Alaskans Cheer Man Married to a Man While Attorney General Fights Same-Sex Marriage

The same week that the Alaska Attorney General

joined conservative legal groups in urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage

approximately 22,000 Alaskans spent around $2.5 million to see a married gay man and to cheer him wildly.

[My tiny Canon Powershot SD550 was totally overwhelmed by the noise level at Sullivan Arena and didn't catch many of the decibels flying around.]


Perhaps these 22,000 were among those 71,631 people who voted against Prop. 2, the 1998 Constitutional Amendment to ban same sex marriages. Perhaps some of these people voted for the ban. Or perhaps they didn't vote at all.

The Amendment passed 152,965 yes to 71,631 no. It wasn't even close. But that was ten years ago. The evidence that sexuality is basically genetic and not a choice has grown, but this isn't something that lends itself to . this clear proof. Logically, to me at least, it makes no sense for so many people to 'choose' desires that result in their being so strongly condemned by society. And why would people who could 'choose' their sexuality commit suicide because their choice was condemned? Wouldn't it be easier to just choose a different desire if they could?

Given the wildly enthusiastic response of the Elton John audience last night, I suspect that today the vote would not be so lopsided. It might not even pass. Especially if the people who went to the concert campaigned against the amendment with 1/10th of the enthusiasm they showed at the concerts. And if they all contributed half what they paid for the tickets to see a man whose married to another man perform.

BTW, $2 from every ticket was earmarked for the Elton John AIDS Foundation, so that would be around $44,000 that Alaskans contributed.


Calculations:
The exact figures really don't matter as long as we are reasonably close. Calculations for the number of people who attended the concert were based on reported seating capacity of the arenas for the three sold out concerts (2 in Anchorage, one in Fairbanks)
and an estimate of how much they paid given the prices. For this I calculated one figure based on there being as many 'cheap' seats as expensive ones. Then I figured it again with 70% of the seats being expensive and 30% being cheap. Then I split the difference.

The Sullivan Arena's Seating Capacity

• Table seating: 1500
• Concerts: 8,751
• Basketball: 7,987
• Hockey: 6,290
• Boxing or wrestling: 8,935 for
• 5' crowd barrier available

Fairbanks (for Hockey)
Name of Home Arena: Carlson Center
Capacity: 4600 or so Dimensions: 200x100

The largest meeting and exhibition facility is the Carlson Center, which features a 35,000-square-foot arena and several meeting rooms, for a combined total of 50,000 square feet of space that can accommodate more than 1,200 meeting participants, 200 trade show exhibits, or 4,000 people for a concert or sports event.

While I suspect the first website is more accurate, and concerts should have a larger seating capacity than hockey (as in the Sullivan Arena), I'll be very conservative here and round it to 4500 between the two different sources.


Bent Alaska tells us the prices were:
$56.50 to $116.50 in Anchorage
$75 and $115 in Fairbanks

The image of Talis Colberg in the video comes from the State Website.

Elton John Wows Anchorage

Here are a couple of blurry shots to at least give you a sense of the concert. John came out about 8:10pm to a standing, well ovation is to applause what the crowd actually did is to ovation. It was loud and sustained.








We left Sullivan Arena about 11pm. He played non-stop, except for a couple minutes off stage before an encore and about ten minutes of signing albums, t-shirts, pieces of paper, hats, and a red shoe.










Here he is up on the big screen.
Some video and more comment tomorrow.




For all the posts on the Elton John concert, including videos click here.

J and K Get Married

Last week when I had to take the bus home because I got a flat on my bike, I ran into J on the bus who told me he was getting married. Well that was today. Here's J and K waiting to go into the courtroom.







And here they are listening to the magistrate during the ceremony.
















And now they are married and checking the rings. Let's all wish them a very happy life together.

Casting Call

It gets better. Suzi, the director of Dear Lemon Lima wrote back in answer to some questions I had:

I'm still trying to find the lead character (in the short, the blond girl). I would
like tocast a 13-18 year old Alaska Native actor. Any help spreading the word on that
would also be amazing.

Any female Alaska Native actors in the 13-18 year old range?

Calling Fairbanks - Let's Get this Movie Made in Alaska

At the Anchorage International Film Festival last December I saw Miss Lemon Lima. It was a short but with the intention to make it into a feature. I remember lush summer color and very compelling young characters. Some over the top controlling parents, and an ice cream cone that falls to the ground. In fact, I'm surprised at how well I remember it now - the images were so compelling that I can see them clearly.

Why am I seeing Miss Lemon Lima in my mind now? Because I got an email from the director:

Hi Steve - I hope this email finds you well. I am writing regarding my feature film Dear Lemon Lima - I believe that you saw a screening of the short during the Anchorage Film Festival. I am currently prepping to shoot the feature this summer and I am desperately trying to figure out a way to film in Fairbanks. I have accepted that filming the entire film is financially impossible, but am still trying to work out a way to film for 2 days. It has been impossible to find in-kind accommodations, so I thought I would touch base to see if you had any ideas of who might be empathetic with my cause. I've tried to call many bed and breakfast lodges, the tourism office and local hotels, and I'm hitting a brick wall. We are looking for someone to put up 15 people, 12 for 5 days and 3 for two days and hoping someone could lend us a truck, car and passenger van for 5 days. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciation * Thanks in advance for your thoughts, Suzi

So why is she emailing me about this? Because the story is set in Fairbanks. And I fussed in my review of it that the feature was going to be shot in Seattle. In the same post I'd written about a French movie where they actually came to Alaska and went from Valdez to Barrow with horses. Here's what I wrote:

The director - I think that was her role - was there after the film to talk. She also talked about a feature to be filmed next summer that is set in Fairbanks. To her credit, she's been to Fairbanks - after writing several chapters of the screen play - but it will be filmed in Seattle (did she really say Seattle? How can you do Fairbanks in Seattle?) because, you know, it's really expensive to do it in Fairbanks. You know, I think that people in Fairbanks and Anchorage would put the whole crew up in their houses to help you keep the costs down. If those other guys could walk their horses across Alaska, you can surely shoot your film that takes place in Fairbanks, in Alaska. Imagine a movie, "Crossing Alaska with Horses" filmed in the Alps, because, you know, going to Alaska would be so expensive.

To her credit, she's trying to do at least some of it in Fairbanks. Flying fifteen people to Fairbanks isn't cheap. Does she know that there are some really good film people in Alaska? I talked to some at the Film Festival. Maybe she can fly ten up and get five from here. Well, the actors will have to be the same actors. Anyway, let's put our heads together and get some of this done in Fairbanks!

So, to my Fairbanks blogger mates - can you help get a Fairbanks based story at least partially filmed in Fairbanks? It might be too much to get the whole crew in one place, but perhaps in four or five. And maybe you can't get her everything for free, but at least for prices equal to Seattle or less. And get them some salmon and make them tell everyone back home how fantastic it is to actually do the shoot in Alaska.

We've got this fantastic backdrop for films, let's try to get more actually made here. Especially when the story takes place in Alaska. There's an email link to Suzi in the link above to the movie.

Can Alaskan bloggers pull this off? I could handle this in Anchorage, but this is a Fairbanks film. My Fairbanks Life, Fiery Blazing Handbasket, Ester Republic, Fairbanks Pedestrian, Murphy Dome Diaries, Subarctic Mama, Radio Icebox can you folks help out with this?

AGIA (Alaska Gasline Incentive Inducement Act)- The Cliff Notes

What I Learned at the AGIA Forum Today (You'd think I could get the name right at least.)

Overview:

There were four basic questions:

1. Is TC Alaska up to the task? (TC Alaska is term people will need to know - it is the name of the company that submitted the proposal, Trans Canada Alaska)
   
   
2. Why should the Legislature choose the TC Alaska proposal over the LNG and the Producers (Conoco-Phillips/BP) proposals?
   
   
3. If the Producers control the gas, how do we get them to give us the gas?
   
   
4. Why does the state have to pay $500 million as an incentive?
   

There are other issues - jobs, energy cost relief now, tariffs - but these are essentially addressed directly or indirectly in the answers to these four questions.

Below, I’ve given a brief outline of the answers as I heard them today. But first a few more overview comments.

At the Special Session beginning June 3, the Legislators will decide whether to license TC Alaska to pursue the various permits they need to build a pipeline. Commissioner Irwin summed up what the legislators face very succinctly. Asked by a legislator something about various choices, Irwin bluntly replied (approximately),

“There are only two choices - yes or no. If you vote ‘no’ on AGIA, you are giving the Producers a free hand and giving up the state’s sovereignty.”

The Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the various proposals and decided the AGIA proposal from TC Alaska is best. Of course, there is some history here. Commissioner Irwin and some of his staff were among the state employees who resigned in protest to how Governor Murkowski was negotiating with the oil companies. They felt that he was making far greater concessions than he should.

There is a lot of research that underlies their proposal. Far too much for the average person, and even for most legislators.

Ultimately, the people of Alaska, and their legislators really have to decide if they trust the Department of Natural Resources or ConocoPhillips and BP. I, for one, was very impressed with

1. the quality of the data, (this was not fluff or buzzwords, it was hard content)
   
2. the arguments,
   
3. the transparency,
   
4. the ability of the staff and contracted experts to answer all the questions easily and in detail,
   
5. the apparent dedication to this process and to the people of Alaska

These are competent, skilled people who seem very much to have the public interest as their goal. This is a far cry from the Murkowski administration and the oil companies he negotiated with in secret who, now that their bluff was called, are making a (veiled?) threat of not releasing the gas.

For me the choice of whom to trust is pretty easy. I would mention that one legislator (Therriault, I think) asked if the experts were free to give their honest opinions or if everything was scripted. Irwin responded quickly, that they are expected to give their honest opinions and if anyone has a script he doesn’t belong here. Compare that to the secrecy and deceptions of the previous administration and the oil companies they dealt with.


The Basic Issues

1. Is TC Alaska up to the task?
1. They’re a big, well run pipeline company, “one of the best if not the best”
2. They are Canadian with connections to the Canadian galine hubs we need to go to, and probably will be able to work well with the Canadian regulatory agencies
3. They are in financially good shape, with strong ratings from Moody and Standard and Poors so they will be capable of getting the financing
4. The questions raised about former partners suing them for competing with them if they take on this project seem remote and not likely to win
   
   
2. Why TC Alaska over the LNG and Concoc Philips-BP Plans? (I refuse to call it the Denali - with a little trademark symbol - Plan because I think it’s disgustingly arrogant for ConocoPhillips-BP to trademark something as Alaskan as Denali and because that hides who the people behind the plan are. The other way they were described was “The Producers.” Hmmm, maybe we could make a Broadway play about this and the LNG plan)
1. The TC Alaska plan has the following benefits
1. It includes an open access policy. Open Access means to the State that anyone producer with gas has access to use the pipeline, not simply the pipeline owners.
   
2. It includes an expandable pipeline Expandable pipeline means that the capacity of the pipeline must be increased if there is demand by producers to use the pipeline to get their gas to market.
   [Both of these were identified as “must haves” by Commissioner Tom Irwin, because they make the long term jobs and revenue potential much greater by encouraging other developers to explore and produce gas once the pipeline is approved.]
3. It includes lower tariffs
4. It maximizes state revenue and future economy
5. It is the only proposal that was responsive to the States requirements and on time.
   
   
2. TC Alaska, unlike the Producers, is a pipeline company, not a producer. Their incentives are to move gas. They aren’t competing with other gas producers. “If the tarifff's high, at the end of the year, a producer owner gets its own tariff money back. The state’s high tariff money goes out of the state and to the producers. Independents just might not want to be here.”
   
3. The Producer proposal had no enforceable commitments. No time lines. No specific goals. No conditions on tariffs.
   
   
4. Maximizes state revenue and creates future growth of the state economy and jobs, because open access and expandable pipeline conditions mean more exploration and production and jobs in the future.
   
   
5. The Producers did not submit a proposal to the state under the bidding process. Their later proposal does not meet the conditions set up by the State. TC Alaska had the only proposal that complied with the Request for Application (rfa). The LNG proposal needed some fixing, but when they resubmitted it, it was a totally new proposal. "We feel we need to keep our word and play by the rules to develop credibility with all future bidders." AGIA does not preclude LNG in the future.
   
6. There were issues with LNG
1. The market is Asia. That market requires a higher grade of gas which raises various issues.
2. With the high price of oil and the US’ need tor energy independence, Congress is not likely to approve exporting our gas to Asia.
3. Financing is more difficult
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. Preserve state sovereignty. In the TC Alaska plan, the various state conditions have been met. The Producers have refused to meet the State's conditions - ie, open access, mandatory expandable pipeline, lower tariffs, etc.
   [Some of this is repetitive because the issues overlap. But the repetition will help you remembr.:) ]
   
   
   
3. If the Producers control the gas, how do we get them to give us the gas?
1. Economic Incentives. Even without considering Point Thompson, the Producers will make lots and lots of money from this.
   
   
2. Pressure. There will be pressure from Congress to get the gas to the Lower 48 because of shortages. When stockholders understand the money the Producers will make, they will pressure them too.
   
   
3. Much of this is gamesmanship. They thought they had a deal with the former governor to get an agreement that would give them concessions from the state without their having to make any commitments. The state didn’t fall for their bluff. Now, after the process, they came back with a new proposal, but it still has no concessions. Technically, they could build their own pipeline, but we expect that in the end this is part of their negotiating ploy for when they work things out with the State and TC Alaska.
   
   
4. The regulatory commissions will weigh everything and consider it all. FERC (US) is looking after the interests of the US, not Alaska specifically, so we do have to look after our own interests in what they don’t require.
   
   
5. The Producers say they can't do a pipeline without State concessions.
   
   
6. Potential lawsuit and/or cancellation of their leases by the State.
   
   
   Ultimately, there is a risk that the Producers could refuse to release the gas or could build their own pipeline, but the various presenters felt that much of this is posturing in hopes that AGIA is rejected and the Producers can then get what they want. Or can negotiate some piece of AGIA after all, even though they have missed the boat now.
   
   
   
4. Why does the state have to pay $500 million as an incentive?
1. Shouldn’t think of it as a subsidy, but as an investment.
2. The beginning is always the hardest part of a big project like this. The money will help show we are serious and help get the project off the ground.
3. The money we invest at the beginning has a much higher return than money we invest later down the line.
4. We get the money back in lower tariffs.
   

This is an incomplete outline of the arguments. I was there for almost eight hours of presentation. But it gives a sense of the basic arguments I heard today. They were backed up with a lot more information, which is further backed up by the report which is available on the AGIA website.

The Executive Summary is 17 pages and fills in some of the pieces I left out above. People who want to have an idea of the issues would do well to read it.

And today's session should be up tomorrow on Gavel to Gavel. The morning session - about three hours - should give you a good introduction as well.

AGIA Forum Commissioner Tom Irwin

[Blogging on the fly here, so I may give up a little accuracy to get this up quickly. At least the video is exactly what they said.]

Commissioner Tom Irwin gave a brief introduction of the project and then introduced the various experts the State has hired. The videos show that introduction.



[I'll get the second part of this video up later. It is only a few more minutes but Viddler has a ten minute limit so I couldn't do it all in one video]

(6pm - OK, here's the second part of the video)




The report is billed as over 2000 pages - including all the appendices. Essentially, today's presentation came off to me as a sales pitch to the legislature. The pitch is to pass the AGIA legislation which will authorize the pursuit of permission from regulators to build the pipeline.

When I say sales pitch, I do need to qualify this. The State's job is to get the best deal for the State - for the people of Alaska. I believe that the Department of Natural Resources team is dedicated to that goal. I've had the pleasure of a couple of meetings with Marty Rutherford, who is in charge of this project, a number of years ago when I as working as a professor of public administration. They were hour long open ended meetings in which she impressed me as bright and a dedicated public servant.

Additionally, the team working on this is essentially the team that resigned their jobs during the Murkowski administration because they believed the Murkowski administration was giving away the store in its negotiations with the oil companies. My sense, given that history, and listening to them this morning, is that they strongly believe what they are doing is in the public's interest.

Key points the presenters have made are:

The heart of the AGIA - the must haves, our obligation to

• Expandable pipeline
• Low tariffs
• Allows explorers an open basin

Our birthright to protect open access.
For these rights we were willing to give something

• Move with fixed timelines
• Put up $500 million - not a giveaway, our investment to get the gas to market. Most comes back to the state in lower tariffs. Tells them we are serious.
• An AGIA project coordinator
• Stable production tax rate for ten years - it makes sense from a business perspective

They also spent time comparing the AGIA proposal to the Producer Proposal and to the LNG options.
They discussed why the Producers, who control the gas, are likely to release the gas eventually. Rep. Mike Dugan pursued this question when the legislators had a chance to ask question.s

All this will be available on the Gavel to Gavel tomorrow.(The link gets you to Gavel to Gavel, they don't have the link to today's sessions up yet.) I think this morning's session gives a good overview of the areas the state thinks are important and their rational for why this is the best path.

Watch the first couple of hours. They start with an overview. Then the repeat that overview with more detail. Then they open to questions from the legislators.

At one point Irwin responded with something like,

"If we get the state resolve - to protect open access - the companies will adjust to the new realities."

Open access refers to a pipeline where all producers have open access to get their gas onto the pipeline which is different from the current oil pipeline situation as I understand it.

I'm going to stop here so I can get this posted and return to the afternoon session.

AGIA Public Forum - Gov. Palin Introduction

The AGIA discussions began this morning at the Sheraton Hotel. The tables in front were reserved for legislators and most were there. Governor Palin opened the meeting with a short talk.

Did You Know There's an AGIA Information Meeting Wednesday in Anchorage?

And Thursday. And Friday?

Click on the images to enlarge them

This is in the Howard Rock Ballroom of the Sheraton Hotel starting at 8:30am




OK, you (Alaskans) have all heard the term AGIA. But do you know what the letters stand for?

Go ahead, write down as many of them as you think you can.

No, don't skip it, do it. Think hard. You should get some of the letters right.





The Anchorage Daily News had an editorial in Sunday's paper explaining some of the basic issues. Well these aren't all issues, but these are their headings:

• Open Access is Key
• Binding Commitments
• The Legislature's Turn
• The Conoco-BP Proposal
• Tax Changes?
• Sovereign, Not Supplicant

I've looked hard in today's paper but I see nothing about the issue at all. Not even a mention of tomorrow's public information sessions. Maybe I just missed it.

Steve Heimel interviewed Marty Rutherford, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, on APRN's Talk of Alaska (links to audio of show) today about the subject. There's a lot more information there. Rutherford says at 5:19 of the APRN audio:

The distinction between the two is stark. And I want to focus on that, because what AGIA is all about is saying that if in fact the State is going to give value from the ledger, that is the people’s ledger to the stockholders of the companies’ ledger then in fact there are some things you have to protect to insure Alaska’s economic interest And that has to do with an open access pipeline. So, what does an open access pipeline mean? It is all about insuring that it is an expandable line, a line that is run by a company that is motivated to expand that line when new gas is available, not to use that transportation system as some sort of a monopoly. Not as some sort of barrier to entry to the North Slope basins. That is one of the most significant ways Alaska’s future economic interests are protected, because you only have people willing to make investment decisions to explore for gas and often times they will find oil as a result of that. You only have that opportunity if you know in fact you can get your gas into the pipeline.

(This starts at 5:19 of the audio from APRN’s audio. It's 59 minutes long. You can put it on your iPod and listen while you ....)

(Yes you have to listen to the audio to find out what "the two" refers to.)

The decisions that are made on these issues - the legislature has a special session on this staring June 3 - will significantly impact the future of the state. Many Alaskans have opinions on this already. But do they, do you, know what it is about?

We all have opinions of whether it should be all Alaska, LNG, through Canada, etc. But how many know any of the facts? Or more than just the facts that justify our opinions? Or even the terminology. Below is the glossary from the Department of Natural Resource's Report on the pipeline. Do you even know 20 of the terms? Ten?






The answers are all here. Check them out. Print them out. Put them on your refrigerator. Have a contest with your housemates. Carry them in your car and test yourself while you are waiting at a red light. If you don't even know the words, how can you have an opinion?

By the way, AGIA stands for Alaska Gasline Inducement Act.

Copper River Red on the BBQ

One of the blessings of living in Alaska is incredibly fresh, wild salmon. I just don't eat salmon elsewhere because I'm always disappointed. J brought this home from the market. I have to say this was as good as anything I've ever barbecued. And a salute to those who died in war.