Keep in mind, all the corruption of the Interior Department under Bush. Most of the lands where these gas and oil supplies exist in the USA already have leases, whether they should or not.
At any rate, the map below is generated by the USGS (click here). It clearly states there are more than ample natural resources of gas and oil in the continental USA. The amount of oil and gas in Alaska is minuscule compared to those of the mainland USA. The cost of the Alaskan Pipeline II is a waste of money, needless to say, an unnecessary danger to the Arctic environment. There really isn't any rocket science here to understand the brevity of the lies of Palin. It is Alaskan corruption all over again.
Have a better day and more balanced USA budget.
The Alaskan Pipeline II is a PORK barrel project, masked as an Energy Project. Last I heard Canada was an ally of the USA. Ever get the feeling that the Alaskan Republicans speak out of both sides of their mouths. Sell a government plane, but, ask for billions for a project that is not needed. Sound right?
Stimulus monies are bad, but, spending NEW monies of Pork is good. Sounds like Bush is still in the Oval Office.
The Mackenzie Gas Project (click title to entry - thank you) is a proposed 1220-kilometre natural gas pipeline system along the Mackenzie Valley of Canada's Northwest Territories to connect northern onshore gas fields with North American markets.
N.W.T. fears pipeline guarantee for Alaska (click here)
By Jeffrey Jones, Reuters
May 25, 2009
CALGARY - The Northwest Territories is worried a little-noticed plan to boost U.S. federal loan guarantees for an Alaska gas pipeline to $30 billion US could raise yet another impediment to the construction of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Bob McLeod, the territory’s minister of industry, tourism and investment, said he will ask the senior Canadian politician in charge of the Mackenzie project to talk to U.S. officials about the proposal to boost the backstop by two-thirds, as spelled out in a comprehensive energy bill.
Backers of the $16.2-billion Mackenzie line through the territory have said the project could face years of delay if the larger Alaska pipeline moves forward first.
Neither has begun construction, despite decades of planning.
I believe if the USA wants to spend monies on these type of natural resources, it should be a joint effort by both countries. That sounds like RESPONSIBLE infrastructure spending to me.
“We’re following up on whether the playing field is still level or not, or whether it’s changing with regard to the loan guarantees that have been proposed in the United States,” McLeod said in an interview.
He plans to meet with Environment Minister Jim Prentice in the coming weeks to discuss the issue, and travel to Washington in June to learn more about the one sentence concerning the Alaska pipeline in the National Energy Security Act.
The provision would boost the loan guarantee for an Alaska pipeline from the current $18 billion US. The bill was introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, in April.
If we don't have to spend $18 billion than why spend it? If half the burden can be shared by Canada and a single project gleened from such cooperation, then why is it that Alaska is competing with an ally?
TransCanada Corp. has Alaska’s blessing for its plan to build a $26-billion US pipeline to Alberta from the state’s North Slope. Its chief executive, Hal Kvisle, told Reuters in December he wanted Washington to increase the loan guarantee because inflation had cut the value of the current amount.
The pipeline should never be built. It is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Additionally there are Native American territories involved when the pipeline turns south to become a Trans-USA pipeline as well. None of it is necessary. We need alternatives and if there needs to be a gas supply, then share the cost with Canada for a pipeline to the coast for export by ship.
The Mackenzie project, led by Imperial Oil Ltd., is already beset with regulatory delays, high costs and now the threat of cheaper shale gas supplies located much closer to markets in both Canada and the United States.
Late last year the regulatory panel weighing the social and environmental impacts of the project said it aimed to deliver its report by December 2009, months past the previous target.
Meanwhile, Imperial and its partners are negotiating with Ottawa over a fiscal package, which Prentice offered early this year, under which the government would pick up the bill for roads, airstrips and other infrastructure as well as other aspects of the project.
Mackenzie would run 1,220 kilometres through the Northwest Territories to the Alberta border from the Mackenzie Delta on the Beaufort Sea coast.
It is seen as a development that would open up a new gas supply region for North America and make an important contribution to economic development in Canada’s sparsely populated far North.
McLeod said his biggest fear is that more delays will leave the project vulnerable to being “overtaken by events.”
Some analysts have said it may be cheaper and quicker to develop trillions of cubic feet of gas trapped in shale formations in such locales as Texas, Louisiana and British Columbia.
The infrastructure already exists in these locations and does not interfere with Polar Bears or Native American lands.
In addition, the continent’s capacity to import liquefied natural gas from the Middle East and elsewhere is growing.
“Despite all that, there’s still a need for Arctic natural gas from both Mackenzie and Alaska, in our view, as long as the Mackenzie pipeline goes first,” McLeod said.
TransCanada itself faces competition in its plan for an Alaska pipeline, in the form of the Denali project proposed by North Slope Gas producers BP PLC and ConocoPhillips.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
The INFRASTRUCTURE is already available at the Beauford Sea. The pipeline is a rip off, besides it being an environmental disaster for many.
Apex Says Drilling to Begin in Beaufort Sea/Mackenzie Delta (click here)
Monday, December 13, 2004 (All this took place under Bush and Cheney)Apex Resources Group Inc. announced that, after a twenty-year quiet period, drilling is beginning in the Beaufort Sea/Mackenzie Delta area where in June 1997, Apex Resources Group Inc. purchased a 3.745% working interest in the Beaufort Sea Area Well known as Itiyok 1-27 consisting of 640 acres containing reserves of 108 billion cubic feet of gas and recoverable oil reserves of 8.976 MM barrels. The best current estimate of the total discovered resource in the basin is 1.01 billion barrels of oil and 9.00 trillion cubic feet of gas according to the National Energy Board of Canada.
With oil ranging at $50.00 per barrel and gas close to $7.00 per 1,000 cubic feet, Apex interest in proven reserves would be 45 Million Dollars and with an additional potential to be drilled out would represent 323 Million Dollars. Once the pipeline is completed and on-line, it will be a tremendous cash flow to Apex Resources Group Inc....
ARCTIC
VOL. 55, SUPP. 1 (2002) P. iii–v
The Beaufort Sea Conference 2000 on the Renewable Marine Resources of the Canadian Beaufort Sea (click here)
G. BURTON AYLES,1 ROBERT BELL1 and HELEN FAST2
...This special issue of the journal Arctic presents the formal scientific papers on each resource species or group and the presentation by Inuvialuit elder Billy Day. The paragraphs below summarize the conference discussions under the four themes, as well as the discussions of the youth delegation.
The Canadian Beaufort Sea region pioneered and put into practice the theory of co-management in the Canadian Arctic, beginning with the signing of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in 1984 and the Gwich’in Final Agreement eight years later. Workshop discussions considering the role of co-management of renewable resources in this region focused on the following challenges for the future:...
The Alaskan Pipeline II will interfer with the well being of Polar Bears.
U.S. Protects Polar Bears Under Endangered Species Act (click here)
The Interior Department lists the polar bear as a "threatened" species--one at risk of becoming endangered--due to dangerous declines in their sea ice habitat
By Larry Greenemeier
The U.S. Department of the Interior Wednesday listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 based on evidence that the animal's sea ice habitat is shrinking and is likely to continue to do so over the next several decades. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, however, made clear several times during a press conference announcing the department's decision that, despite his acknowledgement that the polar bear's sea ice habitat is melting due to global warming, the ESA will not be used as a tool for trying to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for creating climate change....
