I watched a story on 60 Minutes last night about a proposed natural gas pipeline in Alaska that would bring an enormous amount of natural gas to the Lower 48. (Best line: When the interviewer said “big gas reserves” and it sounded like “big-ass reserves”.)
There are two proposals: The first is supported by the governor and congress, and would have the pipeline go through Alaska and Canada. The good: It will create tens of thousands of jobs in Alaska. The bad: It will require federal subsidies and special tax breaks and will cost $20 billion before cost overruns.
The other proposal would have a 300 mile pipe that went to a Canadian port, where it would link to the Canadian pipeline that is already being built. The good: It would be much, much cheaper and would not require federal subsidies or kickbacks. The bad: Fewer jobs will be created in Alaska.
Alaskan congressmen have included in the energy bill, a ban on the second proposal.
In your opinion, would it be better to build the shorter, less expensive pipeline; or the longer, more expensive pipeline? Is it fair to the American taxpayers to have to pay for the more expensive pipeline when there is a cheaper alternative? (And remember that the Alaskans will be the ones getting the royalties; not the people who are paying for the pipeline.) Or is it better to have the start of the pipeline on U.S. soil, have a second pipeline separated by thousands of miles from the Canadian one (which provides a “backup”), and to provide work to tens of thousands of Alaskans?
If building the short pipeline will accomplish the same goal as building the big one (e.g., get X amount of gas to the lower 48) then it would be criminal to spend tax money on the more expensive operation, for the sole purpose of creating jobs.
I don’t know if the sole purpose is for creating jobs, per se. A multi-billion dollar contract would also provide revenue to the companies that build it and benefit the state of Alaska. Some would call that “pork barrel politics”, while others call it “acting in my constituents’ best interest”.
FWIW, Dubya is opposed to the more expensive pipeline and its subsidies and tax breaks. But he really wants a energy bill to sign, and he is unlikely to veto one because of this issue. Also, environmental groups are in favour of Alaska’s proposition since they like the “clean burning” natural gas and they want to bet on a winner. (i.e., since the other proposal is, or will be, banned, they like the more expensive proposal because it will get the gas down here.)
IMO the shorter, cheaper pipeline is better for the American People. But Alaska’s governor was hired to take care of his constituents, so I can understand why he prefers the longer pipeline. It will be better for Alaskans.
I saw the story, too. Obviously, the short one is better. They couldn’t come up with a reason not to do it, so they simply blocked it from ever happening…with no reason given. Fuckers. The fix is in.
True, but when it comes to gummint projects, I am very much in favor of minimalism. I would rather the money to be spent on the project remain in the free market than be used to build an unnecessarily big project.
Consider what would happen if a private entrepeneur decided he wanted to build a gas pipeline of his own. He’d be laughed out of every bank and venture capital office on the planet if he said, “Let’s build a really big one, to give Alaskans better jobs!”
Personally, I agree that we should get the biggest benefit for the least money. From what they said on the show, it sounds as if the shorter pipeline is better. It costs less, the gas still winds up in America, and the Alaskans still get their royalties. The best argument the governor of Alaska could come up with was that the cheaper option would benefit the company owned by the man who proposed it. So what?
(Of course I realise that the story was “spun” to make the governor and the Alaskan representatives to look unreasonable. That doesn’t make it untrue.)