On the latter issue, there's this observation:
One major difference between Murkowski and Palin plans is that while both approaches offer tax and royalty incentives for the producers, those proposed by Murkowski were more far-reaching and more controversial with the public and the Legislature.In-kind would mean the state government would actually receive quantities of natural gas which it could then dispose of as it wanted.
Murkowski would have had a 45-year freeze on natural gas production taxes and a 30-year freeze on oil production taxes. Palin proposes a 10-year freeze on gas taxes only. The producing companies say this isn't enough, and it is a key obstacle for them in participating with a pipeline licensed under AGIA.
Murkowski would have solved a big problem producers have regarding uncertainties in state royalty administration, and particularly the state's ability under the current leases to switch between in-value and in-kind royalty-taking at six- to nine-month intervals. Murkowski's plan would have had the state take its gas in-kind for the duration of the 45-year contract.
One other difference between the Murkowski and Palin plans is that the former governor would have had the state invest in the pipeline and own as much as 20 percent. The idea behind this is that if the state takes its gas in-kind for a long period, it would, as a pipeline owner, be shipping its own gas and earning profits from that rather than paying another pipeline owner to ship state gas. Murkowski proposed investing about $4 billion in the project for a one-fifth share.
Palin would have no such equity ownership, but instead proposes a $500 million state grant to the pipeline license holder to subsidize early planning and engineering work. The state would get no equity or other repayment from the grant.
-srbp-
