Frank McQueary's partisan spew is consistent with the bought-and-sold Republican position on Big Oil: what's good for Big Oil is good for Alaska. Not so, Frank. Exxon's interests-not Alaska's-were well-served by denying 36,000 Alaskan plaintiffs their just compensation for EVOS;  Exxon's interests were well-served when the company refused to develop its oil leases at point Thomson-the state's interests were not. And Exxon's interests are well-served by escaping industry's liability for its contribution to climate change which (we now know that they know) is significant and documentble. Alaska's interests are NOT so served. For instance,  It will cost the SOMEBODY billions of dollars to relocate scores of villages on Alaska's coast affected by rising seas, see eg, Kivalina v Exxon. Alaska's interests are served by forcing the costs of climate change to be "on the books" as a cost of development, rather than by allowing Exxon et al to externalize those costs and lay them on government.