Current weather

  • Overcast
  • 57°
  • Comment

Don’t let opportunity pass us by

Posted: September 11, 2012 - 9:39am

Russian Gas! While we have been sitting here watching our politicians spin our wheels a big one might have gotten away! Seems like just a few months ago the Japanese Trade Ambassador walked up to Lisa Murkowski and said staight up “We want your North Slope gas!” Now I see a $13.5 billion gas loading facility is scheduled for building in the Russian Far East. It seems the Japanese government is sincere about moving away from nuclear generation and replacing it with gas driven turbines. This market could last for hundreds of years and my leaders aren’t jumping with both feet! When the man says jump I don’t expect to see instant air but I do expect to see somebody squat and look for a direction like they are ready! 

If we can’t agree on how to start a pipeline why don’t we start looking at other ideas! Would someone just concider putting huge gas liqification plants on big ships and parking them at Prudhoe Bay and start liqifying our gas? Then we could just ship from right there using a new fleet of icebreaking tankers!  

I understand that anything we can do to reduce the gas volume at Prudhoe will increase the oil flow down TAPS and we get double benefit. But anyone can see the Japanese change over is not something they want to delay while our leaders figure out just what we can do! So do something. Don’t worry who will get the credit or the blame just do the peoples business or get out of the way and let someone who can do it!

  • Comment

Comments (10) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
gfds98765 09/12/12 - 01:07 pm
happy with BHO's rejection of oil & gas progress?

You wrote in January “I can't explain how thrilled I am with President Obama's veto of such a strategic project for energy security and trade with our Canadian neighbors.”

leewaytooo 09/13/12 - 03:13 am
to compare one project's

to compare one project's merits with another is overly
simplistic mediocre contemplation. they are different
projects and the merits of each are to be considered
is your quote accurate?
using "thrilled" "veto" "strategic" "security" in the same
sentence?? either the quote is not accurate, and you
have injected your own thoughts into your misquote,
or red dog .......?

actually the idea presented is a good idea.
maybe to begin with, build an off shore loading
platform that is usable during ice free days.
japan can store the gas for when needed.
or build natural gas driven tankers that can transport
the gas to a storage facility at an ice free port in
alaska. then the gas can be shipped from there year round.
lots of possibilities...

freedomlibertytruth 09/13/12 - 10:45 am
use the full Peninsula clarions functions

click on the name in blue above, 'Dennis Barnard' it takes you to the other letters to the editor that have been written by this person. The quote came from another letter written, and the quote was taken exactly as written, check it yourself. In your 'overly simplistic mediocre contemplation' of the Peninsula Website you have missed that research option, (the other commenter did not miss it.)

If you are for American jobs, energency idependence, use of our natural resourses, you might just be for more enthusiastic for most projects, not just Alaska ones,and not so adamantly against them.

It is interesting that you both are promoting the use of our energy resources by Japan and Russia, and not giving the US the first and formost access.

gfds98765 09/13/12 - 11:04 am
BHO has spoken against,

BHO has spoken against, firmly loudly against, oil and gas operations in the US. He has given Billions of Dollars, Yes Billions of US taxpayer dollars to South America for their drilling operations. Onshore and offshore. That's a travesty.

It's not going to change, and Alaska is not going to continue with jobs and dollars until the anti-growth Federal government is replaced by Pro-Oil people.

It sounds like you guys are O & G workers, so you know that there are 'lots of possibilities.' So if you demand that BHO 'does something' he will vote it down. He will stop it just as he stopped the Keystone Pipeline.

Alaskalad 09/13/12 - 02:41 pm
Oil Production in the USA

I don't know where you got your facts , but the Energy Information Administration says that the United States is an eight year high for all production. They also say that for the first time in 13 years America's dependence on foreign oil is less than 50% I have never heard him speak against oil or gas operations. Where did you hear that?
According to Baker Hughes Rotary rig count, we have slightly more rigs working now than in 2008 when Obama took office.
The Keystone pipeline is to enable the Canadians to sell their product overseas. It still in the process but environmental concerns must be addressed.
seriously I have searched the Internet and would be interested to know what countries do you refer to and how much money are they getting and for what. By the way I don't think we give any foreign aid to Venezuela. Please feel free to correct me with references to something other than talk shows.
I've been a North Slope roughneck so don't talk down to me. Just try to include some real world justification for the claims you make.

gfds98765 09/13/12 - 05:59 pm
1. The quote is accurate. 2.

1. The quote is accurate.
2. Your insult of Dennis Bernard’s use of words reflects only on him.
3. no one’s thoughts other than Dennis Bernard’s were placed in the original comment.
4. it was not a misquote or red dog.

Was leewaytooo ([filtered word] lies, liars and hypocrites) suddenly unable to speak for himself. Not likely. Are you all completely unable to admit that the first comment above reflected on the two letters that the writer Dennis Barnard had written. He wrote an earlier letter supporting BHO shutting down the Keystone Pipeline. That was the discrepancy that was pointed out. They appeared to have contradictory issues. Perhaps he was writing ‘tongue in cheek’ style. He is the only person who can address his intent. It follows:

Would Keystone veto be good for Alaska?
01/24/12 - 9:49am

By Dennis Barnard
Keystone didn't prove to be that smooth a pipeline project, that is going to Texas. I can't explain how thrilled I am with President Obama's veto of such a strategic project for energy security and trade with our Canadian neighbors. This would be a great time to strengthen our relationship with our Arctic friends. I wonder if a Keystone pipeline blessed bye the State of Alaska, with a pipeline terminus in Haines and Skagway would stand a chance of avoiding President Obama's ink? We did just tempt them with $500 million of our good money on another pipeline.

Slick evasion though.
Also Did you forget to mention that there are many countries in South America? Yes. You could not really be that ignorant to believe otherwise, but you do know that the general public is. Name a country that did not receive taxpayer cash, and disregard the ones that did.

Did you forget to mention that it is on private property that the largest increase of oil production is taking place. Not on government owned federal lands.

It fools so many people when you pretend that there are not already, many miles of pipelines already installed and in operation in the states. Pretending that this is a new and special concept is a fraud. Environmental concerns is an effective method of stopping the Keystone gas line. In the same manner that it shuts down jobs and income by it’s use against Alaska.

By Baker Hughes Rigs you mean the Baker Hughes that operates in 80 countries world wide? Latin America, Europe, Africa, Middle East, Asia Pacific, Canada and the US. In addition the total count for Alaska BH rigs shows 8 for the years 2006 through 2010, and only 7 for 2011. In 2001 there was 13. Are you now back to the 2001 level? You need to increase your US/Canada rigs. However in the US most of US BH rig gains are in Texas, correct.

You can refuse to hear, see, or understand anything that you choose. You are responsible for Correcting your lack of references.

freedomlibertytruth 09/13/12 - 07:09 pm
Get these operations in

Get these operations in Alaska going again. Get Alaskans back to work. Get the profits moving back into the Alaska State strongbox.
Alaskans should be able to sell oil, gas, minerals, natural resources to anyone it pleases.
But it is suicidal not to put the living conditions of US citizens first on the list. Selling our products to one nation, and then buying the same products at a higher cost from another nation (especially ones that are our enemies) is absurd.
Baker Hughes shows that the US rig count is down -94 in the last one year period. Worldwide it is down about -200 rigs this year. It also states that today Alaska has only 6 rigs today, down from 8 rigs four years ago. Your stock is currently at a low of $42.08 down from a high of $81.00 in 2007 year end price. Real world.
It's not our fault that CNN,CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and the Oprah channel don't provide you with audio and video of your own presidents speeches in full. Try YouTube.

gfds98765 09/13/12 - 08:40 pm
Indirect $$ is still US Taxpayer $$, down the toilet.

South American countries receiving US Aid.
El Salvador

All receive direct US aid.
BHO attached a 108 Billion increase in funding to the IMF in May 2009. The United States does not draw any of these funds, and probably never will.

The US stopped direct aid to Venezuela in 1960. Venezuela’s prosperity ended in the 1980’s. Then it started looking for aid from major one worlders like the World Bank, and (surprise) the IMF. The US is the largest contributor.

Venezuela received ‘indirect’ aid from the US. (slight of hand)
BHO also gave billions to Brazil and Peru for Oil development.

lkpomn912 09/14/12 - 10:54 am
You oil workers, in the last

You oil workers, in the last four years has your operations increased. Has your drilling stepped up. Has your exploration continued? Is your company adding new employees, or have they had staff reductions.
Would it be any different if all of the drilling companies in Alaska were U.S. owned businesses, and not owned by so many foreign companies?
(BP, Dutch Shell, ENI)
I’m going to guess that the writer of the article just wants the gas business to grow and expand in Alaska to the benefit of our government and it’s peeps.

lkpomn912 09/14/12 - 10:59 am
Drill baby Drill. Drill

Drill baby Drill. Drill here. Drill NOW.

Sam Von Pufendorf
Sam Von Pufendorf 09/14/12 - 11:52 am

The answer to your first question is "yes."
The second is "somewhat"
The third is "yes" but marginally.
The fourth is "yes" but mostly through attrition and a portion with future attrition in mind. And finally some new positions have been added.
I'm not sure on the fifth. But BP's hiring has outpaced Conoco Phillips considerably. ENI has added several new jobs to accommodate new operations. Shell, hasn't established any formidable operations other than Chukchi Sea drilling. They have nothing in production yet.
Your closing statement is an opinion. Which I respect!

Back to Top


Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title
  • title
  • title
My Gallery


  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback