Member Info for cbaron

Https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/06/30/lawmakers-delay-vote-on-tax-breaks-for-alaska-lng-as-negotiations-continue/

11.36

I'm sure your calculations in arriving at £3 (presumably per barrel and not per thimble full, pint or gallon), together with comparable market evidence, would be useful to Mr. Spencer in his negotiations with any interested parties. You never know, he may offer you a royalty?

Then again, that was perhaps his starting position and is the reason there's deathly silence?

Https://www.adn.com/politics/alaska-legislature/2026/06/27/lawmakers-focus-on-corporate-income-tax-update-as-they-negotiate-tax-break-for-alaska-lng/

Https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/alaska-senate-approves-gas-pipeline-120035455.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2026/06/18/dunleavy-warns-2nd-special-session-alaska-senate-deadlocks-gas-line-tax-bill/

Scott,

You've clearly being doing a deep dive into the past - sufficiently rattled to to feel the need to do it?

Problem is you've not even managed to do that correctly - go back and have another look. It's all there in our posting history.

The fact is that some of these issues were debated in the past, but old Scotty appears to have forgotten who he was arguing with - well not arguing exactly, preaching at, in those long-winded missives he alleges are argument winning theses, but are actually just boring and repetitive monologues.

For the record I escaped 88e but admittedly, and disappointingly, with not a great deal more than my stake. Another recollection inaccuracy Scott!

Anyways, in typical Scott fashion, might I ask you for an answer to the question in my post of 15 Jun @ 18.33? A bit like Leesteuks' question earlier, too difficult to handle?

Enjoy the football.

Scott,

Neither of the authors of the article are Senators and therefore neither have a vote in determining the outcome. You appear to have neglected to mention this.

The issue is not necessarily whether the bill passes the Senate, but more particularly on what terms.

Should the bill be watered down sufficiently by the Senate that it is unpalatable to Glenfarne and its viability appraisals, then the project remains at risk.

Scott appears to be placing a great deal of store by Trumpian intervention - I'm not sure that such intervention holds that much sway anymore. It would seem that neither are the electorate in the US who are seriously dischuffed.

Leesteuk,

You're clearly not paying attention. Scott didn't actually answer your 18.03 question.

Latest press.

https://alaskabeacon.com/2026/06/16/natural-gas-pipeline-tax-break-lacks-needed-senate-votes-alaska-lawmakers-say/

Scot126

Setting aside the unpleasant jibes....and yes, we've known about gas forever and the need to dispose by re-injection - so hardly a 'Gotcha'. But you do like to big up your act for your audience.

Simple questions for you. Simple answers. Yes or No.

1. Will PANR flow gas without oil?

2. Has PANR proved the means by which oil can be extracted at commercially viable rates?

3. If the answer to 2 is 'No', will PANR have any gas to sell?

My point is and always has been that if no oil flows at commercial rates PANR will not be producing gas.

I'm truly honoured to receive a hypothetical mention from the great Scot126.

I'm pleased that your missive is riddled with caveats, 'potential', 'all things being equal', 'ought'.

However, an you please address Pat Galvins heavily emphasised statement that PANRs gas only flows with oil? Therefore in order to achieve all of the benefits espoused, it must first get the oil to flow.

12.06

By all means question the content.

12 Jun 15.23

Part of the headline from the article published.

"A state tax break doesn’t guarantee pipeline construction, but analyses indicate it would boost the project’s economics"

If the vote goes through there'll be massive pressure on Glenfarne to make it work. Can they? It appears project viability is on a knife edge. They appear to have capped the selling price to Alaskans, sales to Asia will be subject to price competition and so it's only the cost line in the appraisal they have left to influence. The tax break has already been reduced to 85%.

Not forgetting that Galvin says PANR gas only flow with oil.

13.31

Thank you for the advice - no need to worry on that front.

Fitzy,

That's great. A recent article suggests that the difficulty may come in the Senate.

Don't forget that Pat Galvin made it quite clear in his recent appearance before the Finance Committee that the gas only flows with the oil - he was very specific. And so, the oil needs to flow to to obtain the gas. The oil, as always, is the issue. The gas is a 'nice to have' but will not sustain PANR on its own, even if it could be made to flow separately.

Do your homework if you wish to appear smart.

Semi-retired and so I do! Reducing my working week still further at the end of this month and looking forward to spending even more time in your illustrious company.

Just looked up your recent history. I'd actually forgotten that you too are one those who slung around the deramper and shorter jibes.

Remind to to ignore anything you say in future

Filtered AGAIN (!!!!) by Jimmy. I shall be inconsolable with grief.

Mowmoo1111

"I actually know you personally..."

Really?

You should make yourself known.

In fairness, I was commenting and minding my own business when Siggins started labelling me and others shorters, etc. some month s ago. The last 24 hours was brought about by Siggins' lengthy missives. Don't I have a right of reply?