Community Perspective
The state’s critical gas line choice — unite or divide?
Published Sunday, June 29, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!I have had my share of Homer Simpson moments. It’s when you finally “get” what is painfully obvious to others and, with a slap to the forehead and an abrupt “D’oh,” you move on. That’s exactly what should happen now with the gasline legislation in special session.
First, credit the governor and the Legislature with getting what needed to be done with the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act legislation. It got the attention of all parties interested in developing a gas line and produced one credible party for participation — TransCanada. Along with record natural gas prices, it also “induced” the oil companies that own the leases on the gas to commit to their Denali gasline project.
It’s now time to declare victory. The state should take the lead in uniting the parties, each of which has given strong signals they need each other to complete the project. Now is the best time for the state to negotiate with a unified group for Alaska’s needs.
Second, the riskiest course would be implementing the proposed legislation. Rather than a unified project, it would divide the participants and select TransCanada to receive a $500 million subsidy from the state to proceed on to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a certificate to build the pipeline.
So what’s wrong with that? Well, for TransCanada to get a certificate from the FERC, it will need an irrevocable commitment from the companies owning the gas leases to ship approximately 4 billion cubic feet of gas per day for 25 years at rates sufficient to pay off its $30 billion investment and other costs. Not only would it be highly unusual to get a FERC certificate without this commitment, but also the institutions that will be financing the project will absolutely require it.
Now comes that Homer Simpson moment. The producers plan to spend $600 million to determine the costs and tariffs for the Denali project and to proceed to the FERC for a certificate. So which gasline will receive the producers’ commitment to ship gas? Their project or TransCanada’s? It is difficult to conceive of a scenario where they would abandon their own gas line to support another. Yet, by the proposed contract, TransCanada is obligated to continue the application with FERC even without these gas commitments. The good news for TransCanada but the bad news for Alaska is that the AGIA legislation requires the state to pay 90 percent of costs incurred at this stage of the process.
Under these circumstances, there is little doubt about which project FERC would choose and which project would get financed, although it would be years in unfolding. What’s most disturbing is that the contract ties our hands until TransCanada either abandons its efforts or begins shipping gas. The state is not only prohibited from pursuing development of any other pipeline proposal but also would pay treble damages if it did so. This is truly a nightmare in the making.
Now, the state says there are a lot of good provisions that have been placed in the proposed contract with TransCanada. No argument there. However, on the issues most important to Alaskans — such as in-state access to gas, hiring and training Alaskans and using Alaska businesses — there is no difference between what TransCanada has agreed to and what the producers have acknowledged is required. That is exactly why the State should now pursue a unified contractual agreement with the producers and TransCanada.
Other advantages such as debt/equity ratios, rolled-in rates, and open access are all controlled by FERC and federal law, not the AGIA contract. The legislation only requires that TransCanada support these concepts before FERC. Whatever questionable benefit TransCanada “advocacy” would bring does not replace the primary responsibility of the state to present its own case before FERC.
There is clearly strength in unity. We should not be afraid to take a leadership role in making this happen. We have clear indications that a pipeline company with significant assets, experience, and Canadian connections and the three major producers of North Slope gas are prepared to join with the state of Alaska to develop a unified Alaska natural gas pipeline. This is clearly the opportunity we have been waiting to pursue. And, “D’oh,” we’d save $500 million in the process!
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Wonder where we would have been today if Fran had won the election?
Little Plastic Gaslines and Fiberoptics Everywhere
www.fairbanksgas.com
Uggh Tony giving his advice.
The State does not and should not get in the middle of the inevitable negotiations between TC and the lease holders. Other than an occasional threat of pulling leases if they don't provide gas. The lease holder shareholder will demand that they sell gas to the pipeline.
Enough of the rhetoric and lets award the AGIA license to TC and get moving.
Once that is done the Denali pipeline project will be history.
Tony Knowles demonstrates how little he understands about the details. Naturally, he highlights the political issues like gas for Alaskans as being the important ones. But if you don't focus on Debt-Equity ratio or access, none of that will matter.
The deals aren't the same. For one thing, TC has COMMITTED to do the things we need, while British Petroleum continues to just run advertisements.
If we'd done the Murkowski deal, it would have cost us $20 Billion dollars (half of what's in the permanent fund right now). The Denali deal looks exactly the same as that, no commitments to anything. so the question is, which makes more sense - spend a dollar for what you want, or spend 40 dollars to get taken advantage of?
How did Tony Knowles spend that $400,000 that VECO felon Bill Allen gave him when he was Governor?
And what was the quid pro quo? Maybe this op-ed piece is part of the quo.
I agree with my friend "JohnQPublic" in the points he raises. But What JohnQPublic and Tony Knowles both share is a refusal to stop offering false dichotomies. It is pure rubbish to pretend that we must settle for either a producer line or a TransCanada line.
Alaska has plenty of cash on hand to move forward with an Alaska owned gasline. That is what the people have asked for, after all.
Why is this ignored?
Stop with the "Alaska pipeline" is what the people wanted. The vote that you refer to showed that the people of Alaska wanted a pipeline built. There were no other options at the time so of course they supported the "Alaska pipeline". If the people of Alaska were given a choice between TC, Denali, or the port authority's pipeline option, which do you think would win? My money would be on TC. Stop spending my property tax money on a pipeline that has no chance.
eat or heat your recent comment regarding gun rights and that people should take their guns up to the university to express their rights has left you with no creditability. If darkhorse is right, the borough assembly should ask for a complete investigation into your appointment. I do not think that someone who would ask people to break the law should have been placed in a position of public trust.
Well, Bigmike, you should read the latest polls that show the All Alaska Pipeline is, in fact, what Alaska wants. About 80% by the latest numbers.
But how about the elections, isn't that what really counts? In 2002 138,000 Alaskans voted for ANGDA and the All Alaska Pipeline. In 2006, Sarah promised an Alaskan pipeline in her campaign.
Or, how about the public comments received under AGIA? Alaskans overwhelmingly told the governor that they do NOT want the TransCanada deal, and that they DID want the All Alaskan Gasline.
If all of that isn't good enough for you, then you should pay attention to the public hearings held across Alaska where Alaskans- at every hearing- have told the Governor that they do not want the TransCanada deal. They want an Alaskan Gasline. There was even a rally at last hearing where a large group showed up to protest in favor of the All Alaska Gasline.
And dude, if I was in charge of all this, we wouldn't be talking about building a pipeline. We'd be building one.
So it's government by concensus you're all looking for, not leaders, right? Just put people in place to control the purse strings, squeal like little piggies, and let the good times roll.
I've never seen an issue where it was more obvious that Alaska is now peopled with ill-informed socialists. The "all alaska" line is just plain old stupid. You all want to pipeline the gas hundreds upon hundreds of miles, then liquify it and put it on boats that don't even exist? Comrades, you couldn't compete using this model. Who would buy the gas? It would be cheaper for customers to buy it from anywhere else in the world.
Maybe we could get Hugo Chavez into the governor's seat. The state could own commercial fishing too, all the ships, buses, hotels, and restaurants associated with tourism, all the mining...heck let the state take over everything and people can just lay around and live off treasury checks. Communist swines.
You are confusing the issue of Alaskan wanting afforable energy with wanting the Alaska pipeline. Although I am sure that confusion is intentional. That appears to be the major marketing ploy of the Alaska pipeline supportors.
The Port Authority is not going to build a pipeline it never was going to. Its role was to initate competition and it has done that and now it needs to dissolve and stop spending our property tax dollars.
People in Fairbanks understand that we will not getting gas anytime soon.
You would be building it? You couldn't even submit a proposal on time. What a joke.
Peak Oil & Gas is a hollow illusion...
The Big-Steel/Steal-Deal $30billion++ Oil&Gas DualPurpose NorthAmerican Overly Ambitious Military Empire Backbone Boondoggle is just plain bad 1950's Bolshevik Style architecture.
The global economy needs to take some strong worm medicine and poop out the worms chewing on its guts...
...Free Market Speculators doing unhinged hydrocarbon day-trading with weird derivative instruments concocted by crooks are THE PARASITIC WORMS.
Soon the lower48 will be able to make all the gas they want out of their own garbage dumps, and everything else..
and if they finally do get that overpriced big-steel pipeline built the CO2 gas will be flowing from south to north in it.
http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/Engine...
Klystrons are the end of the game for BigOil to parade around their big drill rigs as "the only source for hydrocarbons".
The North Slope could catch fire and explode while all of the dwarfs of Lilliput argue about how to maximize the monetization of the methane molecules.
http://www.google.com/search?gbv=2&n...
$500million is cheap fire insurance if it gets actual gasline construction started by August, otherwise just consider it a gift from a rich neighbor.
POSTURING FOR PROFIT
PURE FOLLY
.....flash/rumble
BigMike, you should pay attention to Distant Thunder. He comes to the debate armed with facts rather than opinions.
The last rally held was not in Fairbanks, but down in Kenai. The message? Alaskans want the All Alaska Gasline.
Speaking as one of 138,000 Alaskans who voted for the All Alaska Gasline- a decisive victory by the way- I want Alaska to build the gasline, just like we told them to do.
And for Allhairiles- do you receive a dividend check? Or would accepting a dividend make you a raving socialist?
eat_or_heat,
While I disagree with Tony Knowles on every point, you are misrepresenting the truth on just as many points. AGIA is not about getting gas to Alaska. We have gas in quantities that we will never exhaust. AGIA is about marketing that gas to the world so the state can replace the oil revenue.
Under AGIA the state can and is looking at an in-state only bullet line, online way before the oil is gone and the marketable gas line is running. AGIA forces the lease holders to sell the gas, instead of pumping it back into the ground and sitting on it. AGIA is the next TAPS, not the next Flint Hills refinery.
BP did not want to play last year or the previous ten, and their talk of building a line now is just talk. If they were truly a partner, they would build the in-state line using their own profits. Trans Canada met the state's guidelines. It is now time for the state to perform it's end of the bargain and move foward in the gas race. It is a race but not an in-state race. If Alaska's north slope gas gets beat out by another gas deposit, in the lower 48, we will loose our customers.
What BP is not telling us is that with the limited supply of gas online now, they have a monopoly on that commodity. Bringing a huge supply online too early will flood the market and kill the price wars. I am all for the bullet line for Alaska Gas, but in the long term outlook, we need to follow through with AGIA, then grab Trans Canada by the short hairs and get them to get the gas line built quickly.
BP, Conoco, and all you wanna be big talking Alaska petroleum "parters" take notice, we are Alaskans. ACES and AGIA should have open your eyes to the fact that we own the resources, and you are merely lease holders. We are going to get the gas to market sooner rather than later, and with or without your so called "partnership". We will bring in Chinese contractors to build it, if necessary. The point of AGIA is to get the gas out from under the leased land and on the world market.
If BP, and our other "partners" want to buy in on the pipeline, the state can set up an investment account. If they want to put their money where their mouth is, then it's time for them to partner with the state and help pay the $500 million, and help the state get the FERC process complete. Don't come to the table with a club, come with an offering to help if you are truly our "partner".
ONAPA- thanks for your thoughtful comments, but you are off the mark on a few points. New discoveries within the lower 48 have effectively closed that market to Alaska gas.
Explain to us how one can amortize a 40, 50, or 60 billion dollar project when gas reserves in the Lower 48 do not have such massive costs to bring on-line to that market? It simply can not be done. This conclusion by the best energy market researches in the business was only made recently- June 12- well after AGIA was passed. This is new information that the Legislature MUST have because it changes everything everyone thought that they knew about a project to the Lower 48.
In state gas is made most affordable by a real gas line to Valdez- not some low volume, high cost line like what AGIA requires. (500 MCF/D). It is much better for Alaska to go to the world markets where we can sell our gas for almost double the price it is now commanding within the Lower 48.
The best way for us to move forward, given the new circumstances we find today, is through a real 48" gasline to Valdez. With Alaska equity participation in the project you will use maximum leverage to get upstream gas commitments. Then you get the same thing we both want- new exploration on the North Slope Basin because you will not have a producer owned line that denies new capacity, rolled in rates, or any of the other problems AGIA tried nobly to solve.
If it gets worse I guess I will pick eat and leave Alaska behind. It is a shame because I love to be here but now it looks like I might not be able to stay in alaska. I know that makes alot of people happy to hear yet another person leaving but what else is there?
eat or heat still want us to take guns up on the University?
The Alaska Gasline project sounds somewhat doable (assuming that the Port Authority could find viable partners) until you consider that they would never be granted an export license. At time when the US is facing an energy crisis the Port Authority is promoting exporting LNG. Never going to happen.
STOP SPENDING MY PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS!!!
Well, BigMike, if you read the applications put together under AGIA, (I read all of them) you'd see that an export license for the shipment of Alaska's gas has already been issued by DOE.
There is enough gas on the North Slope to ship 2.7 BCF/D to premium, world markets for over 200 years.
The question you and every other Alaskan should be asking is why shouldn't Alaska get the best price that it can for its gas? The Lower 48 market is closed to a big project. There is too much gas there to justify a 60 billion dollar pipeline.
eat_or_heat, you got my point. How do we move forward with the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) which is designed to get the high volume of gas to the market, not provide gas to Alaskans. As for the affordability of the in-state gas, we see what the TAPS has done for Gasoline and Heating Fuel in-state. What will be different with a high volume in-state Natural Gas line? Absolutely Nothing, unless the cost to build and maintain it is kept in check. Any high volume line proposal that the state backs now, is a deal breaker with Trans-Canada and will cost the State millions in litigation and penalties for failure to perform under a contract.
The low volume line is more than capable of meeting Alaska's in-state demand at a lower cost, and does not interfere with the state's long term plans and agreements. Taking your view, each community has different takes on what an all Alaska line means. The reallity of getting our gas to market regardless of the route, will be dead in the water if we start over again. I don't care how, or where we sell it, but we have to get it on the market and Trans Canada is meeting us half way.
Trans-Canada figured out how to meet state guidlines and make money. BP said it was not a profitable venture for them until a couple months ago when they annouced they were building their own line. Don't you wonder why Trans-Canada has not batted an eye in light of the recent announcement of the latest conclusion? It's still profitable for them but not as profitable as it could be for BP twenty years from now! BP doesn't want to get off their reserves until they can monopolize them. That's good business strategy, but not good teamwork.
A limited export license has been approved under AGIA not under the Port Authority's pretend project.
STOP SPPENDING MY PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS
BigMike- no, the export license was not acquired under AGIA, it was issued years ago by the work of YPC. And it is not a small export license- it is good for 25 years from first shipment.
An instate gasline is not a pretend project Mike. The ROW has been issued, and most of the permits have been acquired. No other project is anywhere close.
ONAPA- The license to TransCanada has NOT been issued. That is the critical point. Once we issue the license we expose ourselves to treble damages- or as much as 1.5 billion dollars. Why should we do that when we know that we can do better?
Gas is about 3.5 times less on a BTU comparative basis to oil. SO what is different is that the Interior will have a low cost method to heat homes and generate electricity. To further reduce our cost of gas the best option for us is to take our gas from a large, dense phase pipeline. The little lines people speak of have massive tariffs. High tariffs = expensive gas = higher heating and electricity bills.
And we can't wait until 2020 for gas. I hope we can all agree on that? Both TC and the producers are telling us that we will NOT see gas until the end of the next decade.
As the TV show asks- Deal, or no deal?
That license is not directly transferable to the Port Authority's pretend project.
The Port Authority couldn't get a proposal in on time and they are going to be the big boys to the market? Another joke. Most of the Port Authority "leaders" have jumped ship...give it up.
Stop spewing lies and half truths and
STOP SPENDING MY PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS
BigMike, please educate us on why the export license is not transferable. The export license is for the export of Alaska's gas.
You do not seem to understand the point I make- and that is that Alaska should be building this gasline. We have the money, the voter's mandates and the urgent need to get this line going as soon as possible.
If Alaska builds the line, it will likely be the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority- and the contractors they hire that will be taking the lead that build the pipe.
Didn't Bill Walker, the offical spokesperson of the Port Authority report that the authority would support AGIA?
eat or heat, if you are so smart and could build it by now, why don't you get supporters to pay for it and compete with the other players who are actually doing something. How much has your armchair gas line building actually accomplished?
It seems like all you do is play on people's fears and emotions. Did it ever occur to you Big Mike may be right. I just hope eat or heat is not Big Mike and carrying on the discussion with himself.
Thats all we need is a sudo state agency building a multi billion dollar gas line. Do you really think that ANGDA is as qualified to build a gas pipelline as TransCanada?
Yes Walker and Whitaker have both stated support for AGIA but that doesn't stop them from
SPENDING MY PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS!
Darfur- The last report I heard was that the big multinationals that are sitting on the leases on the North Slope have refused to sell Alaska's gas. This is totally illegal and outrageous. It takes a Governor who is willing to take away the leases for non- conformance to get the gas into a line- as we've seen with Pt. Thomson.
Hard to build a gasline if the elected officials are in the pockets of Big Oil (Kott, Kohring, Stevens, Cowdery, Clark, etc.) and refuse to defend our Constitution.
Mike- that is the funny thing- excellent point. Alaska COULD hire TransCanada to build our gasline. That is what TransCanada does. We'd then have full control over the project and a good company to build it. Skip the silliness of an exclusive license and all the problems that it presents.
You are saying cut out the middleman- I agree.
You get it.
WE are hiring TransCanada to build our pipeline.
WE do not want YOU to have full control over the project. That is the scariest thing I have ever heard.
Yep I say let's cut out hte middle man....the middle man being the Port Authority and
STOP SPENDING MY PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS
Seems to me that you cannot sell something until you have a means of transporting it. Aren't two of the producers doing that at this time. Exactly what part of the contracts are the violations in that would have a court of law agree that the contracts will be revoked and the leases dissloved. Please not your opinion, but actual clauses in an actual contract I can look at.
Seems some of those legislatures are now in the hands of the US correctional system. All the talk about a large group being prosecuted, and it all seems to have stopped. Has anyone been charged lately that I missed the news on?
One question, if next month the legislators agree to accept AGIA and pass it, what will you take on next? Hopefully it will be something that will truly make a difference.
Oh by the way, while all this discussion was going on oil hit $143 a barrel.
Darfur, here is what the Alaska Constitution requires:
Section 8.8 – Leases
The legislature may provide for the leasing of, and the issuance of permits for exploration of, any part of the public domain or interest therein, Leases and permits shall provide,…for forfeiture in the event of breach of conditions.
As required by the constitution, here is some actual language from a North Slope lease:
The failure of the lessee to perform timely its obligations under this lease, or the failure of the lessee otherwise to abide by all express and implied provisions of this lease, is a default of the lessee's obligations under this lease. Whenever the lessee fails to comply with any of the provisions of this lease, and fails within 60 days after written notice of that default to begin and diligently prosecute operations to remedy that default, the state may terminate this lease…
So now we have come full circle and are right where the legislature was in August of last year. AGIA got the ball rolling. If now the lease holders want to build a competing line, all the better. I say license Trans Canada and do what we voted to do: build a line to market the gas. Waiting for the Port Authority and the lease holders has moved the gas out of the ground and right back in. If the state is holding a license to export, then who ever actually exports it will have to cooporate with the state and do it under our authority. We hold that chip let's not transfer it, but have the shippers operate under the state's license.
I don't agree with subsidizing the main line, but that was a concession the state made to entice someone to actually build a line. I am not particular about who gets it done or where it is sold. What matters is that we get it off the leases and onto the world markets and Trans Canada has demonstrated that they are willing to do more than talk about it.
eat_or_heat, you stated: "Gas is about 3.5 times less on a BTU comparative basis to oil. SO what is different is that the Interior will have a low cost method to heat homes and generate electricity. To further reduce our cost of gas the best option for us is to take our gas from a large, dense phase pipeline."
When will we be able to do that? AGIA does not adequately address in-state gas needs and the earliest 48" line I have seen projected is 2020. By that time the lease holders will be ready to sell some gas at todays oil/gas BTU equivelent rate.
You continued with: "The little lines people speak of have massive tariffs. High tariffs = expensive gas = higher heating and electricity bills."
Tariff being a tax, levied by who in Alaska? What are the rates? Is there some higher entity taxing our resources in this state and transport of those resources? How much is it going to cost to convert all the homes and the power plants to gas and how long will it take to lay all the supporting lines?
Don't take my questions wrong, I agree, we need an in-state line, but we don't need to slow the momentum on AGIA or repeat past mistakes because of comments from the public at one hearing. We must follow through on AGIA, while the Governor looks into short term proposals for the in-state bullet line. The legislature has to deliberate and protect the state's long term interest. The risk to the state under AGIA is not magically higher now than it was last fall. However, the longer we wait, the more expensive the gas line is going to get.
Where are these other proposals to the state so that the State can review them against Trans-Canada's?
If the other ideas are so good, why isn't someone welding some pipe? After all we are half way through another construction season. Winter is coming and converting my home won't help if there is not a line built to deliver the gas.
Legislators: Stop STALLING! You are wasting time and time is money!
ONAPA- you are correct, and your questions are thoughtful. Nothing I've heard with AGIA gets gas to the Interior before 2020.
If Alaska simply hired the private sector to build the gasline- at least to Delta- using less then this year's surplus, we could have gas to the Interior within five years.
A tariff is not a tax, but a charge for profit, overhead, and long term amortized capital costs- If TransCanada is charging a tariff Alaskans who are paying that tariff through their gas purchases will be sending their money off to Canada. If Alaska owns the line the tariff profits stay right here in Alaska. Diversifying our income stream away from just oil makes sense to a lot of us.
eat or heat, name the paragraph, section in the actual contract that has been breached. You are very good at giving misleading information. Tell me where I can view the actual gas contract you supposedly quoted. By the way, how have you obtained this information and have seen gas contracts?
Still haven't answered one of my questions, do you still think people should defy the University policy and take guns on campus as you wrote the other day?
My what a hostile person you are, Darfur. Ever talk with the UAF rifle team?
If you want to get this info get off your rear end and go get it instead of insulting other people.
Get over to DNR and ask for this information. There are thousands of leases to choose from.
Kiss the dividend good bye the money made while be paid to the gas companies you have. Understand if nobody does anything that's exactly where it'll be going. No this year for year's and year's to come do you think the gov. while help maybe Obama might help I think not not like I support him. But he's against fast help think a Mill will help might not as much as you think. Solar panel in the dead of winter 18 days of almost blackness. Think you'll pay now or pay every year not this year every year for years to come.
Big Mike sounds alot like Suomi. Suomi doesnt rant here anymore now that he's been outed as Bob the welfare bum that cant call KFAR for fear he'll have to defend his welfare status. Did I guess right Big Mike? Bob? Your property taxes? That's funny.
I'm a native that unfortunately maybe fortunately live in Michigan. But I think you not really thinking what can happen if you think the Gov. while help you when your in need. Won't happen the gas card plane while take take the 500 million in one year. Just in the dead of winter. Then there's the spring recop. won't get enogh built to make them millions back. The economy no I almost can't afford food here Michigan. $280 per month just to make it. I know you pay more. But 3 dollars for bread is crazy. Under me I can get bread a cheap leaf for 59 cents what's the excuse high gas everywhere you'll hear that I hear that every day. But think you'll have to do something your the only ones that can. I plead. Pay a little now or pay that amount times 4 every year from now on.
wow...
what a huge discussion you all had today while I was gone...
maybe if everybody studied the slideshow at fairbanksgas a little more you would see that the actual cost of build the simplest first little LPG gasline to the north side of Atigun could be done for less than $10mil. If we started filling small-midsized LPG trucks from this location we could pay off this first segment in 4months. This first gas would not be super cheap to retail, but cheap enough to keep most of us from freezing to death...
..we all share it and ration it as best as possible.
Old folks and little kids first!!!
By the bootstraps we plow all the revenue back into building out the next segment immediately..
..get it to the south side of Atigun, then the trucks can move twice as much without slowing the other traffic.
Taking small steps at a time can make this possible without any funding from the state.
Soon the state might realize that the cost of moving large amounts of gas long distances through plastic-pipe made in Alaska from Alaska's ethane is much cheaper than using a big expensive steel pipe.
Alaskans can build HDPE-pipe for $1.85/lb..
4" LPG-gasline it 2lb per foot.
There many factors that make moving all of the North Slope gas to the Yukon much quicker, better, cheaper using plastic not steel.
800psi 24" reinforced HDPE CNG gaslines can move more gas per unit cost compared to 48"steel dense-phase pipe.
A big part of the savings is you don't need to build access roads to lay plastic pipe.
there's no corrosion problems with plastic..
HDPE can be pulled into location in 2000' lengths..
laid,connected, and running in the winter, then buried in the summer.
cost of construction is much cheaper..
the first gaslines can be passing gas in weeks, not years.
etc., etc.
Without any state financing this little gasline network can quickly grow to where it's shipping NS-gas to all of Alaska at a rate of 10bcfd...
When Alaska gets totally saturated with gas is when Alaskans receive the most benefit from the gas resource, not when it's turned into dollars that are not worth toilet paper in a busted wrecked economy.
A diffuse plastic gasline network is more secure than one steel buried gasline... I don't need to go into any details, just gotta trust me that 25 plastic gaslines running south from the over the top across Canada border to Inuvik the westernmost connector to Chukotka, and through every pass in the Brooks to the YukonRiver will keep the gas flowing even under aerial attack.
The first HDPE-gasline might even be dropped into Fairbanks this summer across the Salchaket Slough and Tanana if somebody would get off their lazy butt and go start looking for CBM near Clear Creek Butte westward to Nenana..
in '67 some old geezers had me slamming waterwells with a junk car lacked up on blocks spinning a bare rim as a slackline windlass..
and using that rig we found a little gas at just over 200'..
there's several hundred sections of sub-bit coal on the south side of the Tanana.
It seems everybody's brainwashed into thinking you need billions of bux to pass gas..
you're all forgetting Drake in Pennsylvania, and the boys at Katalla.. it just takes your wife to throw your lazy ass off the front porch and yelling at you to not come back until you gitter done!!!
......flash/rumble
Think about your kids really think the Gov. really care what you think? I watched as everything as happened near us and everywhere else. The land isn't really going to help unless you plant something that will harvest fruit by fall. Well that's only three months. Won't help you soon enough. Your time is limited. The pipeline will be built in years you might have to push it. or maybe not. Gas in Michigan was 4.05/gal gas I have no Idea got a credit on taxes that paid it off. But the highest was $325/jan. But why help anyone else? Why not hold it. You can .
DistantThunder,
I think most in AK would donate to the cause of an in-state gas utility network, but we need to move Trillions of CF to market and can only use millions here at home. Your proposed line can be the precursor from the slope, and Trans Canada would follow that route with the big line. At least that's my vision of a two step approach. I agree that it is feesable and cheaper to use plastic, but it does no good without a plan to convert homes vehicles and businesses to gas in Fairbanks on a large scale. Homes that won't convert unless gas is available and cheaper than heating oil.
What I don't like about your plan is laying a line in every pass from here to Barrow and all of those "DANGER BURRIED GAS LINE" signs going up every quarter mile or so. Signs tend to attract bullet holes in the bush. One other question that I haven't seen answered is, how well does HDPE stand up to bear and porcupine teeth or moose and caribou hooves at -40?
But really your vision? There is about 5 here and others that see your vision outta reality? You think because you live there you own it? Not really the land below it everyhting that your land is on is owned by someone else. Might just be those your daughter or son despises. Yes It might be us the Natives that made that our land before you came. I'll vote the right of tomarrow.
onapa...
I would be happy to see TransCanada use a dozen 24" plastic gaslines to ship the methane south, it would still cost much less than building a steel boondoggle...
in fact if they took the 500million and used it wisely TC could build it out of plastic and have gas flowing faster without having to spend much more than a few million of their own money.
I'm both a canuck and yankee..
so I have no problem kicking butt in Alberta if they keep making an awful mess out of the tarsands.
Once these problems are solved, I guess I'll have to go teach futurist-philosophy in Persia or something fun & interesting like that.
Ask Justin at fairbanksgas about SCADA and fiberoptics, and all of the groovy hi-tech stuff that industry has already developed for making plastic-gaslines work in all climates from desert to arctic..
there's already thousands of miles of HDPE used in the arctic worldwide.
If you think Fairbanksans can't figure out how to properly use first propane, then ethane, then methane...
you must think everybody in Fairbanks is as unlucky as that poor fellow that blew his house up a few weeks ago.
Yeah, I'll spearhead the GasPassers safety training for everybody.
I have a 178megabyte file on propane safety training you can have for free.
.....flash/rumble
Nightshade,
The Natives of Alaska have my respect, but not for their fiscal policies. My daughter and son show more respect and tollerance for Native people than most natives have for them. You see I am an American, and my family accepts that Americans are not all one race or culture, but our American culture is what makes us a unique people.
The Native American culture and Native tribes are recognized as equal citizens in America, but I am not an equal citizen in their cultures. The fact that you and I are both native American has no bearing on the discussion.
I expect the land to be treated with respect. I expect the villages that need the gas, will get it before the cities. I expect our children to reap the benefits of good government and good fiscal policy. Based on race, NO ONE has more of a claim to this state than any other Alaskans. The native tribes in Alaska have the native lands which were chosen by their elders fifty years ago. The Alaskans have what was left after the Natives and the Federal Government took their choices.
If the government doesn't care about the citizens, they get voted out, that is the benefit of a republic versus tribal councils. My vision or understanding of all of the plans and ideas playing out in Juneau and producing the most good for Alaska is just that, a thought.
Did you ever think that my father's oldest father might be your oldest father's father? My people might have been trusted with this land before your's were given that same trust and now that trust is being returned to my people. Are you too busy jumping to conclusions to recognize your own family?
Here's a little known fact: Even if Alaska grants TC a "license," the final "Go - No Go" decision to actually build a pipeline is singularly made by the TC Board of Directors. Look it up. It's in writing on the DNR web site. We get to spend $500 million of our money and still have no guarantee that TC will build a line. It's up to a bunch of suits sitting in Calgary.
Another little known fact is that the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission would not allow Prudhoe Bay gas to be sent to market for years. They wanted it re-injected to keep high pressure in the oil fields and, as a result, improved oil recovery by millions of barrels. Now, the Prudhoe field has matured and the gas needs to be removed. Then, just maybe, as the pressure is removed the gas hydrates might gassify and there could be thousands of trillions of cubic feet of gas headed to market. And, by the way, every project guarantes in-state take-offs.
Although I've never been a Tony fan, I think he makes sense when he suggests that the players get together and get this show on the road. So many times, we circle the wagons and shoot ourselves.
I listened to the Port Authority's lawyer from Anchorage and his high paid "consultant" tell the legislature that there was no problem getting LNG tankers re-flagged to American status - even though it would take an act of congress to get it done that not one member of congress would sponsor the legislation. I heard them tell the state legislature they could get U.S. government loan guarantees even though they had no balance sheet for a prospective lender to look at. I heard them tell the legislature that their pipeline would be exempt from FERC regulation - even though FERC testified otherwise. I could go on and on!!!! The eat_or_heat Port Authority line is a real "pipe dream" and I agree with Big Mike:
STOP SPENDING MY PROPERTY TAX MONEY FOR A PIPE THAT WILL NEVER BE BUILT!
Thank you Bob. What are your taxes on that single wide anyway?
darkhorse,
You have a strong argument to not build a pipeline. TC's board of directors don't want to transport trillions of CF of natural gas and make billions of dollars for their company. I can see their ruse to the state now. It was just a delay by a third party to help the current producers keep their profits high. Thanks for bringing it to light.
Also, flamable natural gas is the only material capable of being pressurized and put back down a well to keep the oil pressure high. Normal air just wouldn't work and besides the release of all that flamable gas into the atmosphere would be a violation of the EPA regulations. The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commision required it to be stored for future use. Since the oil producers were not marketing it any time soon, they were allowed to return it to where it came from. Unfortunately returning it to the well does not increase well pressure because it is a net balance in volume and oil producers are using sea water to increase the pressure in wells.
I definately don't want to be in the middle of those wagons when you start shooting. The state urged cooperation under AGIA, and got none. The state urged cooperation under ACES and got none. Our "partners" in the oil industry don't cooperate unless they have a lot to gain. Magically now Mr. Knowles thinks the state should hold round table talks? I think not.
I think our "partners" finally realize under AGIA that they will be forced to sell the gas on their leases to Trans Canada for a fraction of what their speculative shareholders planned, and now they are trying to reslice the pie. The port authority and our north slope partners played chicken with Alaska and lost. Issue the license to TC and ensure ACES applies to any and all resources shipped out of state. If TC fails to perform call it a net loss and never do State business with a Canadian firm again. That's a lot of lumber, and raw material. We can easily create enough pressure from the Canadian Government to keep TC in check. Also there is some pressure we can expect from Canadians to get gas to heat their homes and businesses and jobs working on the line. Canada after all doesn't have Alaska's economy.
We have a lot of ACES up our sleeve when it comes to ensuring that Trans Canada completes the line. TC like Alaska is probably getting constantly bombarded with offers to "cooperate". I would wait until it is done and then sell if I were them. This is a huge long term construction project and will put them on top of the world market as a globally recognized corporation.
the first line of this article says it perfectly. "I have had my share of Homer Simpson moments." and this is another one for Tony......build the TC pipeline the oil companies will run their gas through, heck, its too easy for big oil then, wow look at the nice shiny pipeline TC built and do you really think big oil wont use it???????????? its still huge money (profit) for them....not hard to figure out.....
eat_or_heat
you missed one other glaring point, this one is so far off the mark from ONAPA,he says "We will bring in Chinese contractors to build it, if necessary"
What do you think is going to happen when you bring in card carring Communist's from China to do Union work, GEEWIZZZ.
That's a good one NoGutsNoGlory,
I forgot about the organized labor unions. I wonder if a foreign company has to hire union laborers to complete a contract.
SO MANY metaphors! So much rhetoric! If we could only harness the hot air used to comment on this article, we wouldn't need the natural gas to heat Alaska.
The TransCanadian pipeline is NOT Alaska's pipeline. The TransCanadian pipeline goes directly to CANADA. And does not support any infrastructure in Alaska. It will not supply a foot of gas to Alaska.
One group of people foaming at the mouth about the Port Authority. Another group anxious to give it away to the first company the current government will sell out to. When it's clear that the MAJORITY of Alaskans just want a pipeline that will support Alaska FIRST. Why is it so hard to build Alaska's infrastructure (to include a pipeline) then sell the excess of to whomever will buy it?
If you don't want Alaska to use its own resources, let’s build nuclear power plants across Alaska that will support us!
The TC pipeline will not support any infrasture in Alaska? It won't supply a foot of gas?
The pipeline has to be economic viable to build it. It could never be economically viable for just Alaska's use. The population is way too small and way too spread out. So why not build a pipeline that can provide revenue for Alaska (replacing the dwindling oil supply) and at the same time build spur lines for Alaska. That is exactly what TC pipeline proposes.
How hard is that to understand?
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.