Post a response to this discussion thread
08/08/01: Coaster
Posted by: grundle2600@hotmail.com (grundle)
Sounds good to me!
78% of Eskimos favor drilling at ANWR.
Only 9% oppose it.
----------
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock051701.shtml
Eskimos: Open ANWR Now
Their desire to open ANWR deserves the immediate attention of policymakers and journalists alike.
Mr. Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service. May 17, 2001 11:20 a.m.
Even before President Bush could lay out his energy blueprint today, environmentalists, petroleum executives, and politicians lined up for and against oil and gas development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. About the only people absent from the discussion have been the Eskimos eager to resolve ANWR's fate. Their desire to open ANWR deserves the immediate attention of policymakers and journalists alike.
Within ANWR's 19.6 million acres, Eskimos own 92,000 acres of now — private property that Washington granted them in the 1980s to settle aboriginal land claims. The Eskimos' right to lease their North Slope territory for fossil-fuel production was conditioned on Congress opening the rest of ANWR. Despite initial expectations of timely approval, this issue has remained mired in controversy until today. Meanwhile, Eskimos wonder if they ever will benefit from their lands.
"We feel as if we are a colony and that the imperial powers are dictating to us," Inupiat Eskimo Donald Olson, M.D. tells me by phone. The Democratic Alaska state senator is working with the Washington office of a non-profit called Arctic Power to present the native view on ANWR. "We've got a right here that is being infringed upon by the federal government," Olson adds. "We are having shackles put around us and are being held as economic hostages by people from the lower 48 who never have been to Alaska or the North Slope." Olson also believes oil companies "have had 30 years of environmentally sensitive dealings with us. We anticipate this will be the same way."
Olson, who practices general medicine, notes that his constituents in Kaktovik (pop. 256) "do not have running water or a sewer system. That means they are relegated to Third World conditions where people have to melt ice to bathe and to drink. They use five-gallon containers for sanitation." This absence of flush toilets causes sometimes — fatal cases of hepatitis A and contributes to high infant mortality rates.
Olson and other Eskimos attribute what progress they are making exclusively to job creation and income generated from oil operations at nearby Prudhoe Bay. Says Olson's chief of staff, John Jemewouk: "The standard of living has increased dramatically in the last 30 years since the oil companies came to Alaska." He explains that Eskimos have used petroleum royalties and tax revenues to manage caribou herds more effectively, raising their numbers six-fold.
Such benefits have earned ANWR development widespread support among the roughly 8,000 Eskimos who populate Alaska's North Slope Borough, an 89,000 square mile, Minnesota-sized county. A January 2000 survey of 68 Kaktovik residents found that 78 percent favor opening ANWR while only 9 percent are opposed. (For details, visit kaktovik.com.) The Alaska Federation of Natives, representing some 80,000 Eskimos, adopted a resolution in 1995 calling for opening ANWR as a "critically important economic opportunity for Alaska Natives."
According to NSB mayor George Ahmaogak Sr., "71 percent of our annual revenues are generated by property taxes on oil field equipment and installations." These funds have given many Eskimos access to police and fire protection, landfills, and other basic services.
Those who want to keep ANWR closed may expect the Eskimos to find other work. Their options are highly limited. "We have the most to lose if ANWR is not open," says the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation's Tara Sweeney, a native of Barrow, America's northernmost town. "We do not have an economy in our area at all other than the oil industry." The Eskimos once trapped animals and sold their pelts, but that profession went the way of the fur coat. For Eskimos, it literally has become oil or nothing.
"Our land provides the critical connection with our ancient culture and traditions that is necessary for our spiritual well being," says ASRC chairman Jacob Adams. "And, in the form of jobs and tax revenues from the petroleum industry it supports, our land provides the opportunity for economic security, self-determination, and freedom.
As eloquent as that message is, President Bush faces an uphill battle in trying to do right by Mr. Adams and his tribesmen. Environmentalists will continue portraying ANWR as an ecological Louvre whose treasures must be vigorously defended from Dick Cheney and his white, male pals in Big Oil. Greenpeace's fantasies aside, the caribou and eider ducks at ANWR are not alone. U.S. citizens also live there whose voices should be heard. Introducing the American people to the Eskimos of ANWR at a Rose Garden ceremony would add their perspectives to the national debate about a place they call home.
Post a response to this discussion thread
Go to: Hedwig and the Angry Inch | Message | Previous Response | Next Response
-----
08/08/01: Environmentalists lie about ANWR.
Posted by: grundle2600@hotmail.com (grundle)
On the news and in magazines and in their brochures, the environmentalists always show the part of ANWR that consists of rolling hills covered in trees and tall grass, with flowers and birds. But that's not the part of ANWR where the oil companies want to drill! The part where they want to drill is flat tundra covered in short grass, and it's among the most desolate, most isolated land anywhere in the world.
ANWR is 20 million acres. The area that would be affected by drilling in only 2,000 acres. This is like an area the size of an airport in an area the size of South Carolina. It's insignificant.
25 years ago, the oil companies wanted to drill at Purdue Bay. The environmentalists claimed that it would kill the caribou. The oil companies went ahead and drilled anyway. Since then, the caribou population has increased by 400%. Despite this, the environmentalists claim that drilling at ANWR would kill the caribou.
The *real* reason that the radical environemtnalists oppose drilling at ANWR has *nothing* to do with protecting the environemnt. Instead, the real reason they oppose drilling is because they are socialists who are against capitalism, technology, and economic growth.
Post a response to this discussion thread
Go to: Hedwig and the Angry Inch | Message | Previous Response | Next Response
-----
08/08/01: convenor
Posted by: grundle2600@hotmail.com (grundle)
Your reference to "deregulated California" is not accurate.
They never "deregulated" anything.
#1 CA government regulations prevented any new power plants from being built for over a decade.
#2 By definition, the free market price is the price at which supply and demand are equal to each other. But the CA government regulated the consumer price of electricity to make it lower than the free market price. So demand exceeded supply. This is the very definition of a shortage.
#3 The CA governent forced utilities to buy electricity for 30 cents per kwh, and sell it for 6 cents. This policy of "buy high sell low" would force any business into bankruptcy.
#4 The CA governemnt forced all private utilities to sell off their power plants.
#5 The CA governemnt made it illegal for private utilities to enter into long term contracts for the wholesale purchase of electrcity.
All of these things are government regulations.
It is these regulations that caused the problem.
In order to be able to meet the demands of its customers, a business must be allowed to manufacture enough of its product to meet customer demand, the business must be allowed to sell its product for a higher price that what it pays for it, and the price must be at the point where supply and demand intersect each other. Government regulations prevented all of these things from happening.
The word "deregulation" means the *removal* of government regulations. But no such removal ever took place. On the contrary, there was an *increase* in government regulaitons.
The reason that people blame the CA elecric crises on "deregulation" is because they hate capitalism, and they are trying to convince people that capitalism is the source of the problem. Their goal is to "solve" this problem by having the governemnt take ownership of the power plants. Their ultmate final goal is socialism. When they blame the CA electric crises on "deregulation," they are using doublespeak, the exact same way as was used in George Orwell's book "1984."
Over a dozen times, I have listed these government regualtions, explaining how they caused the problem. But no one here has ever explained about any specific "deregulations," because there never was any "deregulation."
There never was any "deregulation."
Any business would be harmed if the governemnt prevented it from expanding its capacity for over a decade.
Any business would be harmed if the governemnt forced it to sell its product for a lower price than what the business paid for it.
Any business would have a shortage if the governemnt set price controls to keep the price lower than the free market price.
All of these regulations are excessive regulations that would cause any kind of business to have trouble. For example, if the government forced all supermarkets to cut all of their prices by 25%, then the supermarkets would all go out of bussiness.
You refuse to acknowledge that government price controls casue shortages.
And you think that electricity can just magically come out of thin air, and that it's not necessary to build any new power plants.
Any kind of business would be in serious trouble if it was forced to obey the kinds of regulations that the power companeis were forced to obey.
The term "deregulation" means that ther is a *reduction* in governemnt regulations. But with the CA electric indsutry, there was no reduciton in regulations. On the contrary, there was an *increase* in government regulations.
Furtheremore, your sacred public utilities did indeed charge more per kwh than the private utilities charged. Despite this, you claim that the private utilities are guilty of price gouging, but you don't make this same charge against the government ones. And you still claim that having the government seize ownership of the utilities will make things better.
All of the facts and evidence and real world experience proves that I am right and you are wrong.
The word "deregulation" means that there is a *reduction* in regulations. But there were no such reduction. On the contrary, there was an *increase* in governemnt regulations.
Post a response to this discussion thread
Go to: Hedwig and the Angry Inch | Message | Previous Response | Next Response
-----
08/08/01: also, convenor
Posted by: grundle2600@hotmail.com (grundle)
convenor, your sacred public utilities charged more dollars per megawatt hour than private ones!
You have repeatedly said that public power was the way to go. You accused the private utilities of price gouging.
Well, guess what? Your sacred public utilities charged even higher wholesale prices than the private ones!
For the record, I have nothing against any utilitiy, private or public, charging high prices. You should charge whatever the market can bear.
But since your were so angry at the private utilities for charing high prices, are you going to be even angrier at the public ones for charging even higher prices? Of course not! Because in your eyes, socialist government power providers can do no wrong, and should never be criticized!
The only meaningful statistic is price per magawatt. And for this, your sacred public utilities charged more than the private utilities that you accused of price gouging.
The public utilities charged more per megawatt than the private ones. This is a fact.
You repeatedly accused the private utilities of price gouging. You said that this was proof that we should switch to public power. But now that it's revelaed that the public utilities charged more per megawatt than the private ones, you refuse to criticize the public ones, or to accuse them of price gouging.
----------
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar chive/2001/07/16/MN235993.DTL
Municipal power firms cleaned up
Public producers charged state far more than private Mark
Martin, Lynda Gledhill, Chronicle Staff Writers Monday, July
16,
2001 ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle
URL:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar
chive/2001/07/16/MN235993.DTL
Sacramento -- From the start of the state's energy meltdown, Gov. Gray Davis and many lawmakers have cast private out-of-state energy companies -- especially those in Texas -- as pirates plundering California's economy.
But a Chronicle analysis found that some of the most expensive megawatts California bought during the bleak winter months actually came from what many would consider to be sympathetic traders -- publicly owned power producers.
The Chronicle study of spot market purchases shows that as a whole, public agencies in California and elsewhere charged an average of about $344 per megawatt hour during the first three months of the year, while private companies charged less than $250.
More than 80 percent of the power sold by public agencies was above the $269 per megawatt hour average that California paid all power providers. Less than a third of the power from private companies exceeded that average.
"I think anybody who ripped off the state ought to be investigated," said Harvey Rosenfield, head of the consumer group Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. "A publicly owned utility shouldn't be prospering from this crisis. And those munis that did ought to immediately forfeit any excessive profits."
Yet, like with everything in the power crisis, not everything is always as it appears, and public utility officials say they're hardly to blame for the sky-high electricity prices.
Interviews with operators of publicly owned power providers paint a picture of state Department of Water Resources electricity buyers sometimes so desperate to avert rolling blackouts that they didn't haggle over price.
"DWR called us and said we're looking for power at $500 a megawatt hour for a seven-hour period," said Kate Hora, a spokeswoman for the Modesto Irrigation District, which delivers power to 95,000 customers in the Central Valley. "There was no negotiation. We just helped them out at the price they named."
Pete Garris, chief of operations for the DWR department in charge of buying and selling power, said something like that would not have been typical.
MUNIS PROVIDE 'RELIABLE ENERGY'
"I could see offering $500 per megawatt hour when the market was trading at $650," he said. "One thing munis do for the most part is provide reliable energy. If they say they are going to deliver so many megawatts, they are going to deliver."
But that reliability can be expensive.
Much of the public power was hydroelectric from the Pacific Northwest, usually delivered at expensive peak demand hours. And municipal agencies say they were forced to press into operation old, inefficient generators.
"(State officials) would call and say, 'We need the energy,' " said Ignacio Troncoso, director of public service for Glendale Water and Power. "We didn't really want to give it to them because it meant using some very inefficient turbines, but they said they needed it. Sometimes, it cost $1,000 or $2,000 per megawatt hour, but they paid it."
S. David Freeman, Davis' top energy adviser, said the state bought a relatively small percentage of its power from municipal utilities, and it was at a time when the state was getting nearly all of its electricity in the volatile spot market.
20% FROM PUBLIC AGENCIES
About 20 percent of the power purchased by California in the first quarter of 2001 came from publicly owned agencies in the United States, Canada or Mexico.
"You have to consider the volume," said Freeman, whose hiring in April was controversial because he headed the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
Los Angeles charged California on average $292 per megawatt hour for power. Before he joined the state in April, Freeman said Los Angeles' rates were based on cost plus 15 percent.
"I don't say we're angels, but we're being neighborly," he said then. "We're not giving you a cup of sugar, we're selling it, but not at exorbitant prices."
Like Los Angeles, Canada's publicly owned BC Hydro sold more than 800,000 megawatts to the state in the first three months of the year at above-average costs. Spokeswoman Elisha Odowichuk said the utility's rates to California were higher because of delivery costs.
But the utility made enough money to give their Canadian customers a $130 rebate.
DAVIS WANTS $8.9 BILLION BACK
Davis has demanded $8.9 billion in refunds for electricity prices the state says were excessive. The state estimates that it is owed about $600 million from the municipals, Michael Kahn, chairman of the board of the Independent System Operator, said last week.
The state is hoping that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will order private providers to issue refunds. But the commission has no jurisdiction over municipal utilities.
At least one offer was put on the table by municipal utilities and is under consideration, said Steve Maviglio, spokesman for Davis. If no deal is reached,
the state is prepared to go to court, he said.
"Anybody who is on the list of price gougers, we intend to seek refunds from," he said.
WHY PUBLIC POWER COST MORE
Energy experts suggested several reasons why public power may have cost the state more than electricity offered by Enron, Duke and other private companies.
The state probably bought most public power during peak usage hours in the evening or during days when rolling blackouts loomed, said Severin Borenstein, a professor with the University of California's Energy Institute in Berkeley.
That's how the Modesto Irrigation District briefly got into the business of selling power to the state. The district sold 175 megawatts to California on Feb. 13 for $500 per megawatt hour.
The district bought power from an Oregon utility for $375 per megawatt hour and delivered it to the state from 1 to 7 p.m. during a Stage 3 power alert. The state avoided blackouts that day.
Seattle City Light earned on average the most per megawatt hour of any public utility, getting a price of $634. But an official there also said there were no negotiations with the state.
The utility had a contract to deliver electricity to 35 Nordstrom stores in California. State power grid officials determined that the stores weren't using all the power and then snapped up the excess for what is referred to as the clearing price: the highest price paid for electricity during that hour.
SEATTLE'S CHARGES DEFENDED
But Seattle isn't rolling in money because of its dealings with California. The utility has raised rates three times this year, spokesman Dan Williams said.
Modesto's and Seattle's experiences are probably similar to other public utilities, said Michael Shames of the Utilities Consumer Action Network, based in San Diego.
"The munis did make a profit," he said. "But there's no evidence that Los Angeles or any other city made the same kind of sky-high profits that the Dukes of the world did. We haven't seen any municipal utility officials taking expensive vacations because of the crisis."
Shames suggested that public utilities' high rates may not have been as high as private companies' offers.
"When they (state energy officials) got really tight, the private companies were probably offering to sell at exorbitant prices," he said.
STATE WAS NO CHARITY CASE
Still, several publicly owned agencies acknowledge that they didn't treat the state Department of Water Resources as a charity case.
When the state was desperate for megawatts, Burbank officials would look for power on the open market and sell it to the state if they could make a 10 percent profit to cover such things as administrative expenses, said Fred Fletcher, assistant general manager of the utility. Sacramento Municipal Utility District did the same, a spokesman said.
Fletcher scoffed at any charge that municipal utilities owe California a refund.
"It's insulting to ask for any money back. We weren't part of the problem, and we helped the state in a crisis," he said. "And it's not like we're doing well."
Glendale residents face a 10 percent increase in electricity rates beginning this month, and Burbank ratepayers will see their power bills rise 17 percent beginning this month.
Chronicle staff writer Jonathan Wang contributed to this report. / E-mail the reporters at markmartin@sfchronicle.com and lgledhill@sfchronicle.com.
The cost of power for California
Some of the most expensive megawatts that California
purchased on behalf of financially troubled utilities at the
height of the
energy crisis came from publicly owned power generators. The
average price paid during the first three months of the year
exceeded the prices paid to private power companies.
Name MWh Average price City of Seattle, City Light Department 3,870 $634.17 Modesto Irrigation District 175 $500.00 Powerex (trading arm of BC Hydro) 804,302 $497.87 Tacoma Power 5,889 $475.43 Eugene Water & Electric Board 151,850 $432.37 Grant County PUD (Washington) 91,209 $348.18 Sacramento Municipal Utility District 47,555 $330.34 City of Glendale 27,325 $326.99 Bonneville Power Administration 461,144 $304.64 Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power 805,479 $292.28 Silicon Valley Power (City of Santa Clara) 400 $290.00 City of Burbank 28,940 $273.13 MSR Public Power Agency (Modesto) 65 $255.00 Turlock Irrigation District 10,675 $237.31 California Dept. of Water Resources 287,454 $205.25 Commission de Federale Electricidad(x) 50,752 $192.91 City of Riverside 330 $190.00 Northern California Power Agency 27,172 $186.87 East Bay Municipal Utility District 1,424 $173.00 Salt River Project (Arizona) 80,076 $169.17 City of Vernon 22,145 $161.67 City of Anaheim 33,532 $152.60 Megawatts used from public agencies 2,941,763 $343.67
MWh Average price Total megawatts used from private sources 9,943,224 $246.79 Total megawatts purchased from all sources 12,884,987 $268.90
(x) Mexico
Source: California Department of Water Resources, Chronicle
research Chronicle Graphic
©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 1
Post a response to this discussion thread
Go to: Hedwig and the Angry Inch | Message | Previous Response | Next Response
-----
08/08/01: and, convenor
Posted by: grundle2600@hotmail.com (grundle)
The government shouldn't own ANWR. They should auction it off to the highest bidder. Say that every person has an extra $20. Do you use it to fill up your gas tank, or do you donate it to an environmental group? And even if the environmntal group won the auction, they'd still drill for oil, because environmental groups have a proven track record of drilling for oil whenever they can make money from it.
Post a response to this discussion thread
Go to: Hedwig and the Angry Inch | Message | Previous Response | Next Response
Post a response to this discussion thread