What are the chances--that Sarah Palin, Ethan Berkowitz, Eric Croft, Andrew Halcro, Ralph Seekins and other gubernatorial wannabes are thinking of picking up the phone and asking the straight-shooting former Commissioner of Natural Resources Tom Irwin to be their lite guv running mate? I think Mr. Irwin is too nice a fella to subscribe to John Lennon's belief that "time wounds all heels" but, after the governor outed his confidential memo privately asking gas line questions and then booted him from the cabinet, who could really blame him if he became a member of another team.

GK vs. AK--Garrison Keillor wrote recently of our Congressman, Don Young the architect of the transportation funding bill; Don's earmarking of $223 million "for a bridge almost as long as the Golden Gate to link the town of Ketchikan. . .to the local airport"; and "a billion dollar two mile-long bridge connecting Anchorage to hundreds of square miles of undeveloped wetlands, a great convenience for birdwatchers who now, instead of having to kayak across the water to observe the red-bellied grommet, can drive over in their Explorers and bring a mobile home with them." GK said he belongs to a special interest group of English majors and says they need congressional champions like Don to get libraries "equipped with leather sofas, an espresso bar and librarians who are trained in pressure-point massage." He suggested that if English majors flooded Congress with angry sonnets they could get the first $223 million library in Minnesota. He added that if Ketchikan wants a $223 million library, that would be fine with him.

Phone: (907) 465-4947
Fax: (907) 465-2108
Mail: Sen. Elton, State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801
Email:
Senator.Kim.Elton
Jesse.Kiehl
Paula.Cadiente
Web: http://elton.akdemocrats.org

It's Gov. Murkowski versus
The DNR Magnificent Seven

     Is watching the governor's gas line negotiating team like watching children playing with matches? Maybe so given the combustible and sulphuric give and take between the governor and his (now ex) Department of Natural Resources Commissioner.
     Let's put aside, for the moment, the legal and economic issues raised in former Commissioner Tom Irwin's memo about the gas line negotiations for an elemental question that must now be asked: if the governor can't successfully negotiate fundamental gas line precepts with members of his own gas line 'team', what makes us think he's doing a better negotiating job with three multi-national oil companies?
     That's the question that scares me and others who want to see Alaska's stranded gas shipped to consumers in the lower 48. After two years, the governor can't even come to a gas line understanding with his own DNR commissioner--a straight-shooting former mine executive from Fairbanks and one of the most solid (and stolid) members of his cabinet. 
     Against the reported advice of cooler heads, the governor precipitously fired Mr. Irwin and created a mass exodus from his gas line 'team'. The six other DNR casualties who resigned in protest took with them more than 100 years of natural resource experience. The governor lost more top-drawer professionals in his Thursday afternoon massacre than Nixon did with his Saturday night massacre. 
     The rift between DNR and the guv was remarkable not just because it was there but because it was there for two plus years and the guv couldn't fix it. Instead of fixing the rift, the guv pushed Mr. Irwin over the edge of the rift.
     Here's part of what's behind the rift between the politician and the professionals. Former Commissioner Irwin, and his DNR gas line principals, wanted Alaska's attorney general to address eight issues. Of those eight, two of the most important were:

1.	DNR is concern "that no modeling can show the need for the proposed fiscal support from the State to the producers and the need for a guarantee of fiscal certainty extending three decades from the pipeline's in-service date"; and
2.	whether it is appropriate that the Department of Revenue advises "the findings and determination [for the contract] will not include a quantitative evaluation of alternatives, such as other applications submitted. . ." and whether that abrogates requirements that the administration "provide a full disclosure/comparison which allows the public to adequately evaluate any proposed contract."

    You can use clichés to ask the same questions: are we giving away the farm to rich and powerful oil companies? Is the administration sweeping information under the rug to hide it from Alaskans? 
     I'm not surprised DNR pros can't find any economic model that shows the state needs to provide incentives to the multi-nationals to get a gas line. The New York Times reported just yesterday that ExxonMobil, one of the companies we're negotiating with, made almost $10 billion dollars in the last quarter. Let me put it another way--ExxonMobil, for 90 days, made $110 million in profit every day. That's more than Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Merck, McDonald's and GM combined. 
     ExxonMobil has $34 billion in cash according to Merrill Lynch. They are cash rich and can't spend it all, say the industry analysts. The other two multi-nationals negotiating with the state have similar earning and profit 'problems' ($6.5 billion in profits in the last quarter for one and $3.9 billion for the other). And things will get better for them. Oppenheimer analysts say the multi-national oil company profits will be higher in this current quarter and they expect them to rise next year, too. (A Washington Post investigative team recently analyzed how the price of gas spiked $1.20 in the past year. The producers took 46 cents of it and the refiners took 70 cents of it. Let's not forget that the producers, Exxon, BP, Conoco et al, are also refiners.)
     The multi-nationals' stranded profits give legitimacy to DNR's concerns about state giveaways to accomplish moving our stranded gas. On top of that, there are the legal opinions from two teams of independent lawyers (one team hired by the state and the other hired by the all-Alaska gas line supporters) who say the multi-national behemoths assumed a legal obligation to develop and market Alaska's gas if they can make a reasonable profit. Of course, Exxon may now be trained in the notion that a reasonable profit approximates $110 million/day.
     The governor and his AG seem dismissive of the DNR concerns. That seems out of step even with Congressional Republicans who are calling for hearings to investigate oil industry windfall profits and lack of reinvestment into U.S. refinery, production and transportation infrastructure. 
     But maybe the governor and what's left of his gas line team are right--Alaska needs to provide incentives. But if they are right, why is what's left of the governor's gas line team, trying to stop "quantitative evaluations of alternatives"? What could possibly be wrong with showing Alaskans we got the best deal? 
     DNR's questions need answers. Alaskans deserve answers. Without them, I'll need to be persuaded that the governor was as tough on the rich oil companies as he was on the professionals in the Department of Natural Resources.