Oil

Shutting Down Alaska

President Obama's campaign against oil drilling in Alaska has devastating effects for the state.

|

Jon Utley

President Barack Obama's new declaration to forbid oil drilling on more millions of acres of Alaska just continues his pattern of attack on oil drilling.

Obama's and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new attack on Alaska oil production can have a consequence that extreme environmentalists have dreamed about all along—shutting down all remaining production bringing oil from the Arctic coast. 

This would happen because the giant Alaskan pipeline must have minimal flow to function. Otherwise it must be totally dismantled in accord with the law allowing for its original construction. After years of delaying new production and causing billions of dollars of losses for the companies involved, Obama's new attack may be the final blow. Already the pipeline is carrying only some 25 percent of its capacity of two million barrels a day. Less input will allow corrosion and other damages, making it impossible to operate.

Here is how the Obama administration has hampered oil drilling in Alaska:

  • The government has virtually prohibited horizontal fracking for new oil drilling on any federal lands and a large part of Alaska, some half of all land west of the Mississippi. America's vast increase in oil production is because of the new procedure on private lands.
  • They have forbid any drilling just to the east of the pipeline on the vast and desolate ANWR nature reserve. Although the reserve is the size of South Carolina, a drilling and production "pad" to produce oil would be the equivalent size to that of a major airport. The preserve is estimated to hold 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
  • For years the EPA prevented the transport and drilling on the National (formerly Naval) Petroleum Reserve to the West side of the pipeline (see below). Also in 2010 the Obama Administration closed down half of its 23 million acres to any drilling.
  • The government delayed for years allowing offshore drilling platforms (the water is only 100 feet deep) in the Arctic Ocean to the North of the pipeline. The outer continental shelf stretches over a hundred miles of very shallow ocean water and is thought to contain some 27 billion barrels.
  • Obama's new order is to forbid any offshore drilling in the Chukchi Sea after Shell Oil Company has spent literally billions of dollars buying the leases and preparing to start drilling. When it finally was ready to drill two years ago, the EPA denied it an air quality permit (over the Arctic Ocean!) and thus cost it another lost year and millions more in losses. 
  • Obama's tradeoff for shutting down drilling in Alaska is a farce. He will "allow" drilling 50 miles offshore from the mid-Atlantic coast. First, this is immensely deep water also subject to hurricanes, compared to the shallow and calm hundred-foot-deep water that stretches for miles off North Alaska, is near a pipeline, and is already proven to have billions of barrels of oil. There is no pipeline infrastructure in the deep Atlantic, and his "green" buddies would tie up any proposed project for years in the courts.

A seemingly unrelated incident in West Virginia offers another EPA "lesson" for investors. After permitting a form of coal mining called hill top removal, it suddenly reversed itself after the company involved had already spent millions of dollars preparing the site. 

There is a consistent pattern in all this—a warning to investors that the government can at any time, after millions or billions are invested, jerk the permits. The purpose can only be to intimidate future investors from future mining prospects, which they have already pretty well succeeded in doing. There is almost no new mining on any government lands (half of all the land west of the Mississippi). In Alaska the only new large copper mine started in years is on Eskimo land, the Red Dog mine. Only they were able to obtain permitting. Meanwhile the giant Pebble Mine project, potentially one of the largest copper and gold mines in the world, languishes, although it is 150 miles from the ocean. The EPA made a new interpretation of its rules to prevent even allowing hearings for the mine owners to explain the technology and defend their project.

The efforts to prevent production from the old Naval Petroleum Reserve offer a microcosm of typical EPA obstructionism, foot-dragging each year often just long enough to prevent drilling during the three months' window when the ground is frozen and heavy equipment can be moved into place. In 2001 Conoco Phillips Oil drilled a test well in the 23 million acre National Petroleum Reserve after hauling its heavy machinery over frozen ground during winter. The project, CD-5, and a bridge to gain year-around access to the site was first approved in 2004. Meanwhile it drilled two more nearby discoveries for which the bridge would allow access. The concrete bridge with an attached pipeline would be over the wide, very shallow glacial runoff Colville River Delta. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers originally permitted it. Then the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Agency persuaded the EPA to reverse its decision lest it disturb some fish and birds. Specifically it demanded that the company instead build an under-river pipeline and no bridge (see picture of river delta in the link above). After another five years, the EPA finally relented to allow the bridge with an attached pipeline. Obviously this significantly delayed new drilling and production while the Alaska pipeline kept flowing with less and less oil. Fox News did a short report on the project.

Lastly, one should know that Alaska's blue-collar oil and mining jobs are very well paid. Unions are strong, and annual earnings of $70,000 to $80,000 are common. The workers' incomes are spent all over the state. Stopping new drilling, much less closing much of it down, would be an economic disaster for the whole state. Yet it is the ultimate fantasy of many greens, shutting down and tearing out the Alaska pipeline.

I have now been visiting Alaska every summer for the past 10 years to go hiking and mountain climbing. The most striking feature of all Alaska is the incredible abundance and giant size of life—animals, fish, birds and vegetation. The constant panic about caribou, birds or polar bears needing to move a bit so that human beings can prosper in the state is totally ridiculous. It is the result of a well-financed campaign with a different agenda: to shut down development and revert the state to its original wildness.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

100 responses to “Shutting Down Alaska

  1. “How many electoral college votes from Alaska? Really? OK, fuck ’em.”

    1. “And it will wreck Alaska’s economy, turning productive workers into welfare dependents? BONUS!!!!”

  2. Nonsense. I have been told by a TRUE LIBERTARIAN, on these here pages, that the Lightworker is the best friend oil has ever had!!!!!

    1. I’m pretty sure that person also said that the claim that Obama was not allowing fracking had been proven to be an untrue statement.

    2. Peanuts just don’t understand how awesome Obama is… even when facts refute the voices in my head. /true libertarian

    3. It seems to be a growing prog meme; I’ve seen jerkoffs on other sites likewise claiming to know better than libertarians what “true libertarianism” is.

      1. I’ve seen an increased amount of consistent trolling that’s just a repeat of whatever the current White House talking points are. With the poster not responding to any counter arguments.

        Has the Left actually set up and paid for a strategic web forum propaganda campaign?

        I’ve read of paid efforts in the past, but those have all been specific to a certain election effort, not a general effort.

  3. I have now been visiting Alaska every summer for the past 10 years to go hiking and mountain climbing.

    I’d like to do that, but I just hate having to pack out my urine.

    1. Oh-Bummer wants you to be forced to pack out the CO-2 that you exhale, and have it sequestered deep in the earth… Or best, be put into a spiraling orbit and be swallowed by the sun…

  4. Hey,we can run the country on sun shine wind and corn.Mother earth provides,just don’t eat the animals.

    1. what about the poor little defenseless plants those big bad vegans are eating?

      1. Sir Paul says is ok if they don’t have a face.

        1. And Paul had his removed years ago.

    2. It would be more fun to run it on moonshine and corn nuts.

      With the ocassional squirrel stew thrown in.

      1. squirrel stew ?!??!?

        I resemble that remark!!!

  5. We’re going to need a bigger windmill.

    1. Once they know how to make ZPM’s will be fine

    2. +1 Smile you son of a bitch

      1. +2 dead eyes

        1. +3 bow-legged women

  6. Won’t someone please think of the wind turbines?

    1. What about the birds that get killed by the turbines? They have feelings too I’m told.

  7. The prohibition applies only to land the federal government owns, right? I’m not nearly upset about government managing its land the way it wants as I would be regulations and prohibitions on privately owned land development. Of course, then the question becomes why the federal government owns so much land.

    1. They own it because they can,and,for the children.

    2. I’m not sure why the Feds want to own any land considering eminent domain. Soak up those sweet property taxes and if you need the land later, just take it.

      1. Is the land open to things like hiking, camping, hunting or research? I guess that could be one reason.

        1. Yes. Pretty much all federal land that isn’t a military base is open to those uses. (Actually, many military bases are also open for these activities too). You usually have to get some type of backwoods permit to do those things, though. It still isn’t a good excuse because you can have people drilling oil and hiking mountains at the same time.

          1. “National Wilderness Preservation System”
            […]
            There are currently 758 designated wilderness areas, totaling 109,511,038 acres (44,317,545 ha), or about 4.5% of the area of the United States
            […]
            Activity on formally designated wilderness areas is coordinated by the National Wilderness Preservation System.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..ion_System

            I’m betting “coordinated” = ‘you can’t go there except on the 35th day of February’

            1. It’s more like “you can’t go there without a permit and we only give out a certain number per year.”

              Really I’ve only ever heard about long waits for access in places like popular National parks, though. A lot of people just don’t like the idea of pooping in the woods, so demand to go into the backcountry is very limited.

              1. In fact, most of the permitting is just so they have a record of who is going where and when so they know where to put their resources for preservation and emergency response. Also, if you get eaten by a bear or fall off a cliff it makes identifying the body easier.

                1. some guy|2.5.15 @ 10:49AM|#
                  “In fact, most of the permitting is just so they have a record of who is going where and when”

                  I’m sure that was the intent and of course, the ‘hall monitors’ handling the permits would never misuse that power, right?

          2. large tracts of federal land are now off limits to vehicle or even horse traffic which means unless you have months of time and Backpack to carry everything you need 99.99% of Americans will not be able to ever see any of that land. How far into the forest can you walk into in a weeks time.

    3. Of course, then the question becomes why the federal government owns so much land.

      Especially if it isn’t going to use any of it. It’s a double slap in the face. “We aren’t going to use it. We aren’t going to let you use. And we aren’t going to sell it or give it away.” Isn’t that one of the attitudes that progressives excoriate “the wealthy” for having?

      1. It’s different when they do it.

    4. Which was implied in the article with the “half the land west of the Mississippi” references.

    5. How much of Alaska *isn’t* owned by the feds?

      1. 30.9%.

        Top 5 states with highest % of federally owned land:
        1.Nevada 84.50% 110,622 sq miles
        2.Alaska 69.10% 663,268 sq miles
        3.Utah 57.40% 84,899 sq miles
        4.Oregon 53.10% 98,381 sq miles
        5.Idaho 50.20% 83,570 sq miles

        47% of the 11 coterminous states is federally owned. By contrast, the feds own “only” 4% in the other states.

        http://bigthink.com/strange-ma…..-in-the-us

    6. Of course, then the question becomes why the federal government owns so much land.

      Well, that’s easy. So that some people will argue, “I’m not nearly upset about government managing its land the way it wants…”

      1. People should think twice before passively dismissing how government manages “its” (still ours) land, thinking they’ll do a great job. Yellowstone National Park has had it’s fair share of turbulence throughout the years as government has tried to “preserve” its natural beauty.

    7. “I’m not nearly upset about government managing its land the way it wants as I would be regulations and prohibitions on privately owned land development.”

      I always thought that the “government land” was considered ours, not just the current Administrations.

      1. And now you’ve been disabused of that notion.

    8. ” government managing its land the way it wants ”

      But WE are the government ? No ?

  8. This is Jack’s complete lack of surprise.

  9. I’m pretty sure the Lightworker was talking up energy independence the other day. Not sure how this squares with that.

    1. He wants to be completely independent from the use of energy. Everyone (except him and his friends) should be using zero energy.

    2. Simple; he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He lies. All Liberal Politicians lie, because what they WANT to do won’t sell to enough people to get them elected. Once they are in office, they do do whatever they damnplease, knowing that the media has their back and that anybody who opposes them will be branded a racist nazi child molester.

      Guillotine bait.

      1. Be fair, Schofield. All Republican Politicians lie too.

  10. Gas in my town went up 20 cents a gallon overnight, Tuesday.

    1. I stopped watching gas prices years ago. I need to use a certain amount of gas in my life and the price would probably have to triple before it became worth it to alter my habits at all. I’ve just come to accept the fact that gas prices are always artificially inflated by government activity.

    2. See price elasticity of demand.
      Hint: Gasoline demand is inelastic (the 35% price jump over the last 2 weeks in my area has had little effect on consumption).

  11. It’s almost like this EPA beheamouth is peopled by those with their own agenda that doesn’t factor the common good in their decision making.

    At least we can be assured that the enviromentalists groups which spawn these EPA idealogues aren’t funded by competing global oil interests. Right ?

    Can’t we ?

  12. It’s almost like this EPA beheamouth is peopled by those with their own agenda that doesn’t factor the common good in their decision making.

    At least we can be assured that the enviromentalists groups which spawn these EPA idealogues aren’t funded by competing global oil interests. Right ?

    Can’t we ?

    1. It’s almost like this EPA beheamouth is peopled by those with their own agenda that doesn’t factor the common good in their decision making.

      Define common good. I’m sure you, me and the EPA will all have different definitions. Therein lies the problem with unlimited government. One size fits all, rarely fits anyone correctly.

      1. Most rational, non nitpicking people define the common good as to be something that overall benefits the country as a whole.

        Plentiful domestic oil supplies would tend to benefit the country as a whole more than the lack of a drilling rig in Alaska, regardless of one’s personal definition of a phrase.

        Maybe you have your own personal definition for a lot of words. Seems as though that would make it hard for others to communicate with you.

        1. Stop being obtuse.

          First, your position on domestic oil drilling may or may not be correct – I’m not arguing for or against.

          Second, not everyone will agree with your position on domestic oil drilling. Clearly the EPA is in that camp.

          Third, not everyone agrees on what is in the common good. Clearly you see greater energy production as a net good; clearly the EPA disagrees with you.

          Maybe you have your own personal definition for a lot of words. Seems as though that would make it hard for others to communicate with you.

          I’m not a linguistic gymnast, nor was I trying to be clever. I’m familiar with the definition of common good. What I was asking, was for you to articulate what you thought was in the common good so I could show you that different people have different expectations for the common good. I think we got there, but not before you had to toss out some D-grade pedantry.

  13. Funny how they don’t seem to care about Bald Eagles being killed by wind turbines. I do like how they are bent on keeping us reliant on foreign oil and always do what they can to stop us from being energy independent. Shut down drilling and these pipelines and the see how high a barrel of oil will go.

    1. The cost of energy must necessarily skyrocket, or something.

      Me: So, when you raise the price of something, then people buy less of it. Like gas for example.

      Prog: Yes! We need higher gas prices to save the planet from AGW!

      Me: Same idea with tobacco. Raise taxes so people will buy less.

      Prog: Yes! Higher taxes are a great way to force people to buy less!

      Me: Same thing with coal. Make it more expensive to make electricity more expensive, so people will buy less resulting in less coal being burned.

      Prog: Yes! Yes! You’re making me hard!

      Me: Same thing with unskilled labor. Make it more expensive for employers to hire unskilled people by raising the minimum wage, and they’ll be forced to hire fewer young and unskilled workers.

      Prog: Yes! Yes! Yes! Force is good! I think I’m gonna cum! Force rich employers to buy less of… What? That doesn’t apply to labor! That’s not the intention! That can’t possibly be true! You ruined my boner you asshole!

      1. There is negligible immediate impact from raising the minimum wage. Most of the damage for having a minimum wage is already reflected in the market, and most companies have already found ways to make fewer employees more productive. At this point raising the minimum wage only has an effect at the margins.

        When I refer to employment at the margins I mean youth (people new to the job market), minorities, and ex-felons. For these people the long-term impact of minimum wages is pernicious and severe. I find it depressing the people who most need entry level jobs is the same people excluded by higher minimum wages. How can someone climb the ladder of success if they can’t reach the first rung?

        1. It’s pretty sick that proponents of minimum wage will on the one hand say they’re raising it to help the poor, while on the other hand dismissing claims that it causes unemployment by saying the effects are minimal, knowing that the people it harms are the very people they claim to want to help.

          1. As I’ve gotten older, it surprises me less. People are inherently selfish, so they adhere to this train of thought because it makes them feel good and they’ll never be affected by it. They live in an echo chamber and don’t challenge themselves by considering alternative ideas. Ironic for so-called progs.

            1. They live in an echo chamber and don’t challenge themselves by considering alternative ideas. Ironic for so-called progs.

              Not really. They have progressed. They don’t need to learn from history or consider antiquated ideas. They’re looking forward, not back. Damn the consequences and focus on the intentions! Pave that Road to Hell! Hurry up! Pave it! In the name of Progress, pave the damn Road!

        2. “There is negligible immediate impact from raising the minimum wage. ”

          Negligible must be another word you have a personal definition of.

          That, or you are unaware that many union contracts have wages indexed to the minimum wage. An increase in the minimum wage automatically increases some union wages. That is the true inflationary aspect of minimum wage increases and affects many more than just those on the margins.

        3. “There is negligible immediate impact from raising the minimum wage. ”

          Negligible must be another word you have a personal definition of.

          That, or you are unaware that many union contracts have wages indexed to the minimum wage. An increase in the minimum wage automatically increases some union wages. That is the true inflationary aspect of minimum wage increases and affects many more than just those on the margins.

        4. “There is negligible immediate impact from raising the minimum wage. ”

          That’s complete bullshit. Changes in minimum wage tend to have proportional changes in low skilled employment.

          Ergo, increasing the minimum wage by an inflation adjusted amount close to zero, often has little to no effect. And, generally speaking, the US minimum wage amount has been in the $6-8 range for decades. Increasing it by a large amount will have a correspondingly larger amount.

          http://www.dol.gov/minwage/minwage-gdp-history.htm

          There is plenty of research that backs that supports that conclusion.

          1. Changes in minimum wage tend to have proportional changes in low skilled employment.

            That is correct. But those jobs are a relatively small percentage compared to total jobs out there. So the impact on overall unemployment is minimal, while being high on the very people that the minimum wage is touted to help.

          2. JWatts, I’m not sure what you were trying to prove with the DoL link. My “immediate negligible impact” statement was in regards to number of people employed in minimum wage jobs. I’m not aware of any research showing immediate, pervasive jobs loses following increases in the minimum wage. My own anecdotal experience from when I worked a minimum wage job at a time when it was increased showed no net change in low skilled employment. This is why I believe employment changes due to the minimum wage are slow to appear and difficult to count. How would one count jobs never created?

        5. Yep, big difference between 75 cents an hour and a 50% change.

          Seattle just passed a 15 bucks an hour, my buddy has a couple teens there who make good money babysitting, sadly for them when the teen market unemployment reaches 100%, the dolts that passed this will get cheaper babysitters. FTW seattle city council people who failed econ 101.

          I’m getting older and I sort of still care but the stupid is getting overwhelming. I’m close to the I don’t give a fuck stage and just want enough coin to play golf, fish and hunt till my time is up.

          I do worry about my nieces and nephews as they have no idea what s coming down the pike.

        6. Yep, big difference between 75 cents an hour and a 50% change.

          Seattle just passed a 15 bucks an hour, my buddy has a couple teens there who make good money babysitting, sadly for them when the teen market unemployment reaches 100%, the dolts that passed this will get cheaper babysitters. FTW seattle city council people who failed econ 101.

          I’m getting older and I sort of still care but the stupid is getting overwhelming. I’m close to the I don’t give a fuck stage and just want enough coin to play golf, fish and hunt till my time is up.

          I do worry about my nieces and nephews as they have no idea what s coming down the pike.

  14. Interesting. Seems the Governor, Bill Walker, has a bit of a different take as to why Alaskans are being negatively impacted on the whole issue of oil.

    http://www.adn.com/article/201…..il-revenue

    The state offers tax credits to oil and gas companies as a way to encourage investment that will, it is hoped, increase oil production. Once all the credits are factored in, our production tax is expected to generate negative returns to the state. You read that right: this year, for the first time in state history, we are making less than zero from a tax meant to compensate Alaska for the taking of its oil resources.

    “How is this situation possible? The Alaska Department of Revenue projects the state will pay $625 million to producers through various oil and gas production credits. Subtract that from $524 million in production tax revenue, and we’re about $100 million in the red. Next year, the problem is expected to worsen, with the state netting negative $400 million on what has traditionally been our biggest source of unrestricted revenue.”

    That’s right, just another hand-out to oil companies…subsidies they don’t need.

    If you really want to stand up for Alaskans, you might want to address it with who the real free-loader is…the oil companies. You could open up that land, let the oil companies drill, and guess what? Nothing will change for Alaskans. They still won’t get what they are entitled to.

    Good try.

    1. Quotes from the governor should have started with “The state offers….”

      1. Maybe the increase in state incentives is needed by the oil companies to offset the increased costs of federal regulations imposed after the Fed auctioned off the rights to the oil.

        Alaskans might have figured they were best off WITH the oil jobs net of taxes vs without the oil jobs and zero tax loss due to incentives.

        As I understand oilfield tax incentives, they only go to risky exploration and not daily run of the mill operations, at least at the Federal level.

        I’m not sure of that and stand to be educated if someone knows the facts.

    2. In my opinion no business anywhere should be given tax dollars. If a business cannot exist without nursing from the government, the business should be allowed to fail. Someone can come in and pick up the pieces and succeed where the previous business could not, or the capital which would have been sunk in the business can find more productive opportunities elsewhere.

      By the way, businesses aren’t freeloaders. They are responding to incentives being created by government.

      Having said all that I’m still trying to understand what exactly are Alaskans entitled to?

      1. They are entitled to being compensated for the resources they own, as the citizens of Alaska. The oil companies don’t own it. Even Jon above is suggesting they are entitled to something…he just of course would rather shill for the oil companies so that they get more revenue.

        But let me put it this way on how disingenuous the article is…I would bet Jon knows all about the tax structure, and that if that tax structure was kept in existence (like the Governor is warning about), Alaskans still would not get the benefits Jon himself says they are entitled to.

        1. Jackand Ace|2.5.15 @ 11:22AM|#
          …”he just of course would rather shill for the oil companies so that they get more revenue.”

          Unlike you, who would rather shill for lefty ignoramuses.

        2. What? Benefits belong to the owners of the property and the people doing the work. Unfortunately, in this case the Federal Government owns most of the land. The oil companies do the work of extracting, transporting, and selling the oil. Why does anyone living in Alaska and not working in the oil industry deserve anything? It’s not the fault of the companies that the tax code benefits them.

          1. The oil in Alaska is owned by Alaskans. Some of the land in Alaska is owned by the federal government which determines what that land is to be used for. Regardless, any oil in the ground is owned by Alaskans, hence the state taxes on that oil.

            You miss the point…Jon’s article is meaningless if the intent is to let Alaskans benefit from oil as long as those tax structures stay in place. And he should have stated that…but he doesn’t want to because the oil companies are fighting to keep that structure.

            1. when that same Fdederal Government sells the rights to that oil the buyer of those rights own it and not the Fed Gov.

              When the Fed Gov sells the rights to the oil they should not then come back and issue regulaltions from a different arm of the Gov making the rights they sold useless.

              1. OneOut, companies lease the rights to extract oil. They do not own the rights. Leases will usually include all manner of terms, including payments to the actual owner. Typically leases are time limited as well. I agree the government should not change the rules after the fact, but buying leases is like buying anything else caveat emptor. If you are going to enter into a deal with the government, you enter that agreement knowing the risks, namely government can change the rules.

            2. [Any] oil in the ground is owned by Alaskans, hence the state taxes on that oil.

              Jackand Ace, property rights don’t work like that.

              1. Rob, I think you are right. I have tried to find out specifically what Alaska calls for, but cannot. But in general, this wiki entry said this about minerals underneath land:

                “An owner of real estate also owns the minerals underneath the surface, unless the minerals are severed under a previous deed or an agreement.”

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O…..ted_States

                But of course, that still would not change my point…that oil is then owned by the federal government and US citizens, not oil companies.

                1. Jackand Ace, if you read the full Wikipedia article it clearly mentions surface land rights can be separated from underground mineral rights.

                  1. Well, I only said something similar when I said Alaskans own that oil. Regardless, none of that changes the point about Alaskans getting what is due them…which is impossible if the tax structure is not changed.

            3. Most of the land, you ignorant fuck.

              1. Now I know that a Libertarian usually stands up for a person taking responsibility for whatever agreement they entered into, good or bad. But as usual, you take the phony Libertarian stance and disagree with that when it suits you.

                Alaska ceded that land to the federal government in order to gain entry into the Union. They were more that willing to pay that price to get the benefits of being part of the United States.

                Doesn’t look like such a great deal now? Too bad. Neither was Manhattan for $24. Neither was the Louisiana Purchase. Tough break. That land is now owned by the citizens of the US, to do with what citizens of the US want. Don’t like that? Win an election and change it, rather than whining about it.

                Someone is ignorant alright…

                1. Jackand Ace, to whom are you directing that comment, and what phony libertarian stance are you referring to?

                  1. I directed it toward migrant, and all those who took similar stances during the Bundy fiasco who claimed the feds should not have any right to do what they want with that land. And there were many here.

      2. Better yet, I’ll say it this way: Jon calling for more land to be drilled WITHOUT also calling for a fix to the tax structure, doesn’t solve the problem he is saying needs fixing.

        But of course for him to do that, he would have to stand up to the oil companies who already have said they don’t want the tax structure changed.

      3. AND, I will say this, Jon even says at the end he is a visitor to Alaska, as if that means he is looking out for their well being. He’s not…he doesn’t live there. You should take it from one who does, the Governor himself.

        1. The Governor supports more drilling also.

          “President Obama’s plan to restrict drilling in the Arctic has hit a nerve in Alaska. This week the president called for a drilling ban off coastal waters, and said he’d ask Congress to permanently protect 12 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

          Alaska politicians spent the week blasting his plan. Among them were Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and Independent Gov. Bill Walker, who said the restrictions would harm Alaska’s economy.”

          http://hereandnow.wbur.org/201…..ska-walker

          You’re cherry picking the facts to support your point.

          1. All you had to do was go to the link I posted and it told you the Governor supports oil in Alaska. My whole point was that he is not a liberal, and he is telling you that Alaskans are getting screwed by oil company tax breaks.

            But good job and missing the entire point…he is also telling you that contrary to what Jon tells you, it doesn’t matter if Obama opens up federal land for drilling….the oil companies are still going to make it a net loss for Alaskans thanks to the tax breaks they get and are fighting to hold onto.

            1. Jackand Ace|2.5.15 @ 3:34PM|#
              “All you had to do was go to the link I posted and it told you the Governor supports oil in Alaska. My whole point was that he is not a liberal, and he is telling you that Alaskans are getting screwed by oil company tax breaks.”

              Which, of course, is total bullshit and lefty assholes like you LOVE to spread such bullshit.
              Read this slowly, you stupid pile of shit:
              Companies do NOT pay the taxes leveled on them. The customers of those companies pay them.
              So you (and the equally stupid governor) are griping in that the customers of the oil companies are not paying more to the government.

  15. Start a new lucrative career. Our firm is looking for 10 people to represent our services?.
    You will have business coming to you on a daily basis
    Check Here Don’t Miss Golden Chance
    Open this link to get the opportunity , as like i did and i am feeling crazy.. it realy works,
    ??????? http://www.netcash50.com

  16. And where is turd to tell us Obo only shut down 8% of the oil drilling? Is that the current lie, or is he peddling a new one?

    1. 8% ?

      That number rings a faint bell.

      *8% hummm

      Oh yeah, wasn’t it Turd that inadvertantly told us that only 8% of those polled wanted Obamacare as it was with no changes ?

  17. It is the result of a well-financed campaign with a different agenda: to shut down development and revert the state entire planet to its original wildness.

    FTFY.

  18. Lastly, one should know that Alaska’s blue-collar oil and mining jobs are very well paid. Unions are strong…

    I wonder how much money those unions contributed to shithead’s election campaigns?

  19. When are one of the governors gonna tell the federal govt to fuck off?

    Seriously, like Texas or all of the southern states? They would totally have the backing of most of their population.

  20. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it.
    Click on this link to get started and see for yourself????.
    ?????????????????????? http://www.netpay20.com

  21. You can always count on oil company apologists to make an entrance on the Reason webpages, whether in articles or comments.

    You want Alaskans to get what they deserve from oil? Fine, try to get a federal government that opens up that land for drilling. The don’t be a phony and make apologies for the tax structure that favors oil companies.

    You voice support for a government body (federal) to change what is done with that land. Fine. Then don’t tell me you can’t voice support to another government body (Alaska)to then also change the tax structure, because without that as well, your claims that you want to look out for Alaskans are phony, just like Jon’s article.

  22. This is the land open to tourism, camping or study. I think that this is the main reason.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.