February 11, 2009

Les Gara goes after oil company shill Andrew Halcro

By Les Gara

When sometimes-OK guy Andrew Halcro goes on his Exxon-Good, Les-Bad attacks, I usually ignore him. In a blog post Wednesday, he was in one of those moods again, criticizing Alaskans for standing up for the state's interests as we develop our oil and gas resources. I'm not ignoring him today.

Halcro's attack piece was particularly rich. Since my friends at Alaska Dispatch published his blog item (I appreciate that they edited out some of the name-calling), I thought I'd take a moment to set the record straight and accept their invitation to write a response.

In his blog piece, Mr. Halcro misstates, well, like my whole legislative career. And he overstates Exxon's charity towards the people of the state of Alaska. I know. They're so warm and cuddly it's hard for Mr. Halcro not to see things their way.

So, first things first. The really big thing I take from his blog entry is that - and folks should let me know if I'm reading this right - I shouldn't call my wife Kelly to keep a day open for an invite to the Halcro family mansion any time soon.

Now his column:

Halcro's Love Affair With The 2006 Oil Tax Law VECO Helped Buy:

So what's Mr. Halcro angry about today? According to his blog column, he's still angry that I voted to fix the 2006 oil tax law VECO corrupted with bribes. You know, the one the FBI's spent the last 3 years investigating? The Frank Murkowski, Pete Kott, Vic Kohring-era tax Mr. Halcro has said he prefers to the oil tax reform law I worked to help pass. The reform law that finally got Alaskans a fair share for our most valuable natural resource.

If we took Exxon and Mr. Halcro's advice, Alaska would have given away over $5 billion in revenue -- for oil that we Alaskans own in common -- over the past two years. I guess he thinks Exxon and British Petroleum needed the money more than we do. It's a mistake that politicians who don't want to offend big donors make a lot, so I'll give him a little slack.

His Unique Love Affair With The Frank Murkowski Gas-line Deal:

My friend who blogs from his mansion also can't let go of work I did in 2005 and 2006 that, you guessed it, Exxon also doesn't like. In today's column he extols the "virtues" of the almost universally discredited backroom gas line proposal deal between Frank Murkowski, Exxon, British Petroleum and Conoco. He writes that he's bummed I and others didn't let them get their way in 2006.

If Mr. Halcro and friends had it their way and we passed that deal, we would have been legally prohibited from fixing this Murkowski-era oil tax after the FBI told us it was borne of corruption. The Murkowski-Exxon proposal would have bound us to leave that law in place for 30 years, and would have bound us to keep sending Exxon and friends an unjustified share of the value of Alaska oil.

Still Luvin' Exxon's 30-Year Refusal To Honor Their Lease Obligations at Point Thomson:

And Mr. Halcro notes he's still bummed that when Exxon refused to develop the huge Point Thomson oil and gas field - jeopardizing Alaska's dream for a gas line by untold years - I joined the state to put pressure on Exxon to honor their contract commitments. Now he's angry that worked. Exxon is finally, after 30 years, moving forward on exploration commitments on a field we need to develop to maximize the benefits of a future gas pipeline.

I guess his point is that Alaska shouldn't have sued Exxon for their three decade-long refusal to honor their lease commitments to move forward with Pt. Thompson exploration. My bad. Maybe Mr. Halcro's right that we should just take the world's largest corporation at their word more often. Maybe if we stood by for even longer, they'd have done the right thing out of charity.

In his rant, Mr. Halcro also tries to stereotype me as "opposed" to needed "development" projects. In politics it's easier to mislead than to tell the truth. So I'll give Mr. Halcro a few facts about economic development I've pushed, and that I'm sure he'll ignore in his next column. A fraction of these efforts include:

- Filing a bill (House Bill 119) to provide incentives for companies to locate to Alaska to produce value-added products from out natural gas - that will bring needed jobs to this state;

- Pushing for a gas line that serves Alaska's interests, and against the oil companies' efforts to stall it, and gain from unjustified tax breaks;

- Voting for expanded onshore oil and gas exploration in Western Alaska (but not offshore oil development in Bristol Bay, Alaska's most productive fishery);

- Voting for Expanded career development and job training efforts at the University of Alaska;

- Voting to increase Alaska's West Coast-worst minimum wage - something Mr. Halcro's GOP friends have blocked since 2003;

- Voting for a lower tax on Cook Inlet gas development so we don't deter exploration for the natural gas needed to fuel our homes and industry; and,

- Voting to put some of the worlds most vibrant oil and gas exploration incentives into the oil tax reform bill we passed in 2007,

...to name a few things.

Damn, the facts make it harder to stereotype people, don't they?

I have no illusion that setting the record straight will have any impact on the GOP blogger from the lakefront mansion. He needs people to attack, and oil companies to side with, if he's going to curry favor from big donors - as he plans his next run for office.

So, I wish Mr. Halcro the best. But I'll remind him that free speech doesn't just mean his right to insult and mislead.

It doesn't just mean his right to continue to delete the blog comments on his website from people who disagree with him (something he's built a reputation for doing), or the comments he deletes from people who've defended those he attacks. It also means that every once in a while those he's chosen not to tell the truth about get to write back.

Mr. Halcro, I'll just offer one bit of advice: It might make you a happier person. It's OK to be a constant critic. But it's better to tell the truth. So, step back from the keyboard, take a breath, and try it. It might actually feel good.