|
Stevens pans newspaper editorial on gas pipeline
by The Associated Press
A Wall Street Journal editorial has eroded congressional support for a proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, said U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens.
House and Senate negotiators working on the national energy bill agreed in mid-September to mandate a southern route, carrying the North Slope gas through Alaska on its way to markets in the Lower 48. Alaska’s political leaders favor that route.
But a “malicious” editorial Sept. 19 in the Journal — titled “Alaska’s Pipe Dream” — reopened the matter, Stevens told the Anchorage Daily News.
“The agreement, we’re told, is off,” he said. “There is no agreement right now on the right of way.”
Incentives criticized The editorial criticized both the route requirement and a financial incentive package intended to encourage construction of the $20 billion project.
“If the bill passes with the (incentives), taxpayers will be on the hook for up to $20 billion in subsidies and another $10 billion in loan guarantees,” it says.
The Journal called the provisions “a political scam” and said the private sector should be free to choose the line that makes the most economic sense. Over-the-top route proponents thrilled with editorial A Texas-based consortium, Arctic Resources Co., has been pushing for the “over-the-top route” that would send the line under the Beaufort Sea and south through Canada. That northern route, the company says, is shorter and cheaper. It would also be able to transport gas from northern Canada.
The group is lobbying the congressional negotiators to ditch the gasline language Alaska is seeking.
A spokesman said Arctic Resources was thrilled the editorial brought attention to its perspective.
“Generally, no one pays attention to this provision because there are so many other issues in the bill,” Jack Jacobson said.
Alaska’s congressional delegation, the Legislature and Gov. Tony Knowles say piping gas under the Beaufort Sea would be an engineering nightmare and would prompt environmental objections that would tie the project up for decades.
Sending the line through Alaska would provide more economic benefits to Alaskans, they say. Alaska delegation scrambling Stevens, R-Alaska, said the delegation is trying to counter the editorial’s impact.
“We’re all trying to scramble to make sure that people understand that it is absolutely a disaster to think that anyone would agree to put the pipeline across the top of Canada,” he said.
Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, who is leading the charge for the gasline provisions, says the financial incentives would reduce the risk if gas prices drop but would not cost taxpayers because the tax credit would have to be paid back once the price rises.
Jacobson, the Arctic Resources spokesman, said gas prices are likely to stay low when Alaska gas hits the market and it could cost taxpayers plenty.
| 