Obama Campaign Energy Teleconference--"Alaska features prominently in the Obama energy plan"

Sen. Obama's initial comments on his energy policy August 6th from Elkhart, Indiana

I'm a little teleconference-happy today.

9:00 AM Alaska time we had one with Diane Benson (as you can see in my previous post).

Then at 11:00 AM, we had one with two heavies in the Obama for America campaign: Pete Rouse, Senior Advisor for the Campaign (and Former Chief of Staff, Alaska Lt. Gov. Terry Miller) and Heather Zichal, Director of Energy Policy for the Campaign.

Heather started by describing the plan Barack Obama has been unveiling over the last several days in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.

Zichal listed an "aggressive" set of measures both in the short-term and the long-term to "make the investments we need to break our addiction to oil". We can't solf this overnight but we need to start now. Short-term: This begins with the "emergency energy rebate" of $1,000.00 per family, because "American consumers need direct assistance and need it now," stop putting oil in the strategic petroleum reserve and "crack down on speculators." (During later questioning, Zichal clarified that the $1,000 rebate will be capped at families that make over $150,000 and will be paid for by a proposed windfall profits tax.)

Zichal focused on three points that are at the center of the plan:

1) Increasing automobile standards - 1 mil hybrids on the road 2015 increase investment commit to 36 bil gallons advanced biofuels by 2012. As Senator Obama described it in Indiana:

First, we’ll commit ourselves to getting one million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrid cars on our roads within six years. And we’ll make sure that the cars of tomorrow are built not just in Japan or China, but right here in the United States of America.

2) 25% renewable energy by 2025

Second, we’ll double the amount of our energy that comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term. That means investing in renewables like wind and solar power, and we’ll also invest in the next generation biofuels.

3) Efficiency standards-15%

Third, I will call on businesses, government, and the American people to meet the goal of reducing our demand for electricity 15% by the end of the next decade. This is by far the fastest, easiest, and cheapest way to reduce our energy consumption – and it will save us $130 billion on our energy bills.

In the interim, the Obama Adminstration would continue with our domestic supply of natural gas and oil.

Also, resources are available that need to be developed and Zichal restated Obama's support for the Congressional Dems "use it or lose it" policy, as there are 68 million existing leases that need to be developed now.

Zichal also stated that a "cornerstone of the plan is a commitment from Fed gov't to build AK natural gas pipeline and bring resources on line."

Pete Rouse came on-line specifically addressing the energy plan as it effects Alaska and wanted to emphasize several points:

1) AK features prominently in the Obama energy plan (which was acknowledged by Governor in a press release earlier in the week).

2) There is a "sense of urgency in Barack's approach to the natural gas issue." While demand for gas is skyrocketing, gas development has been flat from 2000-2007. There is a great "potential for natural gas" as motor fuel, etc...

3) Barack Obama's understanding of the issue pertaining to Alaska has increased greatly through discussions with prominent Alaskans.

- He met one-on-one with Mark Begich in Miami and came back from that clearly on his mind that it needed to be highlighted even more.

- In the January op ed by Gov. Hickel, his "enthusiasm was not lost on Senator Obama."

- Tony Knowles is a good friend and close advisor to Sen. Obama--he has talked for several years to Senator Obama on this issue and will continue to do so.

Rouse also emphasized that the Obama Administration would look for a Federal Partnership with the State of Alaska to help move the pipeline project forward. (In response to my later question--establishing whether they were proposing to only work with the pipeline licensed by the state vs. competing lines--- Rouse stated that the idea was to first work with Governor Palin -- start from the leadership at the top we believe we can make real progress) He believes that Alaskans should share in benefits of project, which would include jobs and a reduction in the huge cost of energy in Alaska. According to Rouse, high energy prices in Alaska is "a fact underrecognized in the lower-48."

In a brilliant move on the part of the Obama Campaign, Rouse stated that in this "Federal partnership" with Alaska over the gas line, "Exxon should not have a disproportionate influence over the timetable for construction of this important national project." Rouse stated that Obama wants to move the project forward as what is best for Alaska and nation. Also, Rouse pointed out that "McCain opposed tax incentives to build the pipeline."

In response to the question as to whether Barack Obama will be visiting Alaska, Pete Rouse said that it is "still on the planning docket here and we hope that it happens."

HERE is the text of the remarks that Sen. Obama presented at the beginning of the Town Hall Meeting.

HERE is a link to the YouTube contributor with the eight videos of the entire Elkhart, Indiana Town Hall (starting in backwards order with Evan Bayh's introduction).

Exxon's in charge????? I feel dirty...

...and used...and duped...


...by our "buddy," Hal Kvisle.

VANCOUVER — TransCanada Corp. has won support from Alaska to build a $26-billion natural gas pipeline, but ground won't be broken until Exxon Mobil Corp. signs on, says TransCanada chief executive officer Hal Kvisle.

Calgary-based TransCanada, which secured Alaska's official backing Friday, is in competition with BP PLC and ConocoPhillips Co. to build a pipeline that would connect large untapped gas reserves on the north slope of the state to consumers in the continental United States.

But Exxon, the company that controls the most gas in Alaska, hasn't yet backed either of the competing proposals, though it has an active Alaska team monitoring the pipeline race.

"Nothing goes ahead until Exxon is happy with it," Mr. Kvisle said in an interview yesterday.

So, we'll be waiting until all of their other pipelines are done, until about 2015 and it will depend upon the say-so of Exxon, the company that's fighting in court NOT TO PAY INTEREST on the money they've owed Alaskan fisherfolk for over 15 years.

Didn't Wally Hickel warn us?

***UPDATE***

Alaska House Speaker John Harris (R-Valdez) springs into action and launched THIS LETTER asking for clarification.

In it, he also reminded Kvisle that they haven't agreed to the $500 million dollar "inducement".

***UPDATE 2***

Per Andrew Halcro's Blog:

Wasn't being independent of Exxon and other producers the exact reason why we went through this expensive and time consuming exercise called AGIA?

In addition, under AGIA, TransCanada has committed to holding an open season in 2010 to attract gas shipping commitments from the producers. The competing Denali project being managed by BP and ConocoPhillips, has also scheduled an open season for 2010 as well.

However, Kvisle stated that in his interview that it would be unlikely there will be two open seasons conducted.

The SCOTUS Exxon ruling bad for the McCain Campaign? Part 2--his Energy Policy.

“I don’t see an immediate relief,. But I do see that exploitation of existing reserves that may exist, and in the view of many experts that do exist off our coasts, is also a way that we need to provide relief. Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial.”

John McCain

(The long-term extent of the spill--470 miles)

Previously, I pointed out the pro-business majority in SCOTUS and what the Exxon ruling meant for corporate responsibility...or lack thereof. The most personal fallout to Alaskans is the environmental, human and financial impact of this decision. I'm not sure that people understand the long-term consequences.

A study was performed by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2001, 12-years after the Exxon spill. The study determined that out of 91 sites, 58 had evidence of oil:

1) Surface oil was determined to be not a good indicator of subsurface oil.
2) Twenty subsurface pits were classified as heavily oiled. Oil saturated all of the interstitial spaces and was extremely repugnant. These “worst case” pits exhibited an oil mixture that resembled oil encountered in 1989 a few weeks after the spill - highly odiferous, lightly weathered, and very fluid.
3) Subsurface oil was also found at a lower tide height than expected (between 0 and 6 feet), in contrast to the surface oil, which was found mostly at the highest levels of the beach (Table 3). This is significant, because the pits with the most oil were found low in the intertidal zone, closest to the zone of biological production, and indicate that our estimates are conservative at best.

It seemed that the oil WAS having an effect on wildlife all those years later:

Around the same time, researchers monitoring sea otters and harlequin ducks, noticed that populations were not recovering in the most heavily impacted areas. The researchers employed methods to determine whether continued exposure to oil could be a factor. The methods involved the physical examination of individuals encountered in those areas and detection of chemical biomarkers, such as cytochrome P4501A (CYP1A), an enzyme that is produced by animals when they have been exposed poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, a volatile component of unweathered oil.

In addition, there have been studies done to determine the health of ecosystems effected by even earlier oil spills. Per the National Geographic website:

The findings come from a study of the aftermath of an accident that occurred in Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts, on a foggy morning in September 1969. A Boston-bound barge entering the Cape Cod Canal ran aground on rocks, spilling 175,000 gallons (700,000 liters) of diesel fuel into the bay...

...Evidence from the Buzzards Bay disaster suggests the effects of oil spills could be indefinite. Thirty years after the Massachusetts catastrophe, significant oil residues remain in local salt marsh sediments, according to researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution...

..."Even after all these years, concentrations of some compounds [in at least one Buzzards Bay site] are similar to those observed immediately after the spill...

So the environmental devastation could be "indefinite."

The human impact has been equally long-term...equally "indefinite." Families who had been fishing for generations went bankrupt and lost their $100,000+ commercial fishing licenses. Fishing towns like Cordova have had to depend more on tourist dollars...and tourist jobs are considerably lower-paying.

Then, there is the subsistence issue, pointed out poignantly by Writing Raven:

I was quite struck by this bit in a Yahoo article on the announcement:

"It also was about the end of Alaska Native traditions and a subsistence lifestyle for several villages in the region. Because of the spill, many Alaska Natives were forced to stop harvesting seal, salmon and herring roe and move to urban areas, never to return, said Lange, who is part Aleut and Tlingit.

'A cultural link was definitely broken,' she said."

I know the high value of these subsistence items, and the difficulty in getting them in the first place. To have something so reckless and harmful happen to traditions lasting millenia bites at the soul.

The loss of hundreds of years of heritage with a Supreme Court guarantee there will be no real consequence for it's destruction--Gee, sign me up!!!! I doubt seriously that's what the people of Florida, California or the Carolinas want.

I don't think that offshore drilling will have the "psychological impact" that McCain is hoping for.