Friday, January 16, 2009

Fagan and Halcro: Know it all Palin Bashers

Has The Alaska Standard become a one trick pony by bashing Palin?

It looks as if Fagan has become obsessed with Palin and I will point to my record against both Fagan and Halcro. The reason why is; this "trainwreck" duo is playing blogging footsies with each other and like to play the I know it all game by bashing Palin.

Case in point was during the AGIA process and debate, bot Fagan and Halcro were pumping up a consultant that was used in the AGIA debate. The consultant Pedro Van Muers was talked about in a loving manner by the "trainwreck duo". Halcro became the choo choo train engineer and Fagan was riding the caboose.

Well what these two forgot was van Muers actually agreed with Palin on the rate of the tax. So these two nitwits had no claim or basis to criticise Palin. They were cheering on their man who was agreeing with the tax base.

In the following is what I had wriiten on the ADN blog. You will see timelines on what I said and what fagan said. You will see I was adressing the problem with van Muers. And you will see a commentary put out by Fagan two days later.

What this shows is, The Alaska Standard is having trouble raising the banner on journalism in Alaska.

October 20, 2007 - 11:33pm | tlamb775

Gaffney, Cline & Associates

To the legislators who want to do your homework on the comments made by this organization:

"...While negotiating the deal with Rosneft in Moscow and London between May and December 2000, ONGC hired three teams to handle the due diligence: investment bank JP Morgan London; energy advisor UK-based Gaffney, Cline & Associates; and the US law firm of Akin, Gumb & Strauss."

Ask them why it is Putin is cherry picking developments with sweet deals like Sakhalin.

"...However, as the oil and gas reserves are located in federal waters, Noglikskii district has no claim to any payments for use of resources, though the reserves are located close enough to devastate the local fishing economy in the event of an oil spill. Furthermore, the Sakhalin offshore projects use the system of "production sharing," which was developed on the basis of experience in Third World countries, and does not ensure adequate benefits to local communities. The Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) for the Sakhalin II project was signed on 22 June 1994 between SEIC and the Russian side (the Russian government and the Sakhalin regional administration). According to this agreement, all the production goes first of all to SEIC until the company has covered its investment costs. Only after the project has then started to make 17.5% profit will the Russian side start to receive its own share of the profits, which will be about 60% (split between the Federation and Sakhalin region).

According the PSAs, the Sakhalin projects have been freed from their federal tax obligations, apart from the royalty (6%) and profit tax (32%). The projects have likewise been freed from their regional taxes. The decision to free the companies from local taxes has not yet been taken by the Nogliki district assembly. Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk municipal government has refused to free the companies from local taxes. While the money saved from local and regional taxes will increase the total profit of the projects and thus increase the amount of profit tax collected, (a) this money will go to the regional and federal budgets, not directly to local district budgets, and (b) the estimated loss to the region as a whole will be $4,160 million US for Sakhalin I and $954 million US for Sakhalin II.*6.."

How much would the State have gotten for Shell's efforts if they would have been succesfull off-shore on the North Slope.

Moreover, the oil companies recoup their agreed initial investment before Russia gets any taxes....

Deora to seek higher stake in Sakhalin oil, gas projects or Shtokman.

Russia's Putin phones Norway PM on Shtokman project participation - PM's office

What the people of Alaska should be asking is who is paying for these consultants from the UK.

Governor Palin a dangerous game is being played with Alaska's economy. Ask them how close did Gazprom get to buying out Centrica and ask them who controls the LNG shipping for the U.K.

If you want Alaska to get in the game, your administration should be talking with Blackstone Group about Sempra. And setting up a partnership with Conoco and others on the heavy oil.

October 19, 2007 - 8:14am | tlamb775


to Stags: The sky is blue, what color is it from where you are ................................. higher taxes means what?

Less investment for jobs...........

(Stags smacks forehead with hand) Duh. Having a little problem with reading comprehension?

Let me put it in simple terms. Van Meurs in Alberta agreed on some terms that it was okay to raise royalties.

Exact opposite of what is being said here in philosophical terms ( a royalty is a tax). However those who know better have said there will be job losses.

Both he and Daniel (taxes don't affect production) Johnston are paid by those who want to hear what they want to hear.

October 19, 2007 - 7:09pm | tlamb775


let's tax the hell of of them. Then we can see if you are right.

I hope you don't own a house. Evidently you didn't during the crash in 1985-86.

The 90 per barrel oil is inflated by foreign investment. The weak dollar. You see all of those new projects overseas are being paid for by you and me at the pump and in the toy department at the local box store.

China and Venezuela in Orinoco and the Sakhalin Field in Russia are going to beat us. Yes we Americans are smart. We are paying to build and help our competition.

SEIC to boost Sakhalin 2 liquefaction capacity

When the investors say they had enough profit making on the weak dollar and oil futures and they pull their money.

Well you will finally get to see how it all works.

What Fagan said on October 21, 2007 two days after the posting on the ADN about Pedro van Muers.


We compete globally for investment


Published: October 21, 2007
Last Modified: October 21, 2007 at 03:48 AM

I've got some good news and bad news. Trouble is the good news is not so good and the bad news is really bad.

First the good news: Alaska has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and the demand for it is expected to rise sharply in the next 25 years.

The bad news: We may have already blown our chance to get our gas to market in time to beat our competition.

On Thursday oil consultant Pedro Van Meurs testified before members of the Legislature. He shocked the packed room by saying, because of dramatic cost increases, the proposed North Slope natural gas pipeline no longer makes financial sense.

Granted, the hearing offered dueling consultants with Daniel Johnston disputing Van Meurs' claim. But Johnston's resume pales in comparison to Van Meurs'.

Van Meurs is clearly one of the world's top oil and gas consultants, with clients including the countries of China, Canada, Thailand, Guatemala, Russia, Bolivia, Gabon, Kuwait and Algeria. Van Meurs has never worked for Big Oil.

Two years ago Van Meurs predicted even if the state did everything right, there was only a 70 percent chance producers would build the Alaska gas pipeline. He warned delaying would hurt our chances even more.

But delay we did and now, according to Van Meurs, our chances of getting our gas to market in a timely manner went from 70 percent to almost zero.

Van Meurs warned of the risks of the project. Producers would have to commit to shipping more than $100 billion worth of gas regardless of the tariff.

If the price of gas dropped sharply as it is prone to do, it could put a company like Conoco Phillips out of business. The project is that big and risky.

Gov. Frank Murkowski's approach focused on removing as much risk as possible for the producers. He was vilified as being pro oil.

The Legislature, fearing the same label, killed the contract.

The previous contract needed tweaking, and it did not guarantee a pipeline. But with it we were a lot closer to the place where the producers could give the risky project a green light.

My dad always told me it takes money to make money. Nothing could be truer when it comes to oil and gas production.

But when oil prices skyrocket, so does the cost of getting oil and gas to market.

Drilling rigs are scarce. Engineers, geologists and petroleum specialists are in critically short supply. According to a recent study, discovery and development costs -- a key indicator for the industry -- tripled from 1999 to 2006.

On PBS's nationally televised talk show hosted by Charlie Rose, Gov. Sarah Palin reaffirmed her belief the oil companies don't want to get our gas to market because they have other options globally competing with Alaska's gas.

Well, of course they have other options. It's the governor's job to make Alaska more competitive for investment.

In the 2005, oil companies Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips and BP earned a startling $35 billion in profits. Add Shell to the mix and the number grows to $43 billion.

Anti-oil populists would cite these numbers to demonize the industry. But they should offer us great encouragement. We have four major oil companies willing to invest and do business in Alaska. These companies know how to make money. When they make money, we make money.

We may have blown our chance to get our gas to market in the near future. But we still can extend the life of the trans-Alaska pipeline by extracting expensive heavy oil and drilling offshore.

But thanks to a lawsuit filed in part by the North Slope Borough, a fleet of ships contracted by Shell formerly parked off the western coast of Alaska ready to extend the life of the trans-Alaska pipeline are now heading to other parts of the world.

And our Legislature is meeting as we speak to consider raising taxes for a third time in three years.

Van Meurs said that move would make Alaska a basket case of instability.

My fellow Alaskans, I ask you to consider one simple question: What are we doing to make ourselves more attractive for investment?

What are we doing to ourselves?

What I said when all was said and done on November 19,2007.

November 19, 2007 - 8:36pm | tlamb775

A Change of Heart?

Stelmach slams review panel for tax recommendation

"...Premier Ed Stelmach has criticized his own government-appointed review panel for recommending a new tax on oilsands production - a tax the government has rejected.

Stelmach stood in the legislature and compared the recommended severance tax to the much-hated national energy program that was seen as devastating Alberta's economy in the 1970s.

Stelmach says the energy program drove Albertans out of the province, caused businesses to go broke and left some people unable to pay their mortgages.

It was the first time the premier has been openly critical of the review panel, which he created to fulfil one of his major campaign promises during last fall's Tory leadership race."

Governor Palin, it didn't take him long to see what is in Alberta's future..........................

His change in heart is based on what may happen in Alberta's future and it may happen real soon. Alberta will now have to compete with Saskatchewan.

The legislation in the U.S. Congress on heavy oil and the possible lawsuit that is moving along against the tar sands development has cause for concern.

How many days has it been since they increased their taxes and he states this?

Alberta oilsands growth forecast cut

"...Kyle Preston, analyst at Salman Partners in Calgary, said the lower oilsands forecast came as no surprise.

A combination of cost increases and recent uncertainty over environmental issues and Alberta’s royalty rates “have caused a lot of companies to step back and wait until these things are sorted out”, Mr Preston said."

Note to Dan Fagan: Pedro Van Meurs was the one who suggested the increase in the taxes. "Know them by their works"

And last but not least: The fun is over

No comments: