How do people here feel about a Natural Gas Pipeline in Alaska

Alaska wants to bring it's very clean burning natural gas to the market and they want to do this via gas pipeline. They are getting the money from their permenent fund to give to the gas and oil industry for the developement of this pipeline. It is a needed source of very clean burning fuel which is very good for the environment and would help combat global warming. I understand that the oil/gas industry will reap billions but this is afterall America where companies can become very wealthy.. I personally am in favor of this project and most of the Democrats in the Senate are for it also as long as the Federal Government doesn't have to foot the bill. How about you guys here?

the pipe across the permafrost or better description, the melting permafrost.

... as if you're quoting some PR piece. Just to clarify--just because a fuel is "clean burning" doesn't mean it would "help combat global warming." In the case of natural gas, it's actually worse in that regard than some other fuels--both the raw product, methane, and the end result, carbon dioxide, are greenhouse gases, which make global warming worse, not better.

You don't mention where this pipeline is going, and you seem to think it's okay for a public entity to pay for it, nor is there any suggestion in what you say that if a public entity pays for it that that public entity will get some return for the expenditure.

All in all, I think giving very wealthy corporations public monies to do what they should be doing, anyway, is an immensely stupid practice.

Corporations should be 1). making as much profit as possible for their stockholders 2). staying with in the laws of the land. (note to Corporations, while under the Bush administration, rule 2 seems pretty optional, one hopes that in the long run it won't be).

I don't know that you can say that Corporatiosn should be doing any more than that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

... that. If you would read a bit more closely, I did say that the state shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing those corporations. Giving wealthy corporations public money is, as I said, immensely stupid.

I guess I must have misread this phrase "All in all, I think giving very wealthy corporations public monies to do what they should be doing . . . "

anyway. Obligations to stockholders, did you say? :)

Really, my central argument is the practice of giving away public money to induce private corporations to do what they can afford to do themselves and from which they will handsomely benefit.

This practice started a long time ago and has been going downhill (from the perspective of the taxpayer) ever since.

The state of Alaska proposes to give money to a private entity to build a pipeline. What would happen if Alaska decided to build that pipeline on its own land with its own funds for the benefit of its own citizens, much in the same way it now distributes oil royalties to Alaskans?

You can bet that every oil company in the world would be in court screaming that such a plan was anti-competitive. But, expect them to put up their own money, let the corporation take the risk (even though corporations began as risk-sharing ventures)? Oh, no. Can't do that....

Unions and others want a longer new line parallel to the oil pipeline to go down to a port, the LNG the gas by tankers. LNGs are floating bombs; at least the pipelines are underground. Pick yer poison but it's cheaper to go tie into existing lines in Canada both rail lines and natgas lines.

on Bill Moyer's NOW a few years back, tieing into the Canada line would be the most cost effective way to get the Gas to the center of the country , where the gas is needed most. A lot less miles of new pipeline would need to be built. However, there are problems when dealing with another country. The Alaska lobby is way too powerful , and they will NEVER let a tie in be built to the existing Canada Pipe. At least not under the Busheviks. The Irony of all this is, The Oil companies knew about all this back in the 70's . The Trans Alaska pipeline(TAP) saddles were built to hold three (3) pipes, the two extra pipes should have been put in place then . Our Government interfered with regulations and questionable environmental fines. This caused the project to go hundreds of millions over budget. Under looming bankruptcy due to the regulations , the project was scaled back to 1 pipe. Thus the problems we are faced with now. In the early days the oil companies used to burn off the Gas at the well head (think giant torches). Now they use 48 highly modified 747 jet turbines to pump the gas back into the pools. This over pressurizes the well and significantly slows natural production . Some of which we currently ship to Asia. The new pipe would not be underground as it parallels the TAP, it may go underground after it splits off. Either way it goes, The Government is licking it's chops , as it plots out the best way to rape the sheep. I suspect a lot of this is in the secret Cheney energy bill.

Sid