PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Drill in Alaska to help Japan


Chiefnj2
10-21-2008, 02:01 PM
Palin backs shipping Alaskan LNG to Japan
The Associated Press

Tue, Oct 21, 2008 (12:45 a.m.)

On the campaign trail, Sarah Palin says repeatedly that America must tap its own natural gas and oil reserves to become energy-independent.

But the Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate has pushed the federal government to allow a liquefied natural gas plant to continue exporting to Asia _ the only such plant in the United States that sends the product overseas.

"When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this nation to become energy-independent," Palin said earlier this month during the vice presidential debate. "It's a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land. And East Coast politicians who don't allow energy-producing states like Alaska to produce these, to tap into them, and instead we're relying on foreign countries to produce for us."

This summer, Palin cheered the Energy Department for extending an export license for the Kenai Liquefied Natural Gas facility. The license allowed the Alaska plant to continue shipping its products to Asia through 2011.

The plant began shipping its product exclusively to Japan in 1969, renewing federal export permits every few years. As energy prices have soared in recent years, and with supplies dwindling, there has been increased opposition to allowing the plant to export.

The current license extends a permit that otherwise would have expired in 2009.

"In these times of economic uncertainty, this is great news for the state and its residents," Palin said when the license was approved in June.

During negotiations, which began last year, Palin had pressed for enough natural gas to serve Alaska to remain in-state. She added, however, that the rest should be shipped primarily to Japan.

The license was granted despite opposition from some federal officials who argued that domestic liquefied natural gas should be sold within the U.S.

"If America is really so short of energy that we need to drill in national wildlife refuges and other sensitive areas, why should energy supplies, sitting in U.S. terminals, be sent back out of the country simply because these energy companies can get a higher price from a foreign buyer?" Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said.

The plant's owners, Marathon Oil Corp. and ConocoPhillips, had argued that U.S. terminals equipped to handle shipments of liquefied natural gas were too far away, on the East Coast, in the South or in Puerto Rico.

San Diego-based Sempra Energy opened a new $975 million terminal in Baja, Mexico, in May. Its pipelines connect to California, Texas and Arizona.

Volatile oil and gas prices and limited energy supplies have prompted a steady increase in U.S. use of liquefied natural gas.

But aside from Alaska, there is no domestic production.

So while the United States imported 771 billion cubic feet of natural gas last year from Trinidad and Tobago, Algeria, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Qatar, Alaska is expected to export 100 billion cubic feet to Asia over the next two years

Calcountry
10-21-2008, 02:47 PM
Just a thought. If there were a massive NG field in San Diego, would it be smarter to sell it to Tijuana, or Bangor Maine?

Adept Havelock
10-21-2008, 05:05 PM
Just a thought. If there were a massive NG field in San Diego, would it be smarter to sell it to Tijuana, or Bangor Maine?

Depends on your interest in increasing domestic sources of energy. :shrug:

KILLER_CLOWN
10-21-2008, 05:35 PM
Great! America Last.. eh?

Calcountry
10-21-2008, 05:37 PM
Depends on your interest in increasing domestic sources of energy. :shrug:What part of the words domestic source, don't you understand?

Where we sell it, is irrelevant. The fact is, it would be under our control UNTIL we sell it.

Of course, you are and extremely intelligent fellow, so you know all of this, right?

Adept Havelock
10-21-2008, 06:18 PM
What part of the words domestic source, don't you understand?

Where we sell it, is irrelevant. The fact is, it would be under our control UNTIL we sell it.

Of course, you are and extremely intelligent fellow, so you know all of this, right?

I would think that keeping it for our own use would be a bigger boost to solving our energy problems.

Irrelevant? I think not. AFAICS, your thinking suggests that if the US population was starving, it'd be a good idea to sell the food grown by our nation to a neighbor. After all, the food would be under our control UNTIL we sell it.

I suppose we could take that money from the sale and buy food from yet another country, but that seems more like a Monty Python sketch than a reasonable policy.


Of course, you are and extremely intelligent fellow, so you know all of this, right?

;)

Calcountry
10-21-2008, 07:54 PM
I would think that keeping it for our own use would be a bigger boost to solving our energy problems.

Irrelevant? I think not. AFAICS, your thinking suggests that if the US population was starving, it'd be a good idea to sell the food grown by our nation to a neighbor. After all, the food would be under our control UNTIL we sell it.

I suppose we could take that money from the sale and buy food from yet another country, but that seems more like a Monty Python sketch than a reasonable policy.



;)Resonable policy is for nations with comparative advantages in the production of any good or commodity to do so and to trade with other nations in such a way as to maximize the total amounts of goods and services.

For instance, we could sell the gas To Japan, in return, the Japanese sell us some cars.

You are not purporting that we impose tariffs to keep Palin from selling Alaska's gas in the most profitable and efficient way, are you?

Welcome back Hoover administration.

Can you say, "Smoot-Hawley".

Taco John
10-21-2008, 08:09 PM
Oil is a fungible resource. Any amount that we put into the world pipeline will ultimately benefit us, and every other oil consuming nation in the world.

Calcountry
10-21-2008, 08:15 PM
Oil is a fungible resource. Any amount that we put into the world pipeline will ultimately benefit us, and every other oil consuming nation in the world.Havelock don't get it.

Adept Havelock
10-21-2008, 09:14 PM
Havelock don't get it.

Indeed, I do. I never said anything about tariffs or protectionism. You did.

I'm saying that if we are trying to wean ourselves from foreign sources of energy, selling our own to foreign nations instead of using it domestically is a rather ignorant thing to do.

Oil is a fungible resource. Any amount that we put into the world pipeline will ultimately benefit us, and every other oil consuming nation in the world.

This thread is discussing the sale of Liquefied Natural Gas to Japan instead of using it domestically. Yes, LNG is fungible as well. :shrug:

Perhaps Palin isn't serious about ending our dependency on foreign sources of energy if she's so willing to sell overseas instead of selling for domestic consumption.

Of course, she may not be serious about opposing Marxism either, considering she's done nothing about the Alaska Permanent Fund payoffs to Alaska citizens.