Comments by smilkowski
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 16 at 12:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks. I only got a quick peek, but I know Sens. Green and Huggins were there, and Reps. Samuels, Meyer, and Coghill. I know there were more, but can't say definitively who they were. "Leadership" is generally the Senate president, House speaker, majority leaders, and Rules and Finance chairmen.
Posted on June 13 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AKhusky, I think woodman is right. Or if not in the open season, then by the FERC. From what I hear, it's unlikely that FERC would issue certificates for two pipelines. As for which they would pick, it's unclear what weight, if any, they would give to the state support represented by AGIA. Their decision might have more to do with how much gas is committed to each line during an open season or perceived ability to complete the project. We should learn more on Monday, when lawmakers will hear from the regulatory agencies.
Posted on June 11 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CLARIFICATION: Actually, the hearings on Friday and Saturday are scheduled to start at 9 a.m. rather than 10 a.m. That's what the new official schedule says, although BASIS still says 10. It's also unclear whether Saturday morning will start with TC and the administration or go right into public testimony. I would go with the latter.
Posted on May 30 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, despite some back and forth with both companies, I have not yet received a clear answer on whether it’s true, as the Alliance wrote, that BP and ConocoPhillips have said “they won’t partner with any AGIA licensee because of AGIA’s terms.” Seems important to me, so I’ll keep asking.
Posted on May 23 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This just in from TransCanada.
TransCanada hasn't talked specifically with the port authority about collaborating on a Y-line project. The company did say in its application that if there wasn't enough gas commited to justify a line into Canada, but there was enough for an LNG project, TransCanada would build the LNG project.
"So, yes it is possible to construct the Alaska section of the Y-line first," a TransCanada spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail. "However, it appears unlikely that an initial LNG project would justify a 48 inch pipeline in Alaska unless the project thru Canada was imminent as well."
On Port authority faces one more hurdle with gas line announcement
Posted on April 12 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Corinne -- Thanks for reading. As far as I know, no one has removed any of the posts I have written. The one you described specifically is still there, titled "'Major announcement' on gas line."
Posted on April 3 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hitting the shelves might not be quite right. Apparently for now there are two copies around -- one for the bookstore and one for the gov. But your can order your very own.
Posted on March 28 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, so I just talked with someone in Stedman's office. Here's what he said.
Yes, most of the governor's general fund requests are missing, but that doesn't mean they're gone for good. There will likely be another version of the bill out this weekend or early next week.
He also added another possible explanation for the omission -- work flow. There's lots of stuff to handle, and the committee is just taking things bit by bit.
Posted on March 27 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just a note on the "open and transparent" issue. Palin did open the meetings to reporters, and that's how I was able to cover this one. It's not the same as putting it on Gavel to Gavel, but it's pretty "open" as far as things go down here.
On Palin's request for sit-down meetings gets mixed response
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on September 29 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This seems pretty reasonable. Akasofu is saying there are at least two natural elements that need to be factored into our understanding of man-made climate change. I doubt any climate scientist would disagree. His strongest claim is that the IPCC understanding and predictions "need serious revision." Akasofu does not rule out the role of CO2 in rising global temperatures. Two other points: One, it's unclear what Akasofu means by "recovery" from the Little Ice Age. My sense is that scientists have a pretty good handle on the outside forces in climate, such as changes in solar radiation, and the inside forces, such as feedback mechanisms that cause a warming planet to continue warming (the idea implied by a "rebound"). Two, the ability of a natural oscillation to overwhelm a man-made warming trend does not prove that it is the greater influence on climate. Natural variability in the Arctic has been on the order of several degrees over decades, and although I haven't tracked the numbers as closely as Akasofu, it seems plausible that a naturally occurring decadal shift could overwhelm the man-made warming trend. But a naturally occurring shift toward warmer temperatures would also distort the man-made warming trend. The important thing is to subtract out the natural trend -- its ups and its downs -- to be able to see the man-made trend. That's what scientists have done, and the underlying trend -- an increase of about 1.3 degrees F over the last 100 years -- is the warming they're blaming mostly on human activities.
On Global warming has paused