September 2, 2010

Alaska Dispatch

Twitter Facebook YouTube RSS
Tundra Telegraph

Pt. Thomson ruling about procedure, not politics

| Jan 16, 2010

Three months into my campaign for governor, I am disappointed to see that the level of political discourse has already degraded into finger pointing and name calling. As a state facing a worrisome and uncertain future, our leaders must step forward and focus on constructive solutions to our problems.

Of growing concern is the number of candidates who seem intent on molding the news cycle into a ball of political mud. In particular, Ralph Samuels' outcry for a public lynching of Commissioner Tom Irwin is not only inappropriate, but manipulates the facts to meet a narrow political end.

For over 40 years the leaseholders refused to produce Point Thomson oil and gas resources. Acting within our legal rights, then-Director of Oil and Gas Mark Myers for Gov. Frank Murkowski required the unit operator to either commit to put the unit into production or forfeit the acreage for releasing. Commissioner Michael Menge affirmed that decision in the eleventh hour of the Murkowski Administration, and started the legal ball rolling. The recent ruling by Judge Sharon Gleason does not call into question the chain of events started by former Gov. Murkowski, the state's right to demand exploration, production, and marketing of its resources, or even its right to seek the leases be forfeited for non-development.

Rather, Judge Gleason's decision focuses on the procedure the state must follow under the Point Thomson Unit Agreement whose contractual terms in her opinion slightly alter the regulatory scheme for cancelation under Alaska law. She said nothing about whether or not the state should have taken the leases in the first place, only that the state missed steps in the termination process.

Director Myers' bold decision was a monumental step forward for Alaskans, and resulted in the unit operator for the first time agreeing to put one of our largest oil and gas fields into production.

Thus I not only think termination of the unit in 2005 was the right decision, I believe it was the only decision possible under the terms of the leases and the state constitution.  And in fact, as demonstrated by the attached letter sent to Director Myers before the termination process had been initiated, I have continuously demanded the state take that very course of action and fought hard to protect our rights.

This is not a defense of the process or multitude of steps followed during the course of termination of the unit by Director Myers, Commissioner Irwin, or the Department of Natural Resources, but rather a recognition that we should leave the interpretation of complex questions of law to the courts and not politicians more concerned with scoring points for outside interests than for the people of Alaska.

Leadership requires more than recognizing a problem -- it requires a solution. I am still the only candidate for governor with a plan to secure jobs, affordable energy and a guaranteed future for all Alaskans. With a long election in front of us, I issue the following challenge to my opponents: Stop the games, stop the grandstanding and start telling the hardworking men and women of Alaska exactly what you intend to do as governor to make our state better for all its people.

Bill Walker is a candidate for the Republican nomination for governor. Talk of the Tundra features commentary by Alaskans from across the state. The views expressed are the writers' own and are not endorsed by Alaska Dispatch. We welcome a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Discuss
Member Comments
Posted By: bgkeithley @ 01.17.2010 6:25 PM
Craig ... Yep, I do. AGPA -- the acronyms always are a challenge. Thanks for the note.
Posted By: Craig_Richards @ 01.17.2010 5:18 PM
Brad, of course you mean the Alaska Gasline Port Authority.
Posted By: bgkeithley @ 01.17.2010 1:24 PM
Good point. Of course, at the same time we should be clear that Bill's law firm represented the Alaska Gas Pipeline Authority, as an amicus and intervenor in the case. Both of us have experience we bring to our perspectives.
Posted By: jjAK49 @ 01.17.2010 9:24 AM
Mr. Keithley, in all fairness to the readers, you might want to point out that your law firm is representing BP in this case.
Posted By: bgkeithley @ 01.17.2010 5:54 AM
In all fairness, Bill, Judge Gleason found that the State (1) breached its contract with the producers, and (2) violated their constitutional rights. While the termination process was started under Governor Murkowski, the specific acts that Judge Gleason found offensive occurred after her first remand, entirely on Commissioner Irwin's watch. The ruling hi-lites more than a "procedural" glitch; it finds that the State of Alaska breached its contract, and violated the constitutional rights, of Alaska's largest investors. Whatever else might be said about it, that is more than a little troublesome.
Posted By: chasm @ 01.17.2010 5:07 AM
Oh those evil oil companies, the ones that provide 90 percent of the states revenue and a large portion of the high paying jobs in the state. Let's see now, Walker wants to have the state build a gasline to an LNG plant. We can then add that to the Delta Barley project, the fish processing plant, Mat Maid, and other state boondoggles. Samuels called for Irwin's ouster because of his mistakes, which include AGIA, the refusal to talk with the producers, and not recognizing that he didn't have a leg to stand on in the suit with Exxon. BTW wasn't it Irwin who talked Palin out of an in-state gasline?
Posted By: jmacinak @ 01.16.2010 6:30 PM
Mr Walker is correct in his assessment. He is also the right man, in the right place, at the right time for Alaska. Mr. Samuels couldn`t be a more ardent supporter of the producer`s agenda (control over Alaska gas..like it has enjoyed with oil) if he tried. All the players at the table are quietly eyeing one another as we get close to "betting" time- The open season. Mr. Walker believes Alaskan workers and Alaskan small businesses and homes should get the benefit of our own natural gas, and the value-added products that could be made here. The only way to do that, in light of the explosive growth in value of shale gas in the lower 48, is to keep it all in-state with an LNG export line from the north slope to Valdez. A deep ice free ocean port at the terminus of a right-of-way we as Alaskans already own!!. Folks... WE ALREADY OWN THE ROAD AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. The state coffers might, and I say might, benefit more from some future gasline through Canada. Trouble is we can`t, and shouldn`t have to, wait for one one industry player to tell us when to do it. Mr Walker has my vote and support. Bill get`s it. The LNG exports would "anchor" the lower in-state tarrifs, and if the state owned the infrastructure (like an LNG highway or railroad...or a real long bridge), it could possibly lower the tarrif for in-state users even more. That would also mean open access to the line for other explorers and producer...unlike the control the three main oil producers enjoy. There is a new LNG receiving plant being built in Oregon. Alaska LNG would fit in mighty nice with it. Like I said, Bill get`s it, and I urge all Alaskans who remember how bad it got here last winter, to vote for Bill for governor. He`ll get the benefits of our gas to us ASAP.
Posted By: jjAK49 @ 01.16.2010 12:13 PM
chasm - what makes Walker's rebuttal different is that it follows the facts of the case. Ralph Samuels completely misrepresented Judge Gleason's decision.

To your point about defending Irwin, AGIA and ACES, Walker clearly states:

This is not a defense of the process or multitude of steps followed during the course of termination of the unit by Director Myers, Commissioner Irwin, or the Department of Natural Resources, but rather a recognition that we should leave the interpretation of complex questions of law to the courts and not politicians more concerned with scoring points for outside interests than for the people of Alaska.
Posted By: chasm @ 01.16.2010 10:34 AM
Samuels' asking for Irwin's head is a narrow political action and your rebuttal is not? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. It sounds as if you firmly approve of all Irwin's actions, which would include the creation of AGIA and ACES.
Posted By: jjAK49 @ 01.16.2010 10:14 AM
Way to go Bill. It is about time someone stands up for Alaska above all else. It appears that Samuels and others did not even take the time to read Judge Gleason's decision.

busy