I thought the House version was well balanced. Make no mistake, it gave some borderline crazy concessions like interest rates on money owed. The oil reps in the Senate are convinced that the only way to develop oil in Alaska is to give Big Oil what they want or they will leave. Has anyone, at any time ever said where big oil is better off? North Dakota and the Permian Basin seem to be better for the wildcatters, but Big Oil? We need to look at a state owned field and the possible ownership of TAPS. This would involve big risks to the state, but we are now subsidizing those risks with SB 21, the cash payout bill basically written by the oil reps in the legislature. It also hurts Alaska that one of the architects of SB 21, Senator Dan Sullivan is doing backflips to help the Tar Sands in Canada which competes with Alaska. Doing everything Big Oil wants doesn't make you pro oil, it just makes you pro corporation and pro monopoly and possibly anti Alaska. The Senate is wrong on HB 111.