Blog: Capital Focus
When information is scarce on critical issues, it's tempting to read a lot into what little information there is.
If, for instance, we knew that the major North Slope producers would commit to using the TransCanada pipeline if the economics were good (and not boycott it to advance their own project), that would certainly affect the decision lawmakers made on whether to stick with TransCanada.
I wrote here last week about a letter sent to the producers by some Democrat lawmakers and the response one of them, Exxon Mobil, sent back. "ExxonMobil would be willing to sell North Slope gas . . . on commercially reasonable terms and conditions," wrote Exxon's Craig Haymes.
This morning, Rep. Les Gara, one of the lawmakers, sent out a triumphant news release with the heading, "Exxon Letter Might Signal A Rift Among Oil Giants -- Letter Might Help State’s Effort To Spur Gas line Development."
My caveat would be that it's not really clear what Exxon means by "commercially reasonable terms," which was also Gara's concern when I talked with him last week.
Another thing that would be really nice to know is whether the producers -- Denali proponents BP and ConocoPhillips in particular -- are willing to consider partnering with TransCanada under AGIA. From my talks with them, they are refusing to say whether or not they would consider such a thing.
But now the Alliance, an industry trade group, is claiming the two companies simply wouldn't consider it. "BP and ConocoPhillips have said they won't partner with any AGIA licensee because of AGIA's terms. They've had discussions with at least one other independent pipeline company."
The claim is in a bigger comparison between the TransCanada and Denali proposals, which you can find at the Alliance Web site, www.alaskaalliance.com. I'll try to check it with the companies today.
On another note, information from the three days of gas line hearings in Anchorage is now up on the Web.
The governor's AGIA site, www.gov.state.ak.us/AGIA, has almost all the PowerPoint presentations posted.
The Gavel to Gavel site, www.ktoo.org/gavel, has some audio and video of the presentations. (Look under audio archive for Wednesday's presentations.)
And finally, some have criticized Palin for referring to TransCanada as "TC Alaska" now, as if to try to win favor for it. For the record, TransCanada Alaska Co., LLC, or TC Alaska, is the name of one of the companies that submitted TransCanada's Nov. 30 application under AGIA. (Foothills Pipe Lines. Ltd. is the other.)
Well, despite some back and forth with both companies, I have not yet received a clear answer on whether it’s true, as the Alliance wrote, that BP and ConocoPhillips have said “they won’t partner with any AGIA licensee because of AGIA’s terms.” Seems important to me, so I’ll keep asking.
I agree that the ideal success scenario is a partnering between TransCanada and the producers.
One way to reduce the risk of the withdrawn partner issue is to have the producers own 100% of the pipeline in Alaska and TransCanada own some or all of the pipeline in Canada.
Post a comment