Thursday, January 21, 2010

Sen. Murkowski on the Senate Floor this Morning on Her Efforts to Thwart EPA Regulations

Murkowski falsely asserts that the Flint Hill Refinery is having solvency problems regarding JP-4 and jet fuel production because of the EPA. Flint Hill's problems in this regard have far more to do with their reduction of volume production, when they dropped their business with the U.S. Armed Forces.



nswfm said...

Thanks, this bald-faced lie should should be sent as a letter to the editors and all of the elected representatives.

majii said...

Thank you, Mr. Munger, for this information. Senator Murkowski seems to think that no one pays attention to what she is really trying to do, which is cripple the EPA and stop the passage of climate change legislation. What is so irksome is that a way to curb pollution and allow the energy companies to continue doing business exists, but she isn't interested.

McKie Campbell said...

Philip -

Senator Murkowski said that the proposed EPA regulations would add to the difficulties Flint Hills already faces. She did not say that existing problems are caused by the EPA. I've pasted the text of that portion of her speech below or you can watch it on the video link you provided starting at approximately the 5:50 mark.
McKie Campbell

Because the EPA’s proposed regulations are such a blunt tool, they will hit my home state’s energy sector particularly hard. The continued operation of existing businesses and future endeavors alike – including Alaska’s three refineries, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, or TAPS, and the proposed Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline – will all be jeopardized.

Take for example the Flint Hills refinery, located just south of Fairbanks. This refinery purchases royalty oil out of the pipeline at premium rates, which is critically important to the continued operation of TAPS itself. That 800-mile long pipeline has been challenged by decreasing throughput, as lower volumes take longer than ever to arrive from the North Slope. Oil is also arriving at Flint Hills at a lower temperature than it used to, which requires more energy to heat and crack the crude oil into the marketable fuels that Alaskans depend on.

The Flint Hills refinery already struggles to keep its jet fuel output at competitive rates in order to maintain Anchorage’s status as a major center for global air cargo. It also faces a relatively inelastic market in Alaska for its other fuel products. The EPA will likely be unable, and in any event unwilling, to address these issues under its command-and-control climate regulations.

Anonymous said...

I recently signed on as a "fan" of Sen. Lisa Murkowski on Facebook. I am not truly a fan of hers, but I wanted to see what she is putting out for her status and comments. It's not exactly a friendly place for a progressive person, and I am currently in a back and forth bit of bickering with her fans who actually agree with her. I am also a "fan" of Sen. Mark Begich and really like his posts and comments, and he receives a lot of responses to his posts. I urge any progressive people here who are active on Facebook to sign up as "fans" of both Alaska Senators and put your comments in there to provide some balance to all of the "Red" people and global climate change deniers who post their nonsense there.

Anonymous said...

"global climate change deniers who post their nonsense there."

The whole "global warming " scam is nonsense based on distorted "science".

Philip Munger said...


Thanks for posting here.

So you're not denying that by getting out of business with the USAF and US Army, Flint Hills caused problems re efficiency of scale Sen. Murkowski avoided mentioning?

I failed to mention that Flint Hill's action in regard to its military production also put a number of Alaska Railroad employees out of work. Has Sen. Murkowski addressed that problem as stalwartly as she has addressed government intrusiveness? She should.

HarpboyAK said...

Lisa's just another oil company/logging company/mining company/cruise line shill like Daddy Frank.

Everything for the big corporations, and screw the Alaskans that have to live with the refinery's pollution, the cruise ships' smoke and sewage, the mining pollution, the clearcuts and their lack of deer habitat...

Today's decision by the Bu$h appointees to the Supreme KKKourt that corporations are free to buy elections will only make it easier for her to get re-elected as a paid corporate shill in the corrupt US Senate.

It's time to turn out the entire Senate and elect some folks with the backbone to buck the corporations and represent their constituents.

Bones AK said...

I am just sick to my stomach today because shills like Sarah...oops Lisa just MAKE me sick!

Anonymous said...

I'm just sick this morning because progressives would rather see Alaska in the stone age than see progress.

Their ideal is a wild and scenic Alaska...but without Alaskans.

Anonymous said...

"Today's decision by the Bu$h appointees to the Supreme KKKourt that corporations are free to buy elections"

Yes, it's disgusting that unions and shadowy foreign donors can no longer buy elections for the Democrats election. Next thing you know they'll ban ACORN from letting dead people vote.

clark said...

i guess you cons are OK with judicial activism, as long as it benefits the largest corporations in the world. because, you know, their interests and yours are 100% in alignment!

Anonymous said...

"i guess you cons are OK with judicial activism,"

Ha, ha, yeah, voting for free speech is "judical activism" is it ? Try again.
And I suppose that NBC, ABC, CNN, AP and the other corporate Obama-networks and the unions and the trial lawyers and George Soros and ACORN have our interests at heart !!

clark said...

you have no idea what you're enabling, by agreeing with the supremes' 5-4 decision. read the dissenting opinions, read around the net about it a little [while you still can] and get back to me.
hint: it isn't about free speech, it isn't about populism, it isn't about getting government off your back, it isn't about left and right wing ideology. it's about ceding complete control to international conglomerates that operate with impunity and with no particular alleigance to any nation or interest, other than their own profit.

Anonymous said...

"it's about ceding complete control to international conglomerates"

So, it's OK for the corporate NY Times and WaPo to tell us how to vote but that right can't be extended to other corporations ?
Speaking of international conglomerates how come you guys never seemed to mind George Soros pumping millions into the US political system ? Seems to me if the NYT, Obama and Daily Kos are against this it can't be all bad...

Anonymous said...

OK...lets see. Corporations will have the right to advertise on behalf of their favorite candidate or against another.

Does giving them the right to free speech force anyone to vote a certain way?

The right has been ignoring the ads and editorials of unions and lefty papers now for decades. Now the left will have to start thinking for themselves as well.

clark said...

no, you guys really don't get it. it's nothing to do with a left-right agenda at all. it is the court saying money equals speech, and corporations can shower as much of it as they like, easily drowning out the voices of individuals, on any issue at all.
a fan of private property rights? gun ownership? remember the evergreen/subsurface rights that lost scott ogan his house seat? a corporation with a pervasive influence [that this decision paves the way for] could set up a drilling rig, or seize your real estate without compensation or even advance notice. and pre-emptively prevent you from having any recourse.
think chevron and exxon won't treat alaska the same way they deal with third world nations, given a chance?
democrats/obama aren't the people you have to worry about.

Anonymous said...

"It is the court saying money equals speech, and corporations can shower as much of it as they like, easily drowning out the voices of individuals,"

But why is that different from the corporations who control the AP, NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN etc. etc. using their money to sneer at the Tea Party Activists and run defense for Obama ?
The cries of "unfair" from the Left would be taken more seriously if they'd questioned all the foreign donations Obama got during the election campaign in 2008.

clark said...

look... this ruling is bad for everybody. you should not let the idea of corporate rule seduce you, or allow the country to be divided and conquered any longer. i'm trying to reach out here... i am not having this conversation for partisan political purposes.
the eventual implications will overwhelm all else -- it isn't so much that MSNBC, wapo, et al will be undoing the right wing agenda by dispensing misinformation, being in a position to offer undue influence, etc. they, and right wing news outlets alike will be powerless to find out what is really going on. even if the conduit of anonymous informants, whistleblowers, the freedom of information act, and aggressive investigative reporting are intact, with decisionmaking ability shifting from government to corporations with international presence, oversight will become impossible. and the rules will not be able to be changed later, because we will never again be able to elect anyone who is beholden to the people, in the environment that will be created if the rule changes stand.
think it was bad that taxpayers bailed out banks, and half the money was doled out in CEO bonuses? get ready for a lot more of that, except you won't even know about it.
the crimes that kott, kohring and allen are doing time for [prosecuted by a republican administration -- that ought to be enough to tell you this isn't partisan] won't even be illegal. well, not exactly -- but the effect will be the same. future politicians will be coerced to revise the rules, and those who won't cooperate will be replaced at the next election.
our system is only functional because there are checks and balances. this ruling removes more than a century of carefully constructed mechanisms specifically designed to keep corporations from driving quality of life, freedom and the expectation of happiness into the ground -- as they were doing in the late 19th century.

Anonymous said...

Clark, I'm not completely disagreeing with you but how is openly giving corporations free speech rights any different from what's going on now ?
Obama was elected on the backs of foreign billionaires and corporate trial lawyers. The MSM have backed him to the hilt and Big Pharma helped back his Healthcare bill BUT despite the bias of the MSM and the insults hurled at independents by sites like this one ("crazy teabaggers") the people of Massachesetts stood up and voted No ! Despite the money of the media corporations supporting the Dems, a people's social networking movement effectively countered the Big Money and got Scott Brown elected. I just don't see why corporations can't now OPENLY have free speech ?

Anonymous said...

This ruling shouldn't change anything in America if only the people had an honest impartial media. In a democracy a fair, free media are essential to keep both corporations and government in check. Sadly, during the 2008 election we saw the majority of the media discarding any pretense at even-handedness and actively pushing for the election of Obama. The MSM has lost the people's trust and we have all lost an important safeguard.

clark said...

at 7:14. the difference from now, in part. exxon mobil's political contributions in '08 amounted to $1 million, because all had to come from their employees, with a maximum limit per employee, run through a PAC with every dollar accounted for, and subject to fines if any violations were found by independent government audit. after the supreme court ruling, they will be able to dedicate any portion of their money on hand [they made $45 billion in profit in '08] toward getting rid of any candiate they do not like. an overwhelming infusion of cash like that will be impossible to defend against -- not even george soros, bill gates or richard mellon scaife has pockets nearly that deep.
ordinary citizens and their representatives in the alaska house and senate, on the left and right may disagree about how taxes on big oil should be determined and structured -- but this could create a situation where we're no longer in a position to decide. it's beyond being a colony -- it's a takeover.
there are good reasons our predecessors tried to keep this from happening. it is consistent with founding principles of the nation.

clark said...

under the old rules of engagement and oversight, exxon dodged and weaved for 20 years before paying out ten cents on the dollar in reparations for the exxon valdez spill. if we let them buy our government, if we get anything at all from them after the next major spill, it will only be out of the goodness of their hearts.

ZIP NOLAN said...

Interesting discussion here. clark makes some strong points but I'm optimistic that a well-informed, organized and passionate electorate can still out vote big spenders (whether they all are corporations or the unions).

Sadly, the President has already shot himself in the foot on this can he critique this ruling when he broke his promise on Campaign Finance and then spent a crazy $750 MILLION on getting elected ?

clark said...

i don't necessarily agree with his approach, but obama was competing in the environment as it existed then. there were many of us asking him to not accept corporate money for the campaign, believe me.
we could switch to public financing of elections, and regulate the amounts collected and from where/whom. this could also easily be done in a fair, bipartisan fashion.
it wouldn't have been fair, applied to obama only.
it would potentially make third party candidates and nonpartisan candidates a lot more viable.