Showing posts with label boondoggles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label boondoggles. Show all posts

September 28, 2007

Your tax dollars (US) at work!

How ferry project, pushed by Sen. Stevens, floated


Artist's rendering of Ted Stevens' high-speed ferry. It will be built in Alaska and used for three years as a ferry from Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
Office of Naval Research
Artist's rendering of Ted Stevens' high-speed ferry. It will be built in Alaska and used for three years as a ferry from Anchorage to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
WASHINGTON — Sen. Ted Stevens, who championed $452 million in federal funding for Alaska's notorious "bridges to nowhere," has directed the Navy to build an experimental ferry it once rejected to serve a little-used port in a remote area of his home state.

The high-speed ferry will connect Anchorage to Port MacKenzie in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $84 million. The project follows the same route as one of the two "bridges to nowhere," which the non-partisan Taxpayers for Common Sense and others spotlighted in 2005 as examples of wasteful projects promoted by members of Congress that benefit few people.

'Bridge to nowhere:' Plans hit a dead end

*snip*

In an e-mail to USA TODAY, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) said it did not request the funding. The Navy said it rejected Lockheed Martin's proposal for a similar prototype to transport military personnel and equipment, saying the project was not a high priority.

Stevens declined to be interviewed. His spokesman, Aaron Saunders, said the deal benefits taxpayers by providing a use for a Navy prototype that otherwise might be scrapped after a year. Saunders said the ferry will bring jobs and revenue to the borough, which has about 80,000 residents.

"This is a win-win for the military and the Mat-Su valley," Saunders said.

The ferry alone is now expected to cost $58 million, the Navy statement said. That's nearly double the Navy's original $29.9 million agreement with the shipbuilder.

The "biggest cost driver" has been its unique design, the Navy said. The design is complicated by a retractable center hull that is raised to reach high speeds and lowered to offload passengers and vehicles.

A former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its defense subcommittee, Stevens inserted nearly $50 million into defense and transportation spending bills between 2002 and 2006 for the project and related costs. Stevens added $20 million in this year's pending defense bill, according to the legislation.

One company that could benefit from the ferry is VECO Corp., the oil services firm at the heart of a federal corruption probe that led to an FBI search of Stevens' home July 30. The company, whose former chief executive is a business partner of Stevens, signed a letter of interest six years ago to open a manufacturing facility at the port once the ferry begins operations, which is now expected in 2009. Borough Manager John Duffy says VECO remains interested in building huge oilfield equipment at the port, where it built smaller equipment "modules" in 2005 and 2006.

VECO spokesman Tim Woolston declined to comment. Tom Maloney, the company's vice president of business development, told the Anchorage Daily News, in 2005 that the ferry — which can carry up to 26 cars and 150 people — would allow the company to bring workers to the site more cheaply and safely than driving them from Anchorage.

VECO chief executive Bill Allen and vice president Richard Smith pleaded guilty in May to bribing state lawmakers to limit a state tax on oil production and resigned. Allen testified in a related case this month that one of the lawmakers he bribed was Ted Stevens' son, Ben, a former state senator.

Allen also testified he oversaw renovations to Ted Stevens' Alaska home in 2000 that more than doubled its size, and had VECO employees do some of the work. Stevens said in a July interview with Alaska reporters that he paid all the bills he received for the construction. He has declined further comment on the probe.

Neither Ted nor Ben Stevens has been charged with wrongdoing.

Navy rejected similar ship

The ferry's design came from the world's largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, which also has ties to Stevens. Lockheed pitched the design to the Mat-Su Borough in 2002 after the Navy rejected its proposal.

With funds secured by Stevens, the borough paid Lockheed $2 million in 2003 to design the ship.

Lockheed's lobbyists include Stevens' brother-in-law, William Bittner. Lockheed paid Bittner and his law firm $420,000 to lobby on defense spending issues from 2002 through 2006, the firm's disclosure reports say. Bittner said he never lobbied for Lockheed on the ferry.

"Until you called, I had no idea Lockheed was involved in this project," Bittner told USA TODAY in an e-mail.

New ethics laws ban any senator or staffer from being lobbied by the senator's immediate family, which does not include brothers-in-law.

Campaign finance reports show Lockheed's political action committee, executives and lobbyists gave Stevens' political committees $63,650 during 2002 through 2005, when the first legislative-directed funding, known as earmarks, were awarded for the ferry project.

Lockheed spokesman Tom Jurkowsky said, "Lockheed Martin did not initiate any congressional support or lobbying efforts to secure funding for the program."

Contracting rules exempted

Once Stevens' earmarks directed the Navy to build the ferry, the ONR hired Alaska Ship & Drydock under an obscure type of agreement called "other transaction authority." Those agreements are not formal contracts and therefore are exempt from many federal contracting rules, such as those requiring detailed cost justifications.

The shipyard is reimbursed for its costs plus a guaranteed profit, according to the Pentagon announcement of the agreement.

Critics such as the non-partisan Project on Government Oversight (POGO) have said such arrangements are vulnerable to waste.

"Cost and pricing data should be available for auditors to review to ensure the government isn't being ripped off," said Danielle Brian, executive director of POGO.

*snip*

Former Senate staffer Winslow Wheeler, who handled defense spending issues for three Republicans and one Democrat and is now with the non-partisan Center for Defense Information, said the ferry is an example of earmarks siphoning money from worthier defense projects.

"He's loaded up defense bills" with projects that have "no direct usefulness for national security," Wheeler said of Stevens

May 03, 2007

Source that spurred this on at: Globe and Mail Report on Business



Last week, I asked wolfy if I should start digging into the TRUTH abou the oil sands in Albert.  I figure it is just another of those big fat CON jobs ...



Where is this technology to .. be developed .. to be exploited ..



How are all these folks flooding into and around Calgary going to survive on some mighty slim pickings in social services department, too few schools and doctors, too many Crapacinno bars and late night clubs for Duppies (dual income nincompoops), not enough "parking lots" and a VERY VERY VERY strange (to my mind) cultah.



But back to the left brained stuff .. what spin is Harper going to put on the strange goings on that will take place as people push and shove their way(s) around the oil game ...? Hunh? Whadda ya think ...?



So may be this is the first part of a series, Maybe I am already fed up with the whole fiasco to come. Dunno for SURE about this at all and I don't know what I am going to do with what I find out.



But here is something to chew on.



And don't fret, my peak oil buddies! We have NOT forgotten the Russian oil alerts. They are just too fascinating for Wordz ....










Refinery advances oil sands strategy





































Globe and Mail Update










































CALGARY —
Husky Energy Inc.
has trumped competing bids to land
Valero Energy Corp.'s

165,000-barrel-a-day refinery in Lima, Ohio, for $1.9-billion (U.S.),
plus net working capital, narrowing the available options for firms
seeking to bring crude from Alberta's oil sands to market.



The deal, expected to close by the end of the second quarter,
effectively allows Husky to advance its ambitious oil sands development
plans, as it provides a refining home in the U.S. for the firm's future
crude output. However, it also increases the stakes for companies that
haven't tied up a downstream solution for their oil sands projects,
with the number of U.S. refineries available decreasing and the cost of
building an upgrader in Alberta soaring.



“The acquisition of the Lima refinery represents a significant step in
Husky's ongoing strategic move of expanding our downstream business,”
Husky chief executive officer John Lau said in a press release.
“Integration of the Lima refinery with future growth of heavy crude oil
and oil sands production is part of Husky's long-term strategy to
enhance returns to shareholders.”



Husky, which produced 360,000 barrels of oil and gas a day in 2006,
expects to extract 500,000 barrels of crude a day from its oil sands
operations alone by 2020, with the 200,000-b/d Sunrise development
expected on stream in 2010. However, because oil sands crude is heavy
and difficult to refine, the firm – like other Canadian producers –
needs to find refineries to process its extra output in order to bring
it to market.




















































With the refinery previously valued between $1.5-billion and
$2-billion, the deal is positive for Husky, especially in the wake of
spiralling prices within Alberta, said Adam Zive, a Toronto-based
analyst at Desjardins Securities.



“This deal compares favourably to similar recent deals and makes a lot
of strategic sense for Husky,” he said. “The highest value proposition
for a company with oil sands production is buying a U.S. refinery and
converting it to take the heavy crude.”



While the refinery acquisition will allow Husky to process crude from
Sunrise, it won't meet all the company's future refining requirements
and so the firm will still consider other options, including expanding
its 77,000-b/d Lloydminster upgrader, Husky spokeswoman Tanis Thacker
said.



“This is a first step, not a complete solution,” she said.



While some Canadian producers are looking to build upgraders – which
make the heavy oil sands crude lighter, and therefore easier for more
refineries to process – in Alberta, the province's oil boom appears to
have made their development less economic than a U.S. solution. On
Tuesday, the increased costs claimed a casualty as oil sands developer
Synenco Energy Inc.

said the upgrader portion of its Northern Lights project would now cost
$6.3-billion (Canadian), more than triple the estimated 2005 capital
cost of $1.9-billion, and it halted work on the facility because of the
new estimates.



Canadian producers
Western Oil Sands Inc.
and Suncor
Energy Inc. are believed to have unsuccessfully bid on the Lima
refinery. Suncor CEO Rick George said last week that while the firm was
still searching for U.S. assets, the current asking price for
refineries is “too high.”



While a potential partner for Canadian producers is Houston-based
Marathon Oil Corp.
,
which has been vocal about seeking a swap of its refining equity for a
stake in the oil sands, other potential deals seem thin on the ground.
BP PLC
,
which holds major refining assets in the U.S. that could process more
Canadian crude, has a long-standing policy of non-involvement in the
oil sands and currently appears uninterested in a possible asset swap.

Question of the Day



(for newbies to this blog only ....)

What does British Petroleum KNOW that the others don't?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm....?
























Technorati Tags: , , , , ,



Powered by ScribeFire.

ShareThis