Port authority faces one more hurdle with gas line announcement
Published Friday, May 23, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!JUNEAU — When Gov. Sarah Palin announced Thursday she was pursuing a natural gas pipeline project by TransCanada, she effectively turned down the “all-Alaska” project proposed by the Alaska Gasline Port Authority.
Any line relying primarily on liquefied natural gas, she said at a news conference in Anchorage, would take longer to build, result in higher shipping costs, and ultimately bring less money and fewer jobs to the state.
“LNG still has many, many challenges when compared to an overland route,” she said.
But Palin also credited proponents of LNG with spurring the development of a gas line and said an LNG component could ultimately be added to a pipeline running into Canada to form a “Y-line.”
Port authority project manager Bill Walker said Thursday he wasn’t surprised by the governor’s announcement, but disagreed with her administration’s conclusion that a pipeline into Canada, such as TransCanada’s, could be built sooner and bring more money to the state.
Walker said the port authority’s own analysis showed that a Y-line that started with an LNG component and added a Canadian component later would bring the most revenue to the state. He said the port authority would study the administration’s analysis and figure out what to do next.
“We’re not out to battle with the administration,” he said. “We just think they might have the wrong leg of the Y-line going first.”
Walker and port authority chairman Bert Cottle, who is also the mayor of Valdez, both said the port authority would continue to pursue its all-Alaska project.
“I don’t see how our mission has changed one bit,” Cottle said.
The port authority applied last year under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, but its application was deemed incomplete by Palin’s administration.
Some lawmakers have long promoted an all-Alaska line as the best way to create long-term jobs in the state, and as energy prices have shot up, many see it as a way to get inexpensive natural gas to Alaskans quickly.
“I still believe we should do every effort we can to try to move our gas instate through LNG,” House Speaker John Harris, R-Valdez, said Thursday.
Palin, who supported the all-Alaska concept during her 2006 run for governor, challenged both of those assumptions Thursday. She said at the news conference that a large-scale pipeline open to all gas leaseholders, such as TransCanada’s, would ultimately provide the most jobs by encouraging exploration and development on the North Slope. And she said a TransCanada pipeline could be completed sooner because it faced fewer hurdles.
A summary of the administration’s findings stated that because the LNG would likely be shipped to Asia, an LNG project “would likely face significant political opposition when seeking the required export license.”
The port authority was created nine years ago and has operated on a blend of public and private money, although it has relied almost exclusively on public money in recent years.
This winter, the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly approved $350,000 for the port authority, a vote that followed a smaller contribution from the Valdez City Council. Borough officials said Thursday that $263,000 of the $350,000 has already been spent.
Assembly member Tim Beck, who serves as chairman of the body’s finance committee, said he doesn’t feel a strong pull to retrieve the rest of the money.
He said despite perceived setbacks, the port authority has made progress in its stated goal of building, or “causing to be built,” a pipeline project.
Beck said he would ask the state to clarify whether its decision that a standalone LNG project would not “maximize the benefits to Alaskans” was based purely on a look at the state treasury.
“Until the port authority was formed, you did not hear any dialogue about a natural gas line,” Beck said. “As far as I’m concerned, the game isn’t over until that natural gas is produced.”
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Boy did the Palin folks screw up. Here is what they did wrong. First, they forgot that Sarah promised within her campaign to build an Alaskan gas line.
Now they are making their boss look bad. But more important is that the Palin folks are putting out outright falsehoods. Take the outrageous claim that gas can't be shipped to Asia due to political hurdles. 100% wrong. There are three export licenses that have already been issued for that gas export.
Boy did they screw up. And, did anyone within the Palin administration bother to check and see that Alaska has been shipping gas to Japan for 40 years?
How could they make such a foolish mistake?
It is also good to see that Assemblyman Beck and Speaker Harris have a solid grasp of what is at stake- as well as what Alaska voters have mandated- An Alaskan gasline to Valdez.
So the battle will now move to the legislature where the legislators should be asked to do a comparison between an All Alaska project and the dismal TransCanada (TC) scheme.
You decide:
TC- Gas to Alaskans in 2020. Maybe.
All Alaska Line- Gas to Alaskans within five years- if the State gets involved.
TC- Profits go to a multinational corporation.
All Alaska Line- Profits go to Alaska, and to bigger Permanent Fund Dividends.
TC- Aboriginal land claims not settled in BC.
All Alaska Line- ROW available to proceed.
TC- Has not even identified the measly five delivery points in Alaska.
All Alaska Line- Identified almost 20 Alaska delivery points.
TC- No gas to Valdez, and forget about Anchorage...
All Alaska Line- Gas to Valdez for shipment to premium world markets.
One of the objectives of AGIA was to eliminate the non-projects, and it accomplished that. The Port Authority won't go away because it's board of directors is packed with attorneys, politicians and gadflys. That speaks volumes!
Where are peoples BRAINS ?? It should not take much "studying" to see that the Alaskan market for gas is so small it is almost not even worth considering. Why do you think we are shipping our crude out of state? The LNG, all Alaska, or what ever you wish to call it, is so simple to see why it just wont work... it would be like GHU saying the could deliver water with a truck to your house cheaper than they could send it through a pipeline. AND would someone please tell me where Tim Beck and speaker Harris got their "firm grip" on WHAT?
It is never changing,, just like the oil line,, the gas line will be built , when and where, it will make the oil companys the most money, PERIOD,, end of subject...
Got to say 50/50 really getting tired of your whining both here and on the radio. the legislature passed AGIA into law now its time to finish the job, its no ones fault that the port authority did not turn in a complete proposal. Of course John Harris wants the all Alaska route, what a huge cash cow for Valdez. As for your mandate maybe its time for another vote.
This just in from TransCanada.
TransCanada hasn't talked specifically with the port authority about collaborating on a Y-line project. The company did say in its application that if there wasn't enough gas commited to justify a line into Canada, but there was enough for an LNG project, TransCanada would build the LNG project.
"So, yes it is possible to construct the Alaska section of the Y-line first," a TransCanada spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail. "However, it appears unlikely that an initial LNG project would justify a 48 inch pipeline in Alaska unless the project thru Canada was imminent as well."
The merits will be heard and both sides have defensible positions, it all has to do with expectations.
What some characterize as whining I find enlightening and from my lifetime in this Territory /State it is important all sides get heard out, not just buried under onerous P.R. campaigns with unlimited budgets we pay for every time we gas up or turn on the thermostat.
Character assassination in blogs isn't going to cut it, it's only going to inflame and be the catalyst for divide and conquer strategies.
Just the facts as they unfold.
This one is going to be brutal enough as it is, no need for a perpetual pissing contest.
"turning over the entire PDF fund"... Is that really so bad? We would end up with state wide infrastructure, more industry including manufacturing, and reasonable energy costs. That would in the long run be more beneficial for the state. Perhaps some would rather eat the seed than plant them.
Stefan wrote:
""""but there was enough for an LNG project, TransCanada would build the LNG project.""""
==========
So, it looks like TransCanada has no problem with building an LNG-terminal in Alaska at a port somewhere [Valdez or Cook Inlet].
I think those who assert building a LNG-terminal on the Alaska coast is a goofy idea should take the time to publish an argument that is substantial enough to convince TransCanada that an LNG-terminal is nuts.
For the rest of us who are not misinformed and confused about the technical and legal aspects of these projects, we can resume our focus on discussing the more practical details of implementing action and progress.
To Stefen Milkowski: The idea that a LNG Y line was possible, once a big pipe made it to Delta, was a Murkowski era idea. In fact I remember he encouraged the PA folks to work on the idea as a way of helping with in-state gas needs.
So this is not a new development, only new to come from Transcanada.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.