Palin's Big Oil Experience

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I find some responses comical. One bid was submitted that met qualifications. I also find it interesting that Fortune Magazine noted:

Did you find my response about not meeting requirements comical? or the fact that there were requirements.

link

TransCanada's proposal was the only plan of five that met all the requirements of the government's Alaska Gasline Inducement Act launched last year, the latest in a series of efforts over the past three decades to get the state's natural gas to a major market.

ConocoPhillips (COP.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) submitted a separate proposal outside the state's AGIA process, which Palin's administration said fell "critically short of meeting the state's objectives."

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What have you contributed to this thread besides flamebait? Now please go look in the mirror.

I called a troll on his obvious "mistake."

He responded with more "misstatements."

I called them on those, as well. The truth matters, you know.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Genx87
What have you contributed to this thread besides flamebait? Now please go look in the mirror.

I called a troll on his obvious "mistake."

He responded with more "misstatements."

I called them on those, as well. The truth matters, you know.

Ahh so in other words you trolled a troll.

Congrats.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Genx87
What have you contributed to this thread besides flamebait? Now please go look in the mirror.

I called a troll on his obvious "mistake."

He responded with more "misstatements."

I called them on those, as well. The truth matters, you know.

Ahh so in other words you trolled a troll.

Congrats.

Calling a troll on his obviously inaccurate BS is not trolling.

You, however, are now trolling me for having done so.

Grats.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: TechAZ
So which blog did you get this off of?

His two links are from Fortune magazine (you've heard of it, right?) and the Anchorage Daily News, the biggest newspaper in the biggest city in Alaska, home to 40% of ALL the residents of Alaska.

I don't suppose you'll now man up and admit your lazy, troll mistake, or will you?

His links may have been from Fortune, but I seriously doubt the OP just decided to do a little original research on his own, stumbled across these out-dated articles, analyzed them, and then came to the conclusion that Palin was beholden to the oil companies. I'm guessing he found someone else on another blog who had, and then just copied the results here.

Maybe I'm just be generous, because I'd like to think noone here would purposefully use outdated articles to make a false point.

LOL...you're being generous I fear. It's apparent that many here (including heyheybooboo) read their partisan blogs and regurgitate them in P&N without the slightest effort to do any heavy lifting like thinking or checking facts. They already "know" everything they need to know when the see an (R) or (D) behind a name. Ahhh...and these are the great thinkers of our time...bah.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
LOL...you're being generous I fear. It's apparent that many here (including heyheybooboo) read their partisan blogs and regurgitate them in P&N without the slightest effort to do any heavy lifting like thinking or checking facts. They already "know" everything they need to know when the see an (R) or (D) behind a name. Ahhh...and these are the great thinkers of our time...bah.

I don't blog. There goes your theory.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
LOL...you're being generous I fear. It's apparent that many here (including heyheybooboo) read their partisan blogs and regurgitate them in P&N without the slightest effort to do any heavy lifting like thinking or checking facts. They already "know" everything they need to know when the see an (R) or (D) behind a name. Ahhh...and these are the great thinkers of our time...bah.

I don't blog. There goes your theory.

Then tell me...why didn't you check the article date and, if you did, why didn't it prompt you to check current facts?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
LOL...you're being generous I fear. It's apparent that many here (including heyheybooboo) read their partisan blogs and regurgitate them in P&N without the slightest effort to do any heavy lifting like thinking or checking facts. They already "know" everything they need to know when the see an (R) or (D) behind a name. Ahhh...and these are the great thinkers of our time...bah.

I don't blog. There goes your theory.

Then tell me...why didn't you check the article date and, if you did, why didn't it prompt you to check current facts?

Give up. You Fail.

The Alaska Senate approved the TransCanada bill last month. You clearly did not bother to read the article from the ADN and note the date 'August 2nd, 2008'.

Please feel free to continue shooting the messenger instead of actually debating the pipeline or my original comment:

My concern is that a political campaign is branding it's party 'Country First', spinning the resume of it's VP candidate for political gain, and screaming 'Sexism' when folks point out their lack of due diligence.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
LOL...you're being generous I fear. It's apparent that many here (including heyheybooboo) read their partisan blogs and regurgitate them in P&N without the slightest effort to do any heavy lifting like thinking or checking facts. They already "know" everything they need to know when the see an (R) or (D) behind a name. Ahhh...and these are the great thinkers of our time...bah.

I don't blog. There goes your theory.

Then tell me...why didn't you check the article date and, if you did, why didn't it prompt you to check current facts?

Give up. You Fail.

The Alaska Senate approved the TransCanada bill last month. You clearly did not bother to read the article from the ADN and note the date 'August 2nd, 2008'.

Please feel free to continue shooting the messenger instead of actually debating the pipeline or my original comment:

My concern is that a political campaign is branding it's party 'Country First', spinning the resume of it's VP candidate for political gain, and screaming 'Sexism' when folks point out their lack of due diligence.

Here...I'll spell it out for you...dude I was talking about the Fortune magazine article you linked. Please answer my previous question. Also, did you actually read the Business Week article dated August 30, 2008 linked by 351Cleveland?

Edit for clarity.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

The Alaska Senate approved the TransCanada bill last month. You clearly did not bother to read the article from the ADN and note the date 'August 2nd, 2008'.

Please feel free to continue shooting the messenger instead of actually debating the pipeline or my original comment:

My concern is that a political campaign is branding it's party 'Country First', spinning the resume of it's VP candidate for political gain, and screaming 'Sexism' when folks point out their lack of due diligence.

And you completely ignored my post without response or rebuttal. Oddly enough, I was quick to respond to you because, at the time of your post, I was looking up information on the pipeline. I had it at hand. I was going to start a thread, but you beat me to it 🙂

I quote from the bottom of the second article you linked (a Democrat talking in this quote, who voted for Palin's bill):

Anchorage Democratic Sen. Bill Wielechowski voted for the TransCanada license and said it might spur the BP-Conoco partnership to win the gas line competition.

"If they ultimately end up building it, fine," he said. "We just want a pipeline."

That was the whole purpose of the entire bill. Nobody knows that TransCanada is going to build this thing. In fact, most probably prefer they didnt. The point of bringing in TransCanada was to strong-arm the oil companies into a) getting off their butts and starting on a pipeline, and b) getting them to do it WITHOUT $10billion in tax breaks. Strategy my good man... strategy. "Big Oil" will make a ton of money without the tax breaks... they know that... which is why they are backing down from the tax breaks. She played a masterful game of chicken, and won. They blinked. That is what executives do.

Same reason as a controller, I take a products from a current vendor, go to a new vendor, get better pricing, and then use the better pricing to twist the arm of my current vendor. I dont WANT to change, but I have to show a willingness to move vendors if I want to get some kind of concession, be it price or exclusivity. She did that. Task completed.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: TechAZ
So which blog did you get this off of?

His two links are from Fortune magazine (you've heard of it, right?) and the Anchorage Daily News, the biggest newspaper in the biggest city in Alaska, home to 40% of ALL the residents of Alaska.

I don't suppose you'll now man up and admit your lazy, troll mistake, or will you?

Ummm... the Fortune/CNN Article is almost a year old... which I pointed out. I provided a newer article. The deal was signed August 20th. It doesnt suprise me that Business Week didnt get around to writing an article on it for 9 days... doesnt seem unreasonable.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: TechAZ
So which blog did you get this off of?

His two links are from Fortune magazine (you've heard of it, right?) and the Anchorage Daily News, the biggest newspaper in the biggest city in Alaska, home to 40% of ALL the residents of Alaska.

I don't suppose you'll now man up and admit your lazy, troll mistake, or will you?

Ummm... the Fortune/CNN Article is almost a year old... which I pointed out. I provided a newer article. The deal was signed August 20th. It doesnt suprise me that Business Week didnt get around to writing an article on it for 9 days... doesnt seem unreasonable.

Oh, absolutely, I wasn't in any way speaking to your substantive contribution to the thread. I was addressing TechAZ. Instead of simply admitting he goofed, or just letting it go, he responded with even MORE inexcusably basic, reading comprehension level "inaccuracies" and off topic personal attacks. Sorry for the distraction.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: TechAZ
So which blog did you get this off of?

His two links are from Fortune magazine (you've heard of it, right?) and the Anchorage Daily News, the biggest newspaper in the biggest city in Alaska, home to 40% of ALL the residents of Alaska.

I don't suppose you'll now man up and admit your lazy, troll mistake, or will you?

Ummm... the Fortune/CNN Article is almost a year old... which I pointed out. I provided a newer article. The deal was signed August 20th. It doesnt suprise me that Business Week didnt get around to writing an article on it for 9 days... doesnt seem unreasonable.

Oh, absolutely, I wasn't in any way speaking to your substantive contribution to the thread. I was addressing TechAZ. Instead of simply admitting he goofed, or just letting it go, he responded with even MORE inexcusably basic, reading comprehension level "inaccuracies" and off topic personal attacks. Sorry for the distraction.

:roll: Your tangent doesn't really address what TechAZ posted. His point was that the OP got the links from some lefty blog. You simply don't seem to understand that and continue to troll on and on.
I swear the Palin pick has made you BDS sufferers stroke out.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I swear the Palin pick has made you BDS sufferers stroke out.

As it should

She is a threat to the very existence of America just as Bush and McCain are.

Only real Americans see this and responding to it. The rest of the puppets there is no hope for. They will revel in America's destruction as they have for the past 8 years.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Ummm... the Fortune/CNN Article is almost a year old... which I pointed out. I provided a newer article. The deal was signed August 20th. It doesnt suprise me that Business Week didnt get around to writing an article on it for 9 days... doesnt seem unreasonable.

Center for Responsive Politics for Harold McGraw

Center for Political Accountability
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Political Transparency and Accountability Profile (2007)

While not a major political player, McGraw-Hill has made political contributions in recent election cycles and is a member of politically-active trade associations. Despite its political involvement, the company has spotty disclosure of its procedures and policies for how it handles the full range its political spending, and no disclosure of its political expenditures.

According to available records, McGraw-Hill has contributed over $70,000 in corporate funds since the 2000 election cycle. However, a review by the CPA suggests that McGraw-Hill?s political spending may be significantly understated for several reasons.

Gee. A political puff piece written the day after Palin is nominated.


I guess it's not 'Business Week'

but

'Business 9 Days After Puff Piece Which Comes Out the Day After The Republican Party Announces Their VP Candidate And Of Course There Is Nothing Going On Here Even Though Our Owner Is A Major Contributor To Republican Candidates Over The Last 10 Years And That A Review By The CPA Suggests That McGraw-Hill?s Political Spending May Be Significantly Understated'


I guess I could have added 'Never Question The Corporate Media Because If You Read A Puff Piece On Our Web Site The Day After The Republicans Nominate Their VP Candidate It Has To Be True'



As noted, there are attractive alternatives to TransCanada - I like the idea of joint ownership by natural gas producers with a 20 percent stake by the State of Alaska (who could profit in many ways from their contribution and maintain a 'seat at the table').

And since a much shorter pipeline could be built to an Alaskan port with an LNG plant for overseas transport we could actually get the gas more quickly.

Giving $500 million in Alaskan tax dollars to make a 'point' may or may not have been prudent.

And LOL at you guys shooting the messenger.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I swear the Palin pick has made you BDS sufferers stroke out.

As it should

Indeed, Palin is GWB in a dress.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I swear the Palin pick has made you BDS sufferers stroke out.

As it should

Indeed, Palin is GWB in a dress.

She is developing McCain jowls though.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Ummm... the Fortune/CNN Article is almost a year old... which I pointed out. I provided a newer article. The deal was signed August 20th. It doesnt suprise me that Business Week didnt get around to writing an article on it for 9 days... doesnt seem unreasonable.

Center for Responsive Politics for Harold McGraw

Center for Political Accountability
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Political Transparency and Accountability Profile (2007)

While not a major political player, McGraw-Hill has made political contributions in recent election cycles and is a member of politically-active trade associations. Despite its political involvement, the company has spotty disclosure of its procedures and policies for how it handles the full range its political spending, and no disclosure of its political expenditures.

According to available records, McGraw-Hill has contributed over $70,000 in corporate funds since the 2000 election cycle. However, a review by the CPA suggests that McGraw-Hill?s political spending may be significantly understated for several reasons.

Gee. A political puff piece written the day after Palin is nominated.


I guess it's not 'Business Week'

but

'Business 9 Days After Puff Piece Which Comes Out the Day After The Republican Party Announces Their VP Candidate And Of Course There Is Nothing Going On Here Even Though Our Owner Is A Major Contributor To Republican Candidates Over The Last 10 Years And That A Review By The CPA Suggests That McGraw-Hill?s Political Spending May Be Significantly Understated'


I guess I could have added 'Never Question The Corporate Media Because If You Read A Puff Piece On Our Web Site The Day After The Republicans Nominate Their VP Candidate It Has To Be True'



As noted, there are attractive alternatives to TransCanada - I like the idea of joint ownership by natural gas producers with a 20 percent stake by the State of Alaska (who could profit in many ways from their contribution and maintain a 'seat at the table').

And since a much shorter pipeline could be built to an Alaskan port with an LNG plant for overseas transport we could actually get the gas more quickly.

Giving $500 million in Alaskan tax dollars to make a 'point' may or may not have been prudent.

And LOL at you guys shooting the messenger.

I disagree with your assessment of the pipeline deal. You have made not ONE arguement against it. You have now begun to attack sources. I didnt attack your source, I attacked the age of your article, and then I provided a NEWER article that directly refutes the article you cited. Sorry it was written 10 DAYS after the deal was signed. I know... those turtles.

My last response until someone can directly assess the points I made. To summarize, nearly a year after your primary article, she appears to have been successful at producing significant movement on getting a pipeline built, and oh by the way a) it took her predecessors 30 years to come up with a corrupt deal that was LACED with incentives for "Big Oil," to the tune of $10billion, and b) she did it in 2 years at a cost of $500million. If you think she could have done better, fine. Personally, I think she played it brilliantly. You might disagree, but you have done a piss poor job of defending your position.

 

[lupi]

Dailykos or moveon?

 

[heyheybooboo]

One therm is 96.7 cubic feet of natural gas.

The proposed pipeline will carry 4.5 billion cubic feet a day.

or .... 46,535,677 therms per day.

Wholesale price of natural gas where I live is $1.13 per therm plus transmission and production costs. In the Winter it's been as high as $1.75 per therm (plus costs). Using an average of $1.50 per therm - - - - -

.... that would generate $69,803,516.02 in total revenue per day ....

or generate $25,478,283,347.30 (that's billion of dollars for the math-challenged) per year in total revenues.

I'll let you figure the lifetime of the pipeline and do your own math.


So .....

Governor Palin doesn't think Big Oil needs such inducements. With a pipeline delivering 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to market, the producers stand to gross up to $1 billion a year each at current prices.

Frank Murkowski was a scum bag. The deal needed to be squashed ....

But don't piss down my neck and tell me it's raining .... this is a project of national importance. At it's current status you have a right believe what you want to believe.

I think paying a mult-national $500+ million for a pipeline they are not obligated to build as part of an 'inducement' is worthy of discussion when a political party claims this as part of their candidate's resume. I didn't hold it up for scrutiny, the Republican party did.

I put it in context and offered my opinion so ... bite me 😛

(Yes. I'm talking to you)

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
One therm is 96.7 cubic feet of natural gas.

The proposed pipeline will carry 4.5 billion cubic feet a day.

or .... 46,535,677 therms per day.

Wholesale price of natural gas where I live is $1.13 per therm plus transmission and production costs. In the Winter it's been as high as $1.75 per therm (plus costs). Using an average of $1.50 per therm - - - - -

.... that would generate $69,803,516.02 in total revenue per day ....

or generate $25,478,283,347.30 (that's billion of dollars for the math-challenged) per year in total revenues.

I'll let you figure the lifetime of the pipeline and do your own math.


So .....

Governor Palin doesn't think Big Oil needs such inducements. With a pipeline delivering 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to market, the producers stand to gross up to $1 billion a year each at current prices.

Frank Murkowski was a scum bag. The deal needed to be squashed ....

But don't piss down my neck and tell me it's raining .... this is a project of national importance. At it's current status you have a right believe what you want to believe.

I think paying a mult-national $500+ million for a pipeline they are not obligated to build as part of an 'inducement' is worthy of discussion when a political party claims this as part of their candidate's resume. I didn't hold it up for scrutiny, the Republican party did.

I put it in context and offered my opinion so ... bite me 😛

(Yes. I'm talking to you)

Okay then. We now have a discussion. Buidling the pipeline does not mean they are extracting the gas. The gas travels the pipeline, but does not necessarily belong to the people who own the pipeline. Given that, your payback scenario is somewhat wrong... if the oil companies build the pipeline, then the example is more credible. Still, to generate $25billion a year on an investment of $500million... I think I like that investment. You dont have to. I still think she played it very well.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Your tangent doesn't really address what TechAZ posted. His point was that the OP got the links from some lefty blog. You simply don't seem to understand that and continue to troll on and on.
I swear the Palin pick has made you BDS sufferers stroke out.

TechAZ's point was that he (and you) ASSUME that heyheybooboo got his links from some "lefty blog". Would you care to substantiate that assumption?

 

[QED]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Your tangent doesn't really address what TechAZ posted. His point was that the OP got the links from some lefty blog. You simply don't seem to understand that and continue to troll on and on.
I swear the Palin pick has made you BDS sufferers stroke out.

TechAZ's point was that he (and you) ASSUME that heyheybooboo got his links from some "lefty blog". Would you care to substantiate that assumption?

Ummm... this is P&N?

Any well researched and gramatically correct post can and should automatically be assumed to have been copied and pasted off of someone's blog.

Any poorly researched but gramatically correct post can and should automatically be assumed to have been copied and pasted off of someone's blog, or the New York Times.

Finally, any poorly researched and gramatically incorrect post can and should automatically be assumed to be that poster's own original work.

😛

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Your tangent doesn't really address what TechAZ posted. His point was that the OP got the links from some lefty blog. You simply don't seem to understand that and continue to troll on and on.
I swear the Palin pick has made you BDS sufferers stroke out.

TechAZ's point was that he (and you) ASSUME that heyheybooboo got his links from some "lefty blog". Would you care to substantiate that assumption?

They can't. Because I didn't.

They smear without substance and run away.

 

[skyking]

In your defense, I googled some of the phrases in your post.
I struck out.
Apparently, maybe you Wrote some that stuff yourself.:shocked: