As it turned out "nonsensical" was the key word here.
The ADN editor, Larry Persily, must have thought that Palin had one of her daughters write it for her.
Larry Persily’s reply, after reading her draft, was blunt in its dismissal, despite Sarah’s insistence that she was good at writing in plain English:
Sarah,
Thanks for the op-ed column, but it will need some changes before we can publish it. As I have told all the candidates, we are not going to let anyone (incumbents or challengers) get by with easy political speeches on the page, especially on oil and gas issues.
The public deserves specifics, not just promises. So -- and nothing personal in any of this -- I've added my comments where appropriate to give you an idea of what would need to be added or explained before we could publish the piece...
Picking up with Persily's comments in an emasl exchange on Sarah's fourth point we read:
Sarah wrote: Fourth, the contract doesn’t ensure gas for in-state use.
Persily commented: (How do you propose to ensure in-state gas? Everyone is quick to promise in-state gas, and to attack the draft contract for being deficient in this area, but I'm not going to allow anyone to get by with more of the same promises. If you're going to raise the pledge of in-state gas, you will need to explain how you plan to fulfill that pledge.).
Further down, Sarah then wrote: As Cook Inlet supplies diminish, the concept of importing natural gas while ours goes to Canada is abhorrent.
Persily replied: (through Canada, not to Canada).
Sarah: Fifth, under this contract, if gas prices dropped to certain levels, we’d actually pay oil companies for the privilege of producing our gas while they reaped profits.
Persily: (Please explain. Yes, the state would have to pay the processing costs for its share of the gas, and the cost of removing and disposing of impurities, but we're talking around 50 cents per mcf. Do you expect gas prices to drop that low? And if gas prices were that low, and we lost money, how would the companies "reap profits"?)
Sarah: We assume more cost and risk than the oil companies do, including contributing our land and 7/8 of our gas to make the project happen. All told, our concessions could nearly equal the cost of the entire project, yet we’d only own 20% of it.
Persily: (How is any of this true? We would take 20% of the cost risk under the contract vs. 80% for the companies. How does that translate into the state taking on more cost and risk than the companies? And we didn't "contribute" our land, we leased it to the companies for a substantial upfront payment and royalty terms. And, if the project is $20 billion, what state "concessions" would nearly equal $20 billion?)
Sarah: Seventh, Administrators refuse to disclose details of negotiations with viable alternatives like TransCanada , MidAmerican, and the Alaska Gasline Port Authority.
Persily: (Not entirely true. The state eventually released most of the negotiation documents from its talks with MidAmerican. And there were no negotiations under the Stranded Gas Development Act with the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, just informal talks outside the Stranded Gas Act. This could easily be fixed by changing the allegation to a statement about the state has been less than fully honest about our projects, or something like that.)
Sarah: Eighth, the deal was the Administration was forced to propose sweeping legislation to amend the Stranded Gas Act to retroactively legalize their deal.
Persily: (Not quite "retroactively legalize their deal," since the Legislature has not approved the deal. It would be more accurate to say "to allow the deal to proceed under the law," or "to make the law match the deal.")
Sarah: Ironically, other viable alternatives projects were hypocritically rejected as ‘illegal under the Act.’
Persily: (What alternatives were called "illegal?" I'm not aware of any. The state did determine that the Alaska Gasline Port Authority does not qualify under the Stranded Gas Development Act, but not qualifying for a negotiated fiscal contract is not the same as "illegal.")
Sarah: Like other Alaskans, I crave a profitable gas line agreement. But it must pass Constitutional muster and be derived through a competitive process where all viable proposals are fairly and openly considered. My preferred alternative will first provide gas for energizing Alaska’s homes and businesses, employing Alaskans, and reducing rural energy costs.
Persily: (Again, how do you propose to ensure gas for Alaskans and how do you propose to guarantee Alaska hire? Local-hire requirements are unconstitutional, so if you're going to imply you have a way around that, you need to say how. And, as for ensuring gas for Alaskans, do you propose reserving a portion of the state's royalty gas and selling it to Alaskans at below-market prices? Whatever the answer is, you need to say what you have in mind.)
Sarah did not take rejection well. That her editorial didn’t accurately address the issues, misstated facts, and was devoid of proposals, was unimportant. The blame went to Persily and the Anchorage Daily News. She wrote back:
To: Persily, Larry
See?! Your piddly little 675-word limit forced me to lower my own standards.
OK - back to the drawing board. Thanks for the challenge Larry.
Sarah
This basically marked the beginning and end of Sarah’s extensive writing career.
And THAT my friends is why Palin might be very, very reluctant to dump RAM despite her embarrassing tweets.
And that is only ONE of the amazing, and highly embarrassing revelations to be found in Frank Bailey's book
.
No comments:
Post a Comment