Inside Opinion

If you have questions about how the Daily News makes editorial decisions, this blog has the answers. Editorial page editor Matt Zencey and writers Frank Gerjevic and Rosemary Shinohara will discuss what they're working on, answer questions and ask your perspective on issues facing Alaska.


Contributors

Matt Zencey

Matt Zencey joined the Daily News as an editorial writer in 1985 and was named editorial page editor in May 2007. He has won several. "Best editorial writing" awards from the Alaska Press Club and was a Nieman Fellow in Journalism at Harvard University. He lives on the west side of Anchorage, where he enjoys the best weather in town and easy access to the Coastal Trail. E-mail Matt at mzencey@adn.com

Frank Gerjevic

Frank Gerjevic has worked at the Daily News since 1978, where he's been sports editor, copy editor, reporter and columnist. He's been an editorial writer since 1998. He began his newspaper career with the Anchorage Times in 1975. E-mail Frank at fgerjevic@adn.com

Rosemary Shinohara

Rosemary Shinohara is an editorial writer who has lived most of her life in Alaska. She has spent most of her career as a reporter or editor at the Daily News. She covered construction of the Alaska oil pipeline, the Legislature, schools and urban affairs. She has also been an editor for NPR's All Things Considered, and has written for the Associated Press. E-mail Rosemary at rshinohara.com

Archive

Joe Contraire's latest, coming soon - 5/9/2008 2:41 pm

Sarcasm? Hah! A non-fan writes in.... - 5/9/2008 11:48 am

Who's accountable for ADN editorials? - 5/7/2008 11:14 am

Talk radio: Dittoheads vs liberals - 5/7/2008 11:01 am

More info and commentary on John McCain's health care 'plan' - 5/1/2008 6:29 pm

Join the dialogue on race and diversity - 4/30/2008 4:44 pm

How can our community as a whole combat prejudice and discrimination? - 4/30/2008 4:42 pm

What can an individual do about prejudice? - 4/30/2008 4:39 pm

Prejudice here - getting better or worse? - 4/30/2008 4:37 pm

Prejudice and discrimination: How are we doing in Anchorage? - 4/30/2008 4:36 pm

Not-so elevated discourse - 4/28/2008 4:20 pm

Elevated discourse - 4/28/2008 10:44 am

Yin and Yang - 4/25/2008 6:00 pm

UAA vs UAF - 4/24/2008 3:59 pm

Arctic Power demands retraction re Liddy - 4/23/2008 6:04 pm

Airport expansion vs. Kincaid trails - 4/23/2008 10:20 am

About the First Amendment - 4/23/2008 9:52 am

Irwin rips Exxon, partners on Point Thomson - 4/22/2008 5:25 pm

Tesche heads into the sunset - 4/22/2008 4:52 pm

Good words from Leonard Pitts - 4/22/2008 3:25 pm

Outside opinion invasion - 4/21/2008 5:26 pm

Denali: Not just a mountain anymore - 4/11/2008 1:39 pm

full archive »

Irwin rips Exxon, partners on Point Thomson

Posted by Matt Zencey, editorial page editor

Posted: April 22, 2008 - 5:25 pm

In deciding to reject the latest so-called "development" plan for the long-undeveloped Point Thomson oil and gas leases, Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Tom Irwin really laid into Exxon and its partners.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such strong language in any decision issued by a state agency or official.

Irwin basically charged Exxon’s Craig Haymes with duplicity:

“At times, Mr. Haymes responded to simple questions by offering an answer in the form of multiple, rhetorical questions that were largely non-responsive to the questions asked. Finally, his general demeanor was that of a witness primed to reiterate, rather robotically, Appellants’ commitment to the 23rd POD (Plan of Development).

“I did not find Mr. Haymes to be a credible witness. At times, his answers were contradicted by the record established in this proceeding....Frequently Mr. Haymes’ answers were not straightforward.”

Irwin was really cheesed off that none of the companies would admit to the state that they had been less than diligent in fulfilling past promises at Point Thomson.

“If Appellants do not recognize that they have failed to follow through on commitments in the past, I cannot trust them when they promise to follow through on commitments in the future.

“And if Appellants truly believe that they have always followed through on promises to DNR ... then they lack the ability to understand what a commitment is and I cannot trust them to responsibly develop Point Thomson’s resources.”

Here are some other pointed remarks from Irwin’s 78 page ruling:

“DNR (Department of Natural Resources) has serious doubts, based on the unit’s history and the credibility of witnesses testifying at the remand hearing, that the promises made in the POD (Plan of Development) will ever be kept."

“Appellants have not undertaken the necessary development studies and permit planning to ensure that they can, or will, complete the project as promised.... "

“The state runs a considerable risk of seeing ExxonMobil fail to satisfy benchmarks because of “permitting delays” that are largely within Appellants’ control.”

Irwin’s take-home message:

“I am not persuaded that this long-standing pattern of broken commitments will change" so he said the state is taking back the Point Thomson leases.


login or register to post comments

  1     April 26, 2008 - 2:57pm | rfn

If this runs like other cases

it'll take nineteen (19) years to reach The U.S. Supreme Court. Only this time it'll be the oilie side holding the bag. Just think of all that oil sitting in the ground, growing in value! In nineteen years it'll be worth, what, $300/bbl? And the leases to tap that oil will be worth 8-10 times the giveaway price paid for them in the days of $7 oil!

Patience, Exxon, just as you expect patience from the folks around Prince William Sound.

login or register to post comments | flag this »

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad