Tune in on TV or drop out for Sunday for debates

Tune in to KTUU – Channel 2 on Sunday morning for a debate between Anchorage Rep. Les Gara and Andrew Halcro on Ballot Measure #1. Both are fine debaters and neither are known for pulling punches.. I suspect there will be verbal ones thrown and you might even learn something.

The GOP senate candidates will be debating with KTVA and ADN reporters Sunday evening live from 7:00 – 8:30 pm at the UAA Wendy Williamson Auditorium. It’s open to the public. If you want to watch it at home, KTVA – Channel 11 will broadcast the first hour of the debate or you can watch in its entirety on GCI Cable Channel 1.


5 thoughts on “Tune in on TV or drop out for Sunday for debates

  1. Jon k

    This has nothing do w hope. We have 15 companies pursuing drilling programs on the north slope. We have new players that have arrived and will be spending billions over the next several years on significant development projects. We are entering a very exciting time w the north slope is transitioning from a basin controlled by 3 players. Too many Alaskans are so full of negativity they fail to see all of the positive developments that are happening right under their nose.

  2. Lynn Willis

    My concern is lack of stewardship for our revenues, not necessarily just oil production. We don’t just have to find gas and oil, at present rates of state spending we have to realize a substantial income from those discoveries.
    Improved extraction methods from new and the formerly “depleted” sources is a double edge sword for Alaskans because extraction may be cheaper in other locations and excess supply drives down price. This is from the US Energy Information website: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=35&t=6

    “Alaska’s crude oil production peaked in 1988 at about 738 million barrels, which was equal to about 25% of total U.S. oil production. In 2013, it was nearly 188 million barrels, or about 7% of total U.S. production.”

    We are a backwater player now, albeit with potential. For now, Alaska had better “wake up and smell the coffee”,in the short term and quit betting our children’s future on these probable and possible reserves. Only proven reserves should affect decision making regarding spending. So many now want to compare the current situation with the time when oil fell to $10/bb. Then all that was necessary was an increase in price to save us because we had the production levels. Not so any more
    Cook Inlet may be an example of what conflicting motives can create. We needed a source of gas and loathed the idea of importation so we spent a lot of money on the “Cook Inlet Renaissance”. We now have supply contracts through 2018; however, without tax revenue from that investment we are only half way to where we need to be.
    We all hope for the best. I have been told that hope alone is not a dependable plan of action.

  3. Anonymous

    Parnell’s goal of a 1 million barrels included production from federal lands and the OCS. On state lands we have a lot of conventional pools still untapped, plus the promise of heavy oil and shale.

    We still have tremendous potential on the north slope and in the OCS. And the north slope is relatively under explored. Basins go through cycles Lynn. Look at what is happening in the Permian Basin, Marcellus, and Williston basins. Or closer to home Cook Inlet. Several years many “knowledgeable” people say the basin was dead and we were running out of gas. They were wrong. We now have more gas then the marke can handle and oil production has practically doubled.

  4. Lynn Willis

    Thanks for the notice Amanda. I watched this “debate”. This was, I suppose, another demonstration of what passes for political discourse in America today.
    Our politicians and political leaders cannot (or will not) grasp the concept of the finality of exploiting a non-renewable resource. They also cannot understand the difference between possible, probable and proven reserves of these resources. Already some are willing to bet the farm on the “possible” alone. If they are wrong, are we going to sustain our state spending with salmon, timber, and tourists?
    I was encouraged by the unchallenged claim by Mr. Halcro that another 4 billion barrels of recoverable North Slope oil is available; however, if we are able to extract all that oil, at Parnell’s goal of 1 million barrels per day, we will extract 365 million barrels per year and exhaust the 4 billion dollar reserve of oil in just under 11 years. If we half that extraction rate (while realizing half the revenue) we might make it 22 more years. Then what?
    The promise, we are told, is gas export; however, can we export all that oil and economically sufficient gas volumes if gas is needed to extract that oil? I would have like to have heard from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee (AOGCC) regarding the current monitoring methods that will be use to access the viability of dual extraction of both oil and gas during the hearings on the AKLNG project. Apparently that was a message some legislators and our Governor did want to hear. Alas, gas too is a non-renewable resource. Lastly, remember what happened to the “sure promise” of AGIA.
    The Permanent Fund has now reached 50 billion. The last state budget was over 12 billion. You do the math to see how long that 50 billion will last at the current rate of spending (absent state income from our renewable resources of salmon, timber and tourists).

  5. Jon K

    Hopefully Les can explain why he is convinced SB 21 is giving away billions. According to the most recent ISER report:“[SB 21], which lacks the investment tax credit of ACES, collects more in years of high investment (such as projected for FY15 and FY16), while ACES collects more otherwise.” Page 19. That is, we will see MORE revenue, according to ISER, over the next two years undere SB 21. The reason why ISER concluded that we will see $1.5 billion more under ACES over the next five years is because Berman assumed, based on DOR’s new conservative forecasts, that spending will drop way off after Point Thomson is on-line in 2016. But if spending remains high and if costs stay high and prices stay as forecasted, the state is not going to be losing billions, at least according to ISER. Because nobody can predict oil prices or the amount of spending in this state, it is reckless to conclude that we WILL lose billions under SB 21.

    I’d also like to know why SB 21 is an unconstitutional giveaway when, according to ISER, it is the second highest tax regime in the state’s history – at least for legacy fields. Does Les think all of the other regimes throughout the state’s history were unconstitutional? Did he vote for the Cook Inlet tax regime which currently does NOT tax oil and has a minimal tax on gas? If so, why wasn’t that vote unconstitutional?

Comments are closed.