You are hereBegich proposes new layer of regulatory complexity for offshore drilling:Could significantly delay Alaska prosperity
Begich proposes new layer of regulatory complexity for offshore drilling:Could significantly delay Alaska prosperity
By Dave Harbour
Alaska's natural resources are natural treasures, from environmental and economic perspectives. I hope our new U.S. senator successfully balances Alaska's resource potential with appropriate environmental, national security and consumer considerations.
In particular, the federal Minerals Management Service estimates our outer continental shelf holds 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of gas. Developed, this resource would make Alaska the eighth largest oil producer, ahead of Nigeria, Libya, Russia and Norway.
But without these resources, Alaskans face a downward spiraling supply of jobs and career opportunities. Alaska depends on Chukchi and Beaufort resources to some day sustain the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and fill a North Slope gas pipeline ... and for thousands of jobs. America counts on us, too. The oil and gas potential in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas rivals that of the Gulf of Mexico.
Yet in draft legislation circulating for comment as part of his five "Arctic Climate Change Initiatives." Sen. Begich proposed adding a new layer of regulatory complexity to the already demanding federal regulatory system. The draft bill would establish, "an Arctic Regional Citizens' Advisory Council (RCAC) to encourage citizen engagement and oversight of the effective and safe development of Arctic energy resources."
Sound reasonable?
It's not.
Alaska has other advisory councils, created at different times for different purposes with different missions, as the Daily News noted in its Sunday editorial. But this particular advisory council, as proposed, could delay Alaska prosperity, worsen the existing regulatory structure and increase costs to consumers and taxpayers.
How?
It could adopt "recommendations" on "all aspects of energy development in the Arctic." It includes 20 voting members (from Arctic boroughs and villages and from seal, walrus, whale, whale-hunting, tourism, and environmental organizations) and 11 non-voting "expert" members from state and federal government agencies.
Federal or state agencies and energy companies must reply to the new commission's recommendations within two weeks -- a new regulatory, legal and public relations hurdle.
Arctic energy companies must participate in RCAC meetings, "in good faith." The commission would be immune from lawsuits, and it would persist for the lifetime of Arctic energy development.
The new commission's budget is a minimum of $5 million, to be paid by the very energy companies that must participate "in good faith." This potpourri of special interests would be self-governing, have its own staff, get paid per diem and meet at least quarterly. Since the commission would be self governing, that budget is not very limited.
America has the most demanding oil and gas regulatory and environmental requirements in the world. Special interests now share their loud voices and opinions through multiple review processes. Some groups add further complexity through endless legal action such as that which has current Chukchi and Beaufort sea exploration hog-tied.
Instead of creating another layer of complication, let's consider adopting legislation that expedites the permitting and legal processes, as Congress did in the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004. There, judicial review is limited and a federal coordinator is named to improve efficiency of the regulatory process.
Sen. Begich's Web page describes an Alaska trip he is organizing for Barbara Boxer (Committee on Environment and Public Works) and colleague senators in August. "Since the day I arrived in the Senate," he notes, "my colleagues have been suggesting a trip to Greenland to witness climate change first-hand. I keep reminding them that Alaska is ground-zero for the impacts of global warming ... ."
I hope our senator is also bringing his colleagues north to give them a balanced view of the ground-zero natural resource wealth Alaska offers the nation.
I'd be honored to join Sen. Begich in an effort to balance environmental concerns, legal challenges and consumer values with a natural resources agenda that supports prosperity of Alaska's economy and America's families. I believe that thousands of other caring Alaskans -- and Americans everywhere -- share that sentiment.
Dave Harbour is a retired member of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska; and a former chairman of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.
What is Senator Begich's education level?
.....and it will end badly for Alaska if implemented.
Ah, another gimmick for extorting money from the oil industry under the guise of citizen involvement & protecting the planet. Heaven knows there aren't enough of those already.
Harbour's comments are to be expected from someone who believes that corporate interests are paramount. It was a very successful position in the 19th century and for most of the 20th.
He needs to get used to Begich. Begich will be around for five and a half more years, and likely much longer than that.
Mark did a fine job as Mayor and I have no question that he will do a fine one as senator. I don't always agree with him, on issues such as the tailings dump in a Juneau-area lake, or his uncommitted stance on Sotomayor's appointment, but he was a leader among U.S. mayors in his environmental initiatives, even more so than Knowles before him.
Yes, I believe Alaskans should have a voice in the development of our resources. But it appears to me that this proposal is a little over the top and more restrictive than necessary.
More Markie idiocy on behalf of his party's ideology at the expense of Alaska. Open your eyes people! The 3724 of you who voted for Gebich over the now exonerated Stevens should hang their heads in shame. He's being a good boy and doing what he's told, not what Alaska needs. Please remember next time and UN-elect him.
Stevens was convicted by a jury of 12 peers. The evidence against him was overwhelming, consisting of his own records, of audiotapes, wiretaps, and the testimony of friends and associates.
He was only tried for offenses that happened in DC because half of all Alaskans would rather believe that he was Robin Hood, looking out for them all when he was doing was letting have at the crumbs off the table where people such as the Usibelli family dined in majestic splendor.
He was convicted by his own wiretapped words: "We'll have to round up a bunch of money for lawyers, maybe pay a fine, serve a little time."
"Exonerated?" Fat chance. The prosecution was flawed, inept, but not wrong, and the case of an 85-year-old cranky old man was dismissed with prejudice. Contrast the case of O.J. Simpson who was acquitted but there was so little doubt that he killed his wife and her friend that a civil jury examining the same facts found him liable.
Please spare us the science fiction.
Ted's a crook. Hopefully they'll get Ben.
So any specifics on the "Usibelli family dining in majestic splendor" or are you just throwing mud?
Uncle Ted's relationship with his client, the Usibelli family, precedes his appointment as Senator.
20 years ago they were running regular ads on TV, with pictures of flowering hillsides, women in diaphanous dresses. They weren't selling us their low-grade, wet coal. They were setting us up for the sting.
It was the same old scam. Think Delta Barley, Seward Grain Terminal, Pt. McKenzie and Mat-Maid Dairy, Alaska Seafoods, Kodiak Launch Facility, Ft. Greely worthless anti-ballistic missile basing and of course, the Bridge to Nowhere. It was the AIDEA ratholes.
Ketchikan didn't need "room to grow." It needed to fill its empty mills, canneries and support industries. Unsustainable fishing and logging practices, promoted enthusastically by Ted (and profiting Ben, in particular) with help from Murky had killed those industries. Gravina Island would have given them a bit more room to do nothing.
Who do you think got to build that stuff? Do you think VECO might have had a piece of that action?
Even that nitwit Vic Kohring got that, although he tried to take care of his own patron, Marc Marlowe, in the McKay Building and Polaris Hotel hustles.
That Healy plant is so worthless, they literallycouldn't give it away recently, when Homer Electric turned them down. Golden Valley (thank you Mike Kelly) ratepayers will long be picking up part of that tab.
I'm not throwing mud. I'm being charitable.
We still don't know exactly what evidence was withheld from Senator Stevens' defense counsel. Mr. Skeptic, you have no knowledge of the missing evidence and no knowledge of why the jury acted as it did. Guilt or innocence is ONLY determined after a full and complete trial, which includes ALL the relevant evidence. You may offer your opinion on Senator Stevens' guilt or innocence but is is ONLY an opinion based on cherry-picking the evidence that is reported in the Anchorage Daily News. Thank God our criminal justice process requires exponentially more. You are clever. I expect that you are very self-satisfied. You are also wrong. Grow up.
We know what the Stevens jury was thinking because Stevens jurors gave extensive interviews.
You seem to be the one who is proceeding to conclusions without bothering to have actual evidence.
Wow, who is the "we" you speak about? Speak for yourself and call it good; you certainly don't speak for me.
I am certain that individual jurors could say many things, and then those comments could be wonderfully translated and consolidated by a newspaper reporter. They mean nothing. Speaking from experience, it is quite a different thing to engage in group decision-making. Individual perspectives come together in interesting and surprising ways.
Mr. Skeptic, you seem very anxious to substitute your evaluation of a case that neither you nor anyone else ever heard. It probably drives you nuts to know that some people resist your efforts.
Absent the verdict, the case against Senator Stevens no longer exists, unless and until he is re-indicted. Sorry hon.
There was extensive discussion about the jury process, even before it came in with a verdict. You'll possibly recall, though you seem to selective memory problems, that one juror was next to impossible to get along with, disruptive, and that Judge Sullivan was able to resolve the situation with an admonition. Another took off for the funeral of an undead relative, actually to watch a horse race in California. But the remaining ten were possessed of unanimity from early on and were joined in that by a reserve juror. So if some of them expressed their similar feelings in post-verdict interviews, we can conclude that theirs was likely a collective conclusion.
You seem to have trouble with dealing with facts that don't match your opinions. Of course whatever proof I might present will no more be accepted by you than anti-evolutionists can accept that hundreds of millions of years of fossil and geologic electromagnetic record clearly and conclusively establish the fact that the world is not slightly more than 6,000 years old.
Your belief is a matter of faith, not reason, so there's no point in further discussion with you.
Politicians have addressed your problem for hundreds of years.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Senator and ex-UN Ambassador
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." President John Adams
At the very least, perhaps you could follow this advice: "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." Mark Twain
Bottom line is that Ted's a crook. Granted, his verdict has been set aside, but he is no more innocent, as I've commented, than was O.J. of murder, or was Bush's buddy Kenny Boy Lay, whose conviction remained on appeal at his death and saved his estate from fiscal consequences of his crimes.
Had Ted been tried in Alaska for all his crimes committed in state, it is unlikely that he would have been convicted because so many share your attitude: "The facts be damned." However, it is equally unlikely that he would have been acquitted. A hung jury would have almost certainly resulted from any Alaska prosecution.
If you don't have money, you're less likely to get justice. I'll wager that this kind of crap goes on at every level, every day. But it never makes the light of day unless you're among the rich and powerful. In this case their was a federal agent to blow the whistle. That is the exception not the rule
Wrong again Skeptic. Stevens is legally an innocent man, period. Sour grapes will get you nowhere. And your obfuscations about the evidence are laughable. You naively believe the position of a corrupt prosecution. Sorry you're so biased and blinded.
Too bad your Schumer-instigated attack failed to crucify Ted in the end, aided by an assist by Obama your Messiah's AG. Unfortunately the damage is done and the Dems unscrupulous strategy ousted an innocent man from the Senate and allowed a 60 vote majority now wih the addition of Franken, the failed SNL comic. Conservatives, who have a moral foundation, are always harder on their own than Liberals, who have no moral absolutes in their lives. Witness the ongoing calls for South Carolina's governor to resign and the hypocritical rhetoric that certainly wasn't applied to Willy Clinton or John Edwards. Spare me your moral outrage.
Hey spare me.
Al Franken is hardly a "failed" SNL comic. His net worth on his Senate financial disclosure form is between $4.3 and $9.6 million. He performend on and wrote the show for 15 years, during its heyday.
Franken has written five NY Times bestsellers, three of which hit #1. That's probably way more books than Sarah Palin has read in her lifetime.
At first disclosure, virtually no South Carolina Republicans called for Mark Sanford's resignation. As one noted, Sanford's Lt. Governor could be expected to have an even more catastrophic tenure than Sanford and have a leg up on running for governor next year. As he's continued his pathetic appearances, however, almost half of the Republican state senators have signed a letter urging Sanford to resign. State Democrats are merely sitting back and enjoying the circus.
While Republicans are clearly not the only hypocrites in Congress and in State Houses, they clearly dominate the All Star, Supremely Sanctimonious "A-Team." Do the names Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Bob Livingston, Dave Drier, Vito Fosella, Mark Foley, Henry Hyde, Ed Schrock, Charles Canady, Duke Cunningham, Jim Gibbons, Sue Myrick, Joe Scarborough, Bill Thomas (FL), Rod Grams, David Vitter, Jim Kolbe, Strom Thurmond, John Ensign, Larry Craig, John McCain ring a bell? Which one, if any, did not call for and or vote for Bill Clinton's resignation or impeachment? Which one, if any, did not screw around on their wives? Which two are not married but in gay relationships? Which married ones screwed around with other men? Which ones patronized prostitutes?
Okay, for bonus points, what Senator made this statement, explaining his vote for impeachment?: "On the first day of this trial, as I watched the Chief Justice take the chair, I was angry--profoundly angry that this president had brought this nation to this point because of his own self-gratification, setting what was good for himself above what was good for the nation. It is unconscionable what the president has put the country through, continues to put the country through, and will continue to put the country through for his own personal and political ends."
Rightly so, because the REPUBLICAN prosecution failed miserably and broke the law. It was a DEMOCRATIC administration that corrected the situation.
How do you figure any of this was a Democrats "unscrupulous strategy"? The investigation and prosecution was completely under the Bush Administration.
So are you saying Liberal Christians have no morals?
And in regards to Governor Sanford
"Calls for Sanford’s resignation gained additional momentum Wednesday, with more of the governor’s former allies lining up against him.
“There’s just no way he’ll be able to continue as governor,” said Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, a Gaffney Republican. “I’m really concerned about his mental well-being.”
Sanders said “the only person that still supports Sanford today is in Argentina."
Yeah, it looks like the Democrats really have it in for him.
It was DEMOCRAT Brenda Morris who framed Stevens and it was DEMOCRAT Judge Sullivan who allowed it to happen in his courtroom:
http://alaskadispatch.com/tundra-talk/9-talk-of-the-tundra/596-the-corrupt-unethical-prosecution-of-senator-ted-stevens
And:
in their filing on Wednesday, government lawyers said they had recently learned that trial prosecutors had concealed from Mr. Stevens’s defense lawyers the notes from a 2008 interview with Mr. Allen that raised significant doubts about the charges. Among other things, Mr. Allen asserted in the interview that the work on the Stevens home was worth only about $80,000, they said.
Mr. Stevens’s lawyers argued during the trial that the senator had been unaware of the help he received from Mr. Allen and had not intentionally concealed anything. Mr. Allen, the prosecution’s chief witness, provided forceful testimony intended to demonstrate that Mr. Stevens had been fully aware of what he received and had even signaled that he wanted it concealed.
Mr. Holder said in a statement that “I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/us/politics/02stevens.html
I don't have access to registration records for the District of Columbia or Virginia or Maryland, if that's where Sullivan or Morris live. However, Morris achieved her position in a Republican administration that was notorious for partisanship. Brad Schlozmann, in charge of turning the Department into a Republican campaign tool, lied to congress about that partisanship and the DOJ's Inspector General recommended his prosecution. Only Bush's appointed USAG for the District quashed the charges that should have been brought.
Morris became a federal prosecutor during the GHWB administration and was promoted twice during Dubya's tenure.
Judge Sullivan repeatedly excoriated Morris and the rest of the prosecution team for their ineptitude during the trial. Are you the only person in Alaska unaware of that? His castigation of the prosecution was almost unheard of. That doesn't seem to matter to you, though, as he's one of the players in your fantasy plot.
There was plenty of testimony about Stevens' behavior that was clearly corrupt during the trial. This included the report of the conversation between Bob Perry and Bill Allen that Stevens didn't want to actually pay a bill, he just wanted some paperwork to cover his butt in case questions might be asked.
One of the biggest items of contention that Stevens' attorney harped on was the prosecution's return of Rocky Williams to Alaska before he was put on the stand. The prosecution certainly should have explained itself and notified the defense, which had not subpoenaed Williams, but neglected to do so and caught hell for it. In matter of plain fact, however, Williams was in no condition to testify and was clearly in the end stages of liver failure. When I read and heard reports of his condition at the courthouse, I guessed he would probably be dead within six weeks. He instead lasted about ten weeks. One of the more prominent symptoms of such a condition is what is known as "brain fog." The victim is unable to concentrate, is confused about everything, etc. He would not have been a helpful witness for the prosecution NOR the defense. If they didn't send him back with an escort to Alaska, I'm surprised he didn't die while sitting for days in the Larry Craig Memorial bathroom at MSP airport.
Most of Stevens' "alleged" crimes were committed and would to have had to be prosecuted in Alaska. But because of people like yourself, "JimAK," who believe Ted is really the reincarnation of Robin Hood, they knew they couldn't get a conviction if they had video of Ted holding a gun to Allen's head while emptying his money belt, or caught him crawling around on the floor scrambling for hundreds Bill dropped to humiliate him, like he did Kohring.
Give it a rest. Stevens is no more "innocent" than was Jack Ruby, of whom the New York Times persisted in calling the "alleged" killer of Lee Harvey Oswald until his death of cancer. Ruby, like Uncle Ted, was convicted only to have the conviction overturned. He died before he could be retried.
Senator Stevens acknowledged that what they were doing may have legal consequences for them.
Would the verdict have been different with proper disclosure? I don't know, and neither do you. The prosecutors broke a rule, a technical violation of the law. Like not giving Miranda rights. Unlike others I hope they don't bring new charges against him.
On 06/23/07 I wrote:
"I have voted for Stevens and Young every chance I’ve had since 1978. Back in the day, you may have even caught me working on their campaigns. I have gone to them for help with federal agencies, and their staffs have always responded promptly and courteously. I appreciate all they have done for Alaska and the country. Particularly I appreciate all of the money they have brought to Alaska as funding for so many projects, services and agencies. I’m not going to criticize them now for doing what I have praised them for in the past. Their longevity in office as provided them with powerful committee assignments and leadership positions that have served Alaska well. I’ll be very disheartened if the accusations, innuendo and controversy surrounding them now, turn into actual criminal charges or worse yet, convictions in the future."
That statement is true to this day. Although I didn't vote for either Stevens or Young in the last election. Not because of any controversy, just because I think it was time for a change.
Neither you, nor anyone else, has any context for Stevens taped comments which supposed implicate himself. You have no idea what the conversation was about, just the strip quote. That's the exact way any journalist can bias a quote- by not including the entire context. Tired, tired old argument.
Exhibit 650: October 18, 2006
"STEVENS: Well but, you got to, you got to just stand back and say what's going to happen when it's all over. You got to get a mental attitude that these guys can't really hurt us. You know, they're not going shoot us. It's not Iraq. What the hell? The worst that can be done, the worst that can happen to us is we round up a bunch of legal fees and, and might lose and we might have to pay a fine, might have to serve a little time in jail. I hope to Christ it never gets to that, but, and I don't think it will. But I don't, I'm developing the attitude that I don't think I did anything wrong so I'm going to go right through my life and keep doing what I think is right."
You can read all the transcripts and/or listen to the recordings in their entirety. I suggest you do so. May keep you from appearing to be an idiot.
Been there, read that. You read those words and assume what is at work as an inner motive, because of your pre-existing bias. You are jury, judge and executioner in your heart. You HAVE NO IDEA of the context or flavor of the conversation that strip quote came from. This happens in journalism all the time. You don't know if Stevens was speaking an intentional absurdity or being sarcastic or playing a role. He could also have been trying to encourage a friend who was shaken up by Fed threats and was asking "what's the worst that can happen?" My point is you can play those words in your mind with different intonations and one way sounds guilty and another doesn't.
If I sit down with friends at lunch and say "I just want to strangle this Obama guy:." and someone records me and plays that line for the Secret Service, I may be in trouble If the Secret Service also knew my lines immediately prior to that were "Man, I sure love everything about this new president, but his statements on Honduras piss me off.:" or if I was talking about the presidents Kenyan half-brother, the feds would laugh the recorder out of their office. You look at quotes like this as evidence and don't seek the true context of the conversation, you just latch onto it as something you can spin for your cause. Just like the corrupt prosecution- pathetic.
Now, I'm sure you'll accuse me of being a blind follower, a pollyanna, whatever. You Liberal zealots can't change and words are wasted on you to that end. The point of this thread originally was to call out Begich's actions, which in my estimation will continue to respond to the Dem party over and above his obligation to Alaskans. The challenge our high school grad sets for himself is to appear just conservative enough to his Red state consituents to keep is butt from getting tossed after 1 term.
Did you listen to the entire conversation? If you did and still don't understand the context of the conversation then I have to question your analytical abilities.
Give me any reasonable explanation of that conversation that doesn't include the fact that they knew they were doing things that others would think was illegal.
It will take a lot more than reading transcripts or listening to the audio recordings to convince MtnBiker that Uncle Ted isn't a misunderstood Santa Claus.
He will continue to look like an idiot because he IS an idiot.
You Libs ultimately can't make it thru a conversation without devolving to personal attacks and mockery, can you.? Emperor and Skeptic- two peas in a pod.
You wrote: "You have no idea what the conversation was about, just the strip quote."
It isn't just the "the strip quote". I provided you a link to the entire conversations transcripts and recordings for you to have the context. I suggested you read/listen to them so you WOULD NOT appear to be an idiot. Now if you have read the entire transcript or listened to the entire conversation and you still don't get the "context" then you truly are an idiot. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but I just call 'em the way I see 'em.
MtnBiker is complaining about personal attacks, immediately after writing the following characterizations of other AK Standard readers:
"zealots"
"libs"
"Liberals have no moral absolutes"
"Naive, biased, blinded"
"Obama your Messiah"
But he goes beyond just smearing other AK Standard readers, with widespread personal attacks, mocking and pejoratives, substituting emotions for actual facts:
"Markie idiocy"
"Gebich"
Mental health workers, when evaluating subjects whose faculties are in question, ask them a series of questions. One that psychotics rarely can answer correctly is to tell the meaning of this aphorism. "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones." Do you know what that means, MtnBiker?
Here's another presidential quote you may find helpful in your situation:
"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
I can't wait for his response. It should be interesting if nothing else.
to Democrats and Democrat constituencies. Yawn.
Art Chance has a long history of negativism in his career and his retirement as well. As a Democrat, he organized against Republicans. As a Republican, he did the same against Democrats. As a labor commissioner he worked against employees. After retirement he represented them. His positions on everything seem to be infinitely malleable, depending on who's signing his checks, but he can also be counted on to have few positive words about anything or anyone.
I got over being a Democrat when I was in my twenties; it's that young and dumb thing. If you're still one after you own a home, you're an idiot. If you never own a home, you're a Democrat and an idiot.
I was never "labor commissioner," get your facts straight. And I don't hide behind a screen name, and I'm easy to find. I take work that interests me and in which I think somebody is right, don't much care if it is the union, the employer, or whatever as long as the checks cash.
...and you're still a Republican then you are an idiot. I started out as a Republican and I've seen what a destructive force they are. How they work to divide people by classes. How they don't give a rat's ass about anything or anybody as long as they get theirs. I hope you all get yours in the end, both figuratively and literally.
that you're an idiot. You are a part of the fact that we now have 52% of America who have achived a medieval level of ignorance and superstition. Enjoy the new Dark Age of Hopey Changey.
Well this is a laughable contention, Chance.
For instance, the states where McCain/Palin did best were those where voters displayed the least education. In Kansas, for instance, where the former state school board tried to stop the teaching of evolution, 55% or so of the voters didn't believe in it. Sarah, of course, famously doesn't believe in evolution. She claimed to have seen a photograph where the fossilized footprints of "men" were alongside those of dinosaurs. In the "Creation Museum" in Petersburg, Kentucky, you can see animatronic dinosaurs with saddles, because the fundys believe they rode them out like George Bush herding cattle. (Joke: George Bush was afaid of horses and didn't ride.)
Sarah also doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming.
I'm not sure there's any evidence that she's ever read a book. Her supporters tend in that direction.
Look at some of the other nonsense they believe:
"Obama is a Muslim."
"Obama wasn't born in the U.S."
I suspect that a good many believe that the moon landing was faked and some that the world is flat.
That's a better definition for Conservative Christians, it's called medieval religion.
"Enjoy the new Dark Age of Hopey Changey."
Yeah because it's better to have no hope? If you don't think we need change you're insane. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" ~ Albert Einstein
Looks like he (Art Chance) must be a Republican again by this comment. Too bad he has forgotten it was the Republicans that the money was being channeled to through VECO...guess they didn't sign a check for him