Home > News > A Look at Palin's Role in Alaska's Big Natural Gas Pipeline Project

A Look at Palin's Role in Alaska's Big Natural Gas Pipeline Project

Reader Comments
Back to article

Do we send millions a day out of the US to buy oil or keep the money and jobs in the USA. How much thinking does that take. To ask, would some other company drill for the gas if existing companies are sitting on it? The pipeline is a market, with a market they will drill, it's that simple. Could Seattle WA and Portland OR run more natural gas cars and other items ? To throw this product away is beyond simple common sense.

Lloyd OLSON of TX 12:37PM July 03, 2011

I'm excitedly waiting all the changes in technology and availability of vehicles in the near future!!!

carwaterguide.blogspot.com of CA 2:50AM November 25, 2008

And what legislation did Obama get pushed through?

of GA 3:06PM November 24, 2008

It looks as though there are many many obstacles to have this project come to fruition. To hear Palin on the stump, one would be led to believe the deal is done and our instant gratification gullible populace will be getting the gas tomorrow. There is no guarantee that the big energy companies will even supply the gas if TransCanada is the builder.
This is an unsubstantiated political tout by the ambitious Palin and should be exposed as such.

ernieson of IL 10:29AM October 29, 2008

TEN TO TWENTY YEARS! THAT IS INSANE! WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE OUT OF WORK, YOU CAN HAVE IT BUILT IN LESS THAN FIVE. WHATS WRONG WITH YOU?

Bonnie LaGrasso of CA 1:14PM October 23, 2008

All that Palin has done so far is to give $500M of Alaskan taxes to a foreign company to apply for a license for the gas pipeline from the U.S. federal government. A lot of that money will be used as background for a strong lobbying effort.
The $40B pipeline is 10-20 years away from the beginning of construction.

Carl of CA 6:13PM October 18, 2008

It is very interesting that the article states that Obama voiced support for the pipeline before the governor got elected or involved. Now she claims total responsibility for it. And did anyone else notice the timeline for the pipeline? How can it possibly effect our current eneergy crisis? Additionally, Palin's acceptance of continued federal earmarks contradicts her own running mate and her vaunted tax rebate was necessary to keep her fellow Alaskans from freezing to death this winter. But we need to realize that this negotiation on a possible, future pipeline with a Canadian company DOES NOT MAKE HER AN ENERGY EXPERT! Come on! Get real! What does she know about the larger and much more complicated issues concerning the entire energy needs of the U.S.?

Bj Zamora of NC 3:55PM October 02, 2008

Try $3200 apiece for middle income residents which is what my Alaskan friends just got in the mail on Friday!

Lisa of HI 11:40PM September 14, 2008

$1800...are you by chance talking about the Resource Rebate recently approved by Alaska's Legislature? If so, the rebate was $1200 and it is for every Alaska resident that qualifies (I've live here since Jan 07 and still do not qualify). She pushed the Legislature for this because Alaskans (especially the the Interior, the Kenai, and the Bush--I know, you have no idea what any of those is) are paying exorbitant fuel prices...yes, MUCH more than you. Ironic isn't it.
The people of Alaska were clamoring for short term relief (this winter), while the long term relief/plans are figured out. Why? Fuel oil is the primary heating method in the areas I mentioned. People are paying between 4.25 to 5.50 per gallon of fuel oil...which is a tremendous spike up here. Okay, now factor in the sustained -20 to -40 temps that the Interior/Bush deal with. People are looking at paying OVER a $1000 per month in heating bills...for six to seven months.
Governor Palin pushed for IMMEDIATE relief via the Legislature. Not exactly a perfect plan that they came up with...but they came up with something. A highly popular move. BTW, how much are your fuel prices down in the Lower 48? I paid 4.20 a gal at the pump yesterday. Lovely. :-/

Glenmore H of AK 5:21PM September 10, 2008

I haven't heard anything about plans for TransCanada to extend the line to Chicago (as was mentioned in the article). It is the BP and ConocoPhillips Denali pipeline project that has an option to go to Chicago. Is this an error in the article?
Also, it sounds like if the BP and ConocoPhillips Denali pipeline is built, it'll be finished before TransCanada even starts to build.
Hopefully US News and World Report will continue to investigate and cover this story.

Joe of PA 1:15PM September 10, 2008