Nope. if THIS is her most major accomplishment and she is THE expert on energy as her campaign is now touting her….. well… there is alot of overstatement going on here….
HERE IS AN ARTICLE FROM POLITIFACT…
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/15/palins-pipeline-less-meets-eye/
and here is a denser article that defies excerpting, but it is very detailed…
HALPERNS ARTICLE HERE
http://www.andrewhalcro.com/palin_requests_talks_with_oil_executives
AND FACTCHECK DOT ORG HERE..
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
EXCERPT…
Cookin’ with Gas
Palin talked about standing up to oil companies and oil lobbyists, citing her work on getting a gas pipeline built in Alaska:
Palin: I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
Actually, construction hasn’t begun on the pipeline, and the project isn’t quite a done deal. Palin signed legislation just last week that authorizes the state to give a license in 90 days to TransCanada to start developing the project. The state also can provide $500 million as seed money (READ THIS AS: ALASKAN TAXPAYERS WILL PROVIDE AND RISK UP FRONT MONEY WITH NO CONTRACTUAL GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE A PIPELINE EVER BUILT.) She gets credit for moving the pipeline closer to realization after many years of talks. Palin pushed for legislation that would allow a private company to build the 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline, instead of oil companies, which she said were moving too slowly on the issue.
In an Aug. 27 press release, Palin indicated that there was still work to be done before the project would become a reality:
Palin, press release, Aug. 27: After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance. This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.
Washington Post energy correspondent Steven Mufson wrote that the major oil companies have opposed the pipeline project, saying it wasn’t economically feasible. Yet, ConocoPhillips and BP have proposed their own gas pipeline that would compete with the state-backed project. TransCanada estimates it will take 10 years to finish the pipeline, according to its application to the state, and it will cost about $26.5 billion – not $40 billion as Palin said.
As for Palin having “stood up to … the Big Oil companies,” as she said in her speech, she has on this issue, not on others. Oil is, after all, incredibly important to Alaska’s economy. About 80 percent of the state budget comes from oil and gas taxes and royalties. Palin is in favor of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore areas, a position she shares with oil companies.
factcheck.org is starting to look like a reliable mouthpiece for the Democrats.
Check out the 10 most recent articles. One criticizing Obama for claiming that McCain is NOT in favor of a bailout for automakers….
when in fact, newsflash…
MCCain supports a government bailout for US Automakers.
So… obama lied and the truth is something that sorta betrays the idea that McCain is a fiscal conservative….. go figure…
Republicans just can´t seem to win on factcheck.org lately……
So tell me… is abortion the ONLY issue that makes the republican candidates conservative?
Name ONE other issue that republicans can claim the mantle of classic “conservative” with. Just ONE…..(besides gay marriage… which doesn´t seem deserve to be a top priority for government attention just now…..)
When have the democrats ever socialized to the extent of nationalizing the largest insurance company in the world????
would you all have ever believed this even a year ago?? That EITHER party would be allowed to do this? AND that there was probably NO other choice due to the carnage that financial deregulation as made….
lets be generous and give Palin full credit.
She is then a raging liberal socialist financially isn´t she?
she GAVE a canadian company $500 million in “seed money” with NO guarantee in exchange that ONE inch of steel would be laid. and…
now a foreign company will control this endeavor, as opposed to the original proposal she favored before she became governor, which was to make an all-alaskan pipeline running to valdez.
socialist? yes.
bad business deal? yes. ($500mm for what?)
energy dependence on foreign companies? yes.
Ok. give the gal credit where credit is due…
Frank - what does this have to do with the post?
Frank, seriously, I’m not sure where you’re getting your sources, but you seriously need to expand them if this is what they’re feeding you. It’s usually a cop-out to say something like “Too many errors to deal with”, but in this case it’s true.
(Sorry about the repeated “seriously” there, I seriously try to seriously limit my use of seriously, but I was seriously busy there and seriously wasn’t paying enough attention to what I was seriously writing.)
The life issue is the most important one. The GOP is also right on the 2nd and 1st Amendments, and there are a significant number in the GOP who also favor the rest of the Bill of Rights, even if they aren’t at the top of the ticket at the moment.
The Party of Death, on the other hand, is opposed to the whole Constitution and Declaration of Independence, it seems to me.
So, while the GOP is far, far from perfect, the alternatives are either unmitigated evil on the one hand, or voting for a third party and handing the weight of that vote to the Party of Death, becoming a material accomplice in mass murder.
Those aren’t great choices.
would be great to see even one point addressed seriously. maybe Palin´s liberal socialistic streak?
The thread is about why the democrats can´t at least give palin credit for the proposed (!) pipeline.
My comments are dead on tracking to the thread.
fw #7 - if you were to demonstrate a liberal socialist streak in Palin’s financial behavior with the pipeline then I would address that point seriously, but you haven’t, so there’s nothing to address. Like I said, I don’t know where you’re getting your info, but that source is so stupidly incomplete that there’s not anything to do with it other than shake my head.
Frank @ 7: Is Palin’s “liberal socialist streak” causing you to re-consider your opposition to her?
The answer to Dr. Veith’s post is: Of course not. It wouldn’t fit the storyline.
#10 webmonk
ok. Giving a private company $500 million in “seed money” is something a conservative would do? along with the $18 from the fed gov. The building of the sports area as mayor was an exercise in limited government?
just how does any of palin´s resume look like “conservative” to you besides her abortions stand and membership in the NRA?
#12 Webmonk.
#12 webmonk
dear brother,
Shirley, you jest! Ok. I won´t call you shirley again…
no matter. We are talking here about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic. I am speaking of the affairs of this world.
it is worth doing, but it will all be purified by fire at the end.
The things I really would be willing to argue passionately about are things that might somewhat aleviate the human suffering of one of my neighbors. And even then we are talking bandaid.
The only real cure is death. and resurrection.
My world will not end if Palin becomes president. or Obama. we could all do alot worse than either of them. I am jus´playin here brotha.
#12 webmonk
what news sources do you find credible? fair and balanced as they say?
I hear that the national enquirer has not lost a lawsuit for quite some time……
Of course they won’t, Dr. Veith, they (the upper echelons, not necessarily the rank and file) believe that words are just a mask for power.
fw #11-14,
HUH? I very literally have no clue what your point is in any of that, especially #13. I realize you are trying some sort of joke or side point or something, but I have no idea what it is.
Your claim of $500 million in stringless seed money to TransCanada is bizarre, and that’s why I’m asking where you’re getting that idea. TransCanada is getting $500 million as reimbursement for costs of getting federal regulatory approval for the pipeline. Clauses like that are standard practice in many large-scale government contracts of all types. It’s even a standard practice in private sector large contracts.
Apparently you’ve gotten some bee in your hat thinking that the $500 million is some sort of pork or bribe or waste or who knows what. Wherever you’re getting your information is feeding you crap on that item. The rest of your claims are similar junk. You need to verify your sources.
#17 i do believe all my sources are linked…
I am a CPA with just a little background in these kinds of contracts…
Usually there is at least SOME sort of contractual obligation connected with this kind of money. deadlines. etc. none here that I know of.
and since when do conservatives feel that it is the government´s business to be involved in building pipelines?
and…. it is all being done by a foreign company through a foreign country…. energy independence….. hmmmm
Dude, are you high on something? There’s not a single link in any of your posts.
I had looked up the bill itself, and the money isn’t given to the company until after they receive the license. If there is an abandonment of the project then the company doesn’t get any of the money.
Like I said - I don’t know what news source you’re getting your info from, but they’re feeding you crap.
As far as energy independence - should we not even allow Canada to build the pipe that US fuel is piped to the US? Should we not let the Japanese build the chips that are used in the computers that monitor the pipe? Get real.
(Generally staying out of this discussion, as I’m already confused, but …)
FW (@17, or at least at 4:34 pm), if your “sources are linked”, then you should know that the comments with links that you posted haven’t been approved by Veith (as of this comment), so we can’t see them. As such, we all may be missing some context from your argument (in addition to being confused about your numbering in referencing previous posts — my guess is that you are seeing your as-yet-unapproved comments with links, while the rest of us are not).
Just a general point for all commenters who would reference outside sources: don’t use more than one link or URL, or else your comment will get put in the moderation queue until Veith approves it. Instead, provide enough keyword material (site, title, author, date, etc.) so that we can ourselves search for the site you would have linked to.
Alternately, Veith could consider modifying the link/spam policy so that we can have more fully-sourced comments. (To that end, I have recently set up a WordPress blog myself, and may be able to help out more than the last time I offered help on such things.)
Ah, I had forgotten about the link-blocking effects of the site.
Frank, I’m sorry for suggesting you were so dumb as to be talking about links that aren’t there. I should have realized there must be something else going on.
Here’s my link to the full text of the bill. Check out sections 43.90.110 and 43.90.120 to see that the state was only giving the funds for a successful acquisition of licensing permissions, and that if there was an abandonment of the project even after that, then the company still wouldn’t get any funds.
www dot legis dot state dot ak dot us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0177A&session=25
This may be just semantics, but Palin never stated in her speech that construction had begun on the pipeline, just that the process had begun. This is probably true since there are years of studies, analysis, engineering, design, etc. that must go on before construction begins.
Also, Palin’s $40 billion remark may include construction, design, permitting, operations, and maintenance for a 50 year life cycle or some such thing. I don’t know if that’s the case, but could be where she gets the numbers.
#21 webmonk
valuable link. you did your homework! all the articles I read strongly suggested or stated that the seed money was at risk to alaska taxpayers.
the actual bill would state otherwise. thanks!
Leave a Comment