A Citizen’s Guide

It would take more than this editorial page to chronicle the achievements on behalf of Alaska by Jack Coghill and Vic Fisher. Both were delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention and deserve great respect for what they have done for Alaska.

Now my friends are questioning the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline contract we have been negotiating for more than two years and have before the Alaska Legislature for consideration.

Differences of opinion are a proud characteristic of Alaskans, and Jack and Vic have raised concerns about the contract. But many of their concerns are misplaced and do not reflect what is in the contract, while others are fixable. We will address these issues and move forward with the agreement.

Contract approval is supported by informed public policymakers, including the vice president of the United States, U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, the secretary of energy and the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC.

The need to move now is based on two views of Alaska’s future: Alaska without and Alaska with a gas pipeline.

Without a gas pipeline, we have no way of accessing Alaska’s vast gas reserves. Without a gas pipeline, oil stops flowing through our oil line in 2030. How are we going to pay Alaska’s bills? What happens to our children who would like to stay in Alaska when the oil line closes down in 2030?

Some want to throw this contract out and start all over again. They assert that “a pipeline can be built more expeditiously and more beneficially by letting market forces work.” But they’re not engaged in what it will actually take to get a new gas pipeline.

It may be politically convenient to say we want to bargain from a position of strength or let market forces prevail. But politics has no place at this table. And what do these statements mean? How do they get us a gas pipeline?

We have worked long and hard to nail down a contract that will secure Alaska’s future. I am willing to address legitimate concerns, but I am not willing to set aside a signable contract for vague assertions that fail to advance the project.

The so-called “All-Alaska” line (except for 400 miles through Canada) does not have the financing or expertise to get built. It has no gas, and acquiring gas would require potentially endless litigation.

TransCanada was quite right in saying that without the North Slope producers, there is no realistic gas pipeline opportunity.

I’m sure there are imperfections with the Alaska Highway gas pipeline contract that we have negotiated, and we continue to carefully review contract details. However, some contract details are correctly dealt with in a different stage of the project.

It’s time for Alaskans to come together behind the only realistic prospect we have for getting Alaska’s gas to market.

With a gas pipeline, here’s what the future holds with implementation of the Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline contract:

• With the 20-20 PPT oil tax, we will double oil taxes at current prices, bringing in an additional $1 billion per year and get a gas pipeline with tremendous riches.

• The Alaska Highway natural gas pipeline will bring in $100 billion over 35 years.

• We will extend the life of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline for 20 more years. This will bring us another $50 billion in revenue and cement a solid foundation for economic growth for at least the next 50 years.

But the punitive reserves tax on the November ballot will kill the gas pipeline if it passes and the contract is not in place to protect the project. By trying to get a little more, we have a very good chance of ending up with nothing.

It is time to meet our responsibilities without partisanship and on behalf of Alaska.

With a gas pipeline, a bright future is before us.

I encourage my friends Jack Coghill and Vic Fisher to share in that vision.

Frank Murkowski was elected governor of Alaska in 2002 and is seeking re-election this year.