Yes, I made this. I think it says it all!
Natural Gas, brought to in part by Alaskans.
Freezing our asses off, so you don't have too!
Posts
The Last Full Measure of Devotion
1 year ago
Showing posts with label Oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Natural Gas and how it shall effect those outside of Alaska, such as Well Owners.
I am not sure how everyone feels about the new natural gas pipeline, concerning TransCanada or Exxon, as many who read this know I do not like Exxon for many reasons.
I and my good friend Rev. Paul decided to do a joint blog concerning this. He gives a good idea of what South Central Alaska is going to be going up against here in the next few years. And the sad part is that it is true. He also mentions things that another friend, explains further down the blog.
But, I decided that I wanted to know more, as I mainly work in oil. So I decided to contact my friend Jim, who happens to own a small but very steady little oil and gas company in Texas. He gave me some insight in how this will not just effect Alaska, but will also affect those who own gas wells across the United States, how it may actually rob more then gas and how it may also be used… as Alaskans will be losing a resource. Jim, wasn’t happy about this merger anymore then I.
Upinak: Jim, I know you are a busy guy. But if you don’t mind answering a small question on the TransCanada/Exxon deal, I would appreciate it.
With this new deal, is it going to lower the price of Natural Gas around the lower 48 now?
I have quite a few people asking me as to what may be the outcome.
Uppy
Jim: I always have time for the queen of the Great North!
There are a number of factors that are weighing down on the US natural gas market, with the Exxon/TransCanada deal being a fairly minor one.
Probably the number one thing is the rapidly approaching LNG issue. Exxon and a number of other internationals have invested many billions in the Persian Gulf natural gas LNG tanker infrastructure recently and Qatar will be shipping huge amounts of LNG later this year. Other projects are coming on line as well. There are huge gas fields in the Gulf, and very little of it has been marketed, until recently.
My friends who are in the gas business (oil and gas people don't get along - they are two entirely different mindsets) are very concerned. This is also reflected in the rapid decline of the drilling boom in the Newark Burnet Shale play in North Texas - the largest gas field in Texas, as well as the anemic state of the spot price of gas on the exchanges..
All this is wearing down the natural gas market and causing a lot of second-guessing. Moreover, Europe is looking for another gas source after the overreaching of the Russians last year. The LNG is expected to supply a quarter of their needs, minimizing the insecure Russian sources and the associated risks of relying on Putin for that critical fuel.
On the other hand, gas has a low profile as far as the Greenie-weenies are concerned (they are much more focused on coal and oil), and our need for it will only increase. But... the short-term pricing landscape for natural gas here in the States is not too good at the moment. The fear is palpable - which is not to say that it is entirely justified.
Thanks!
Jim
Upinak: Hey Jim,on this same subject. I was approached by someone today. With your knowledge... do you know what it would take (I am not familiar with tar sands) to use the PSI of the gas to scour the sticky sands, besides just baking them.I was taken back by this... but if you think about it, it makes sense why XOM is getting involved.
Jim: Uppy,
Here is a brief initial description of what would entail.The tar sands are basically just sand, silt and bitumen with some bound water.Bitumen is an old term that stands for any viscous hydrocarbon. The hydrocarbon in tar sands is very viscous, asphaltic (think of a road blacktop) and full of heavy hydrocarbons such as polycyclic aromatics - benzene rings all bound together and very long-chain double-bonded hydrocarbons. Basically, a mass of thick superviscous gunk that you can drive over with a truck - not very useful in its native state.So, they question is: how do we get it to flow? You've lived in Florida, so you know what happens to asphalt after a hot day - it loses some of its viscosity. How can we decrease the viscosity of this tar sand goo? Well, we have used three things" steam, pyrolysis (heating ) and chemical Chrsolvents. All of these require a lot of cost. A ton of standard-issue Athabascan tar sand can produce a rather paltry 20-25 gallons of less viscous black goo that used to be known, back in the Jimmy Carter days, as "syncrude". This goo can then be pumped into the normal refining processes that can fractionate it into useful hydrocarbons.This brings me to your question: can we use the gas within the tar sand to "scour" the sticky sands - a process that would be under the technique known as pyrolysis. The problem here is that there is basically no gas bound within the tar sands, so this gas would have to be pipelined in from somewhere else and then used as the feeder stock to "crack" the heavy hydrocarbon bonds of the gunk. That would be like crudely imitating the "cracking towers" of most refineries.Here is the problem - would it take more energy to free the hydrocarbons in the tar sands than it would be worth? Remember, there is only a half-barrel of prerefined "goo" in every ton of tar sands. There would be a lot of water needed in this process as well, the often toxic residues, which often contain sulfur and heavier metals such as vanadium, would need to be disposed of as well as the often trace radioactive bits of residue from the reducing environment that these sands were originally present in. Ans, of sourse, the still-gooey silt and sand infrastructure of these tar sands.Whether one uses straight pyrolysis or steam heated by the natural gas, there is a lot of additional costs (gas, water, disposal fees and a lot of required refining) as well as useful energy wasted to produce a minor amount of oil. Then there are the CO2 issues that would set off the Greenie-weenies.Compare this with the low "lift costs" of a local oil production, and the economics are not even comparable. Look up the sad history of Jimmy Carter's "syncrude" corporation, which is somewhat comparable. Google "Syncrude Corporation", I believe. It was a multibillion dollar boondoggle. The tar sands are a much better target, but the basic idea is the same - there is a huge amount of lost value and profits, as well as additional tremendous ecological problems produced, when we try to extract solid hydocarbons from matrix rocks, like tar sands or oil shales, to make into oil.I'll send you some more info later tonight and tomorrow.Thanks!
Jim
So, there are some “rumors” that have died BUT some interesting insight via Jim on what can happen and will probably be happening. Exxon bringing gas down from Alaska and helping to “cook” the oil sands in Alberta. I knew it had to be more then just Exxon willing to help. Exxon isn’t the type of company to do anything without an alternative, other then money. And talks of Petro-Canada and Suncor merger could be a problem as well.
I have quite a few friends who own land in Texas who have gas wells, in the Barnett Shale. Their checks went from 2500 a month down to 120.00. And I wish I was kidding as they actually showed the paperwork to me concerning their loss, the BTU’s, the PSI, and if they were going to “Frac” or fracture the formation to tap into more gas. Sometimes the gas is considered sour, so it is put on hold until it can be mixed with a sweet gas and then can be used. Barnett Shale is like this quite often. Either way, those people who let the companies drill for gas on their property are screwed as in some cases the gas companies are plug and abandoning these wells.
But Alaska Gas is very clean and rarely turns sour. So much so that small villages that have oil companies drill on their “land” happen to get the gas for heat in their homes, businesses and other places all over the slope. Interesting, isn’t it.
This also doesn’t help Alaskans with anything concerning a Bullet Line from Kenai (due to gas production dwindling) or the fast that a spur line is now on hold via the “Pipeline” talks. Alaskans in south central only have enough resources until 2015 even if used conservatively. This also makes me wonder about UIC, or what is known as Injection Wells. That is where they inject the Wells with the Natural Gas that comes back and cit circulates back into the formation and pool to scour the oil off the sands. Quite a few questions to be answered. There are regulations for natural gas, but will it matter now?
I know this was a long Blog entry. But I wanted to take the time to let everyone know this pipeline is good to a point… but this isn’t the only or best option.
Governor Palin knows this is a start, she did what she promised. But it makes me wonder how much Murkowski is now in the negotiations concerning this pipeline. And we all know he has a bone to pick with Alaskans for kicking him out of the Governors seat.
God Help us!
I and my good friend Rev. Paul decided to do a joint blog concerning this. He gives a good idea of what South Central Alaska is going to be going up against here in the next few years. And the sad part is that it is true. He also mentions things that another friend, explains further down the blog.
But, I decided that I wanted to know more, as I mainly work in oil. So I decided to contact my friend Jim, who happens to own a small but very steady little oil and gas company in Texas. He gave me some insight in how this will not just effect Alaska, but will also affect those who own gas wells across the United States, how it may actually rob more then gas and how it may also be used… as Alaskans will be losing a resource. Jim, wasn’t happy about this merger anymore then I.
Upinak: Jim, I know you are a busy guy. But if you don’t mind answering a small question on the TransCanada/Exxon deal, I would appreciate it.
With this new deal, is it going to lower the price of Natural Gas around the lower 48 now?
I have quite a few people asking me as to what may be the outcome.
Uppy
Jim: I always have time for the queen of the Great North!
There are a number of factors that are weighing down on the US natural gas market, with the Exxon/TransCanada deal being a fairly minor one.
Probably the number one thing is the rapidly approaching LNG issue. Exxon and a number of other internationals have invested many billions in the Persian Gulf natural gas LNG tanker infrastructure recently and Qatar will be shipping huge amounts of LNG later this year. Other projects are coming on line as well. There are huge gas fields in the Gulf, and very little of it has been marketed, until recently.
My friends who are in the gas business (oil and gas people don't get along - they are two entirely different mindsets) are very concerned. This is also reflected in the rapid decline of the drilling boom in the Newark Burnet Shale play in North Texas - the largest gas field in Texas, as well as the anemic state of the spot price of gas on the exchanges..
All this is wearing down the natural gas market and causing a lot of second-guessing. Moreover, Europe is looking for another gas source after the overreaching of the Russians last year. The LNG is expected to supply a quarter of their needs, minimizing the insecure Russian sources and the associated risks of relying on Putin for that critical fuel.
On the other hand, gas has a low profile as far as the Greenie-weenies are concerned (they are much more focused on coal and oil), and our need for it will only increase. But... the short-term pricing landscape for natural gas here in the States is not too good at the moment. The fear is palpable - which is not to say that it is entirely justified.
Thanks!
Jim
Upinak: Hey Jim,on this same subject. I was approached by someone today. With your knowledge... do you know what it would take (I am not familiar with tar sands) to use the PSI of the gas to scour the sticky sands, besides just baking them.I was taken back by this... but if you think about it, it makes sense why XOM is getting involved.
Jim: Uppy,
Here is a brief initial description of what would entail.The tar sands are basically just sand, silt and bitumen with some bound water.Bitumen is an old term that stands for any viscous hydrocarbon. The hydrocarbon in tar sands is very viscous, asphaltic (think of a road blacktop) and full of heavy hydrocarbons such as polycyclic aromatics - benzene rings all bound together and very long-chain double-bonded hydrocarbons. Basically, a mass of thick superviscous gunk that you can drive over with a truck - not very useful in its native state.So, they question is: how do we get it to flow? You've lived in Florida, so you know what happens to asphalt after a hot day - it loses some of its viscosity. How can we decrease the viscosity of this tar sand goo? Well, we have used three things" steam, pyrolysis (heating ) and chemical Chrsolvents. All of these require a lot of cost. A ton of standard-issue Athabascan tar sand can produce a rather paltry 20-25 gallons of less viscous black goo that used to be known, back in the Jimmy Carter days, as "syncrude". This goo can then be pumped into the normal refining processes that can fractionate it into useful hydrocarbons.This brings me to your question: can we use the gas within the tar sand to "scour" the sticky sands - a process that would be under the technique known as pyrolysis. The problem here is that there is basically no gas bound within the tar sands, so this gas would have to be pipelined in from somewhere else and then used as the feeder stock to "crack" the heavy hydrocarbon bonds of the gunk. That would be like crudely imitating the "cracking towers" of most refineries.Here is the problem - would it take more energy to free the hydrocarbons in the tar sands than it would be worth? Remember, there is only a half-barrel of prerefined "goo" in every ton of tar sands. There would be a lot of water needed in this process as well, the often toxic residues, which often contain sulfur and heavier metals such as vanadium, would need to be disposed of as well as the often trace radioactive bits of residue from the reducing environment that these sands were originally present in. Ans, of sourse, the still-gooey silt and sand infrastructure of these tar sands.Whether one uses straight pyrolysis or steam heated by the natural gas, there is a lot of additional costs (gas, water, disposal fees and a lot of required refining) as well as useful energy wasted to produce a minor amount of oil. Then there are the CO2 issues that would set off the Greenie-weenies.Compare this with the low "lift costs" of a local oil production, and the economics are not even comparable. Look up the sad history of Jimmy Carter's "syncrude" corporation, which is somewhat comparable. Google "Syncrude Corporation", I believe. It was a multibillion dollar boondoggle. The tar sands are a much better target, but the basic idea is the same - there is a huge amount of lost value and profits, as well as additional tremendous ecological problems produced, when we try to extract solid hydocarbons from matrix rocks, like tar sands or oil shales, to make into oil.I'll send you some more info later tonight and tomorrow.Thanks!
Jim
So, there are some “rumors” that have died BUT some interesting insight via Jim on what can happen and will probably be happening. Exxon bringing gas down from Alaska and helping to “cook” the oil sands in Alberta. I knew it had to be more then just Exxon willing to help. Exxon isn’t the type of company to do anything without an alternative, other then money. And talks of Petro-Canada and Suncor merger could be a problem as well.
I have quite a few friends who own land in Texas who have gas wells, in the Barnett Shale. Their checks went from 2500 a month down to 120.00. And I wish I was kidding as they actually showed the paperwork to me concerning their loss, the BTU’s, the PSI, and if they were going to “Frac” or fracture the formation to tap into more gas. Sometimes the gas is considered sour, so it is put on hold until it can be mixed with a sweet gas and then can be used. Barnett Shale is like this quite often. Either way, those people who let the companies drill for gas on their property are screwed as in some cases the gas companies are plug and abandoning these wells.
But Alaska Gas is very clean and rarely turns sour. So much so that small villages that have oil companies drill on their “land” happen to get the gas for heat in their homes, businesses and other places all over the slope. Interesting, isn’t it.
This also doesn’t help Alaskans with anything concerning a Bullet Line from Kenai (due to gas production dwindling) or the fast that a spur line is now on hold via the “Pipeline” talks. Alaskans in south central only have enough resources until 2015 even if used conservatively. This also makes me wonder about UIC, or what is known as Injection Wells. That is where they inject the Wells with the Natural Gas that comes back and cit circulates back into the formation and pool to scour the oil off the sands. Quite a few questions to be answered. There are regulations for natural gas, but will it matter now?
I know this was a long Blog entry. But I wanted to take the time to let everyone know this pipeline is good to a point… but this isn’t the only or best option.
Governor Palin knows this is a start, she did what she promised. But it makes me wonder how much Murkowski is now in the negotiations concerning this pipeline. And we all know he has a bone to pick with Alaskans for kicking him out of the Governors seat.
God Help us!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Exxon and Alaska..... not a happy union by any means.
Exxon and TransCanada…. Interesting development today.
Ok so now that Exxon has “bought in” with TransCanada on the LNG Pipeline to go into Canada and further down, now what? What I am curious about is what is the percentage of Exxon into this pipeline? Personally I am thinking 35-45%, or they wouldn't do it. What is the contract with each other? How much is each going to get depending on the design, amount, rotation of profit, measurements on engagement, the actual cost, the ratio of cubic square liquid to actual cubic square gas. I don’t know about you but something sounds… fishy.
And what bothers me even more is the Spur AND a Bullet line off this. Denali better get on the ball and fast if it wants to be taken seriously.
I applaud Governor Palin on this as the Gas Team and the AGIA Team worked hours taken away from Family and such. But I don’t trust Exxon…. In any capacity.
Exxon is notorious for sitting on things, letting it brew I guess you can say. The appeals of the Exxon Valdez spill almost 20 yrs says quite a bit about the company, as many fishermen and villages are STILL waiting for the money in which the Exxon Valdez took from them via subsistence. Also sitting on PT. Thompson Unit and sitting on it for over 20 yrs now until just recently via a suit from the State of Alaska, makes one wonder. The excuse was that the oil wasn’t viable enough to connect and since the gas would be trapped and not be able to go anywhere, and they as a company would lose money on the wells and leases. So rather then do anything, they just sat on it. Tisk Tisk Exxon!
Exxon is also not an oil and natural gas company that drills. They usually pony on another company after they buy leases for land and the pony company does all the work, so to speak, so while the pony company gets the oil, Exxon usually goes for the gas. I wonder why? Exxon doesn’t actually own any equipment… that I know of. It reminds me of an investment company if anything. Yet since it does partially own wells around the world, it does make money, the highest ranking in the world.
Now someone pointed out something significant to those smaller individuals whom own gas wells around the United States. How is this going to affect them? Is this going to spike gas prices and stock? Is this going to lower gas prices and is the stock going to spike? Or is it going to lower gas prices and stock now? Too many variables and I am not an economics guru. How will this affect UIC (Underground Injection Wells) wells since the North Slope uses the natural gas to re-inject back into the formations? Will UIC wells stopped being used or will something like CO2 be used instead?
Ok so now that Exxon has “bought in” with TransCanada on the LNG Pipeline to go into Canada and further down, now what? What I am curious about is what is the percentage of Exxon into this pipeline? Personally I am thinking 35-45%, or they wouldn't do it. What is the contract with each other? How much is each going to get depending on the design, amount, rotation of profit, measurements on engagement, the actual cost, the ratio of cubic square liquid to actual cubic square gas. I don’t know about you but something sounds… fishy.
And what bothers me even more is the Spur AND a Bullet line off this. Denali better get on the ball and fast if it wants to be taken seriously.
I applaud Governor Palin on this as the Gas Team and the AGIA Team worked hours taken away from Family and such. But I don’t trust Exxon…. In any capacity.
Exxon is notorious for sitting on things, letting it brew I guess you can say. The appeals of the Exxon Valdez spill almost 20 yrs says quite a bit about the company, as many fishermen and villages are STILL waiting for the money in which the Exxon Valdez took from them via subsistence. Also sitting on PT. Thompson Unit and sitting on it for over 20 yrs now until just recently via a suit from the State of Alaska, makes one wonder. The excuse was that the oil wasn’t viable enough to connect and since the gas would be trapped and not be able to go anywhere, and they as a company would lose money on the wells and leases. So rather then do anything, they just sat on it. Tisk Tisk Exxon!
Exxon is also not an oil and natural gas company that drills. They usually pony on another company after they buy leases for land and the pony company does all the work, so to speak, so while the pony company gets the oil, Exxon usually goes for the gas. I wonder why? Exxon doesn’t actually own any equipment… that I know of. It reminds me of an investment company if anything. Yet since it does partially own wells around the world, it does make money, the highest ranking in the world.
Now someone pointed out something significant to those smaller individuals whom own gas wells around the United States. How is this going to affect them? Is this going to spike gas prices and stock? Is this going to lower gas prices and is the stock going to spike? Or is it going to lower gas prices and stock now? Too many variables and I am not an economics guru. How will this affect UIC (Underground Injection Wells) wells since the North Slope uses the natural gas to re-inject back into the formations? Will UIC wells stopped being used or will something like CO2 be used instead?
Also... just for those Alaskans curious. What do you think the Legislature will do with the new found "monies" coming in from any of the LNG pipeline with the now non-stranded natural gas which up until 2005 was concidered "confidential"? Do you think it will be put into a different PFD type for us, or do you think it will be put into a "fund" for spending? I think the latter as we all know our Legislature. I hope AGIA gets a say and does the RIGHT thing.
Another thing about Exxon, they are notoriously sue happy. Read this about Exxon suing in 1983, a PIPELINE COMPANY.
You don’t feed the dog that bites you, especially if it bites your kids … aka the Alaskans. Most people I know would put that dog down. This is something new.... and I am not just leary, I think Alaska is about to get shit on by Exxon.
Another thing about Exxon, they are notoriously sue happy. Read this about Exxon suing in 1983, a PIPELINE COMPANY.
You don’t feed the dog that bites you, especially if it bites your kids … aka the Alaskans. Most people I know would put that dog down. This is something new.... and I am not just leary, I think Alaska is about to get shit on by Exxon.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Whether you are a Conservative or a Liberal.... your fuel is going up. Don't pretend it isn't! ANWR, it is time to drill.
I don’t know where you are in the United States or the World, but I want to know how much your gasoline or diesel is where you buy it.
As of today.. gasoline where I got it was $2.71. Up now to 50 cents what it was 6 months ago. This is starting to worry me as most of those whom have to pay for heating fuel are going to be spending like they did this last winter. And we don’t even have our Alaska fuel tax back on yet.
John McCain and the rest of the goons, voted down again the drilling of ANWR. Why? What is the purpose of not drilling it now? I think McCain is trying to get back at Sarah in my personal opinion. I feel for Lisa Murkowski, our Alaska Senator, who is trying like you wouldn’t believe to open it back up. Begich, the worthless and former mayor of Anchorage didn’t do a damn thing but sit on his butt, and probably tried to persuade others to oppose it. What a waste of tax payers money Begich is, even after he said he would help with the energy crisis. I guess voting on a stimulus was his way of helping.
As of today.. gasoline where I got it was $2.71. Up now to 50 cents what it was 6 months ago. This is starting to worry me as most of those whom have to pay for heating fuel are going to be spending like they did this last winter. And we don’t even have our Alaska fuel tax back on yet.
John McCain and the rest of the goons, voted down again the drilling of ANWR. Why? What is the purpose of not drilling it now? I think McCain is trying to get back at Sarah in my personal opinion. I feel for Lisa Murkowski, our Alaska Senator, who is trying like you wouldn’t believe to open it back up. Begich, the worthless and former mayor of Anchorage didn’t do a damn thing but sit on his butt, and probably tried to persuade others to oppose it. What a waste of tax payers money Begich is, even after he said he would help with the energy crisis. I guess voting on a stimulus was his way of helping.
BUT if you read up on ANWR.ORG you might see who is supporting ANWR and who is against. This organization has quite a bit of good information and is PRO ANWR, not just drilling it. But you will never hear that from Greenies. Who BTW, are actually the people who leave crap on the North Slope, when they do their "research". It is known among the Oil Companies that they have to have a group volunteer on almost every pad to go pick up the garbage left by the greenies. Nice huh!
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Cook Inlet Gas and troubles with Marathon Oil and the Probelms with OCS.
Well an interesting development for those whom are in the Oil and gas industry. Marathon is cutting back production of natural gas. Why?
Risk, they say. Risk to what? Risk to the fact that you made a contract to extract the gas for the people of south central via the State of Alaska? Marathon, do not blame it totally on the RCA when you have been letting people go. Also isn't the RCA working with ENSTAR to get the gas from you? Hmmmmmm!
I think everyone in Alaska needs to call Marathon Oil and tell them to get their butts in gear and start working on these wells you have been talking about. Or give up your leases and give them to another company who WILL do what you said YOU would! Don’t give the “aquifer” excuse, not every Alaskan is as dumb as you take them for.
What am I talking about well in the KTUU report they talk about aquifers.
Risk, they say. Risk to what? Risk to the fact that you made a contract to extract the gas for the people of south central via the State of Alaska? Marathon, do not blame it totally on the RCA when you have been letting people go. Also isn't the RCA working with ENSTAR to get the gas from you? Hmmmmmm!
I think everyone in Alaska needs to call Marathon Oil and tell them to get their butts in gear and start working on these wells you have been talking about. Or give up your leases and give them to another company who WILL do what you said YOU would! Don’t give the “aquifer” excuse, not every Alaskan is as dumb as you take them for.
What am I talking about well in the KTUU report they talk about aquifers.
"What happens is when you shut in a gas well, they have these aquifers -- a
bunch of water that's pushing this gas to the well bore," Lockhart said. "And as
you shut those wells in or cycle them, a lot of times that water keeps moving
and the gas stops, and it pinches out that gas in the well bore."
The say shut in when in actuality it is called an Injection Well. It is where you inject water or the natural gas back into the area that you drilled. Usually, no more then 100 yards at most. The injection of this water or gas (sometimes other items) is to push or scour the oil and gas out of the “zone” being drilled and injection keeps the areas density. More or less so you don’t have a huge hole when it collapses. This has been going on for years, even in the lower 48. A "shut in" is actually a plugged well. That in many cases it is plugged for work, or to come back to at another time or to be abandoned all together. Re-Drilling a plug backed well isn't the easiest in the world, but it isn't like it can not be done.
So Marathon's excuses are just that... excuses. I can't wait for the the other smaller companies come up and beat Marathon at it's own game. Besides, wasn't it Marathon whom had a was suppose to talk about "Cook Inlet Natural Gas" with the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce and others on what was reliable?
And the fact that the people of Point Hope have more or less closed down ALL of the OCS drilling Nation wide due to their lawsuit and the DOI is seeking some type of response from the Appeals Courts concerning the stratagy they are using and why. Shell has more or less said no more due to all the lawsuits and I don't blame them in the least little bit.
Marathon really needs to get a grip. Alaskan want to drill and if you are dragging, they won't put up with you. There are quite a few other Oil Companies who would love to be in your shoes right now.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Oil, Salazar and the Tea Party
I sit here a day before the first annual Tea Party across the Nation event. I wonder what is going to happen across the Nation, much less in Alaska.
Salazar is here in Anchorage right now. He may be here tomorrow, as I haven’t heard any news yet. As of right now, that I just heard, there are quite a few PRO-OIL-Protesting people in front of the Dena’ina Center while Salazar is talking about offshore drilling.
Most of Alaska is for drilling. ANWR, Federal Offshore, Natural Gas drilling and a Natural Gas Pipeline bullet line is in the works for the State as well. Not many here do not see any disadvantages on drilling, unless they are environmental wacko’s who come up here concerning the whales, polar bears, multiple birds, or caribou. It is pretty sad when British Petroleum can do a definitive research report on the whales or polar bears better then the Dept of Interior Environmental Affairs.
But with Salazar up here in Alaska, will the Tea Party be worse or better then those in the lower 49, since Salazar will be up here and is not a welcomed person? I am not sure, but I will be taking pictures of the outcome here in Anchorage.
Salazar is here in Anchorage right now. He may be here tomorrow, as I haven’t heard any news yet. As of right now, that I just heard, there are quite a few PRO-OIL-Protesting people in front of the Dena’ina Center while Salazar is talking about offshore drilling.
Most of Alaska is for drilling. ANWR, Federal Offshore, Natural Gas drilling and a Natural Gas Pipeline bullet line is in the works for the State as well. Not many here do not see any disadvantages on drilling, unless they are environmental wacko’s who come up here concerning the whales, polar bears, multiple birds, or caribou. It is pretty sad when British Petroleum can do a definitive research report on the whales or polar bears better then the Dept of Interior Environmental Affairs.
But with Salazar up here in Alaska, will the Tea Party be worse or better then those in the lower 49, since Salazar will be up here and is not a welcomed person? I am not sure, but I will be taking pictures of the outcome here in Anchorage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
