Alaskan primary means gas pipeline hangs in balance

MarketWatch ^ | Aug 23, 2006 Last Update: 11:50 PM ET | Norval Scott

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Earlier thread with some excellent maps:

{Alaska} Governor Announces Agreement on Gas Pipeline

[patriciaruth]

Any comments?

[redhead]

Yep. "Scuppers" are holes in the rail of a vessel, so that any water taken over the side can flow back out. I think the word this person was looking for is "scuttle," which is also a nautical term, and meant punching a hole in the bottom of a vessel in order to allow it to fill with water and sink. It was done to prevent capture by enemies. < /pedantry>

[ASOC]

If the election was supposed to be a vote of confidence for Franko, it sent a big message - the people want a contract negotiated out in the open without restrictive 40 year set-piece tax deals.

Then again, the oil companies have no real reason to build the pipeline, they use the gas now to recover oil.

Alaska gas will be the most expensive in the world to deliver to market, and if they wait till 2014 to start, it may never start. This is something that we should have pushed 4 or 5 years ago.

I suppose if Tony gets in the 'tax it in the ground' tax will get passed and push the multinationals out of Alaska even faster than they are leaving now.

[thackney]

the people want a contract negotiated out in the open

The Stranded Gas Act required negotiations to be kept confidential prior to reaching an agreement. That was not Frank's doing but rather Alaskan law.

without restrictive 40 year set-piece tax deals

The tax was not part of the gasline contract but the oil/gas tax bill that has been passed, although not at 40 year. It never made sense to me why a tax rate cannot be set for a long term. Alaska has a history of changing the tax structure after companies invest their capital. That is one of the main reasons so much money has been invested in Canada oil/gas industry and Alaska remains much smaller.

the oil companies have no real reason to build the pipeline, they use the gas now to recover oil.

This is NOT true. The majors ALL are pushing this line and have spent a lot of their own money doing so. Natural Gas is re-injected but this will not end the oil production. It likely will increase the use of Electric Submersible Pumps in Prudhoe Bay; they are used in many fields around Kuparuk.

Alaska gas will be the most expensive in the world to deliver to market

No, but using LNG will greatly increase the cost to deliver.

This is something that we should have pushed 4 or 5 years ago.

Agreed.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Earlier thread with some excellent maps:"
Thanks.

[RightWhale]

The Natural Gas Pipeline is not hanging in the balance. It is dead.

Start over.

[RightWhale]

Frost in Fairbanks again. Tony on the radio now. Natural Gas Pipeline dead. What's next? Pluto no longer a planet?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So how did Alaskans benefit by taking out Murkowski?

They want to keep the Oil and Gas for their own use?

[thackney]

So how did Alaskans benefit by taking out Murkowski?

They want to keep the Oil and Gas for their own use?

Without a market to sell Alaskan North Slope Gas outside of Alaska, the demand for natural gas inside the state is too little to justify the expense of building a pipeline, gas treatment plant, gas production facility and gas liquids plant within Alaska. (and you cannot build one without all of them) What we will end up building if the gas pipeline stalls is an LNG plant importing Natural Gas to South-Central Alaska where the majority of the population is. The current source of gas for this area is in steep decline, it is questionable now if the gasline contract were approved this year production would be in time to meet existing demand. From my short-time perspective, far too many Alaskan's keep trying to strangle the golden goose.

Annual Reports, Alaska Division of Oil and Gas

[RightWhale]

how did Alaskans benefit by taking out Murkowski

Ha!

Who says they intended to benefit? There are factions in Alaska, factions in the R Party. Factionalism arises for reasons, usually having something to do with money. The $20 billion pipeline project is just the ticket for creating factionalism. Then there is considerable money coming from outside Alaska to support environmentalism. The Sierra Club (Seattle) considers Alaska as THEIRS. Lots of money if you oppose predator control. Lots of money if you oppose the Pebble Mine since it conflicts with a salmon stream. Alaska politics has a large component of Outside control. The Ds are hiring enviros out of Seattle for $300 a week to come up here and campaign for Tony. 11,000 voted the R primary ballot just to oppose Frank and aren't even Rs. How do Alaskans benefit?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Glad I asked!!

Where do these enviromentalists get their money?

Help needed....

[mystery-ak]

I was born in Anchorage 55years ago....I haven't been back for 54 years....lol

[RightWhale]

Enviros have a lot of money. Many are rich people. I suspect European royalty.

[thackney]

Where do these enviromentalists get their money?

Without ANWR and the like to campaign against and raise money, many democrats would not get elected.

[RightWhale]

Also, enviros form non-profits and get Federal funding.

[ASOC]

The tax change was a major part of what the oil multinationals demanded.

The majors are pushing the line now - where were they 2 or 3 years ago? Too expensive, they said - IIRC

I really hope they get the line built, it means my grandchildren might have a chance at a job and be able to stay in Alaska.

But I am not holding my breath. If Tony gets elected, I believe you can kiss the gas line goodby.

[thackney]

The majors are pushing the line now - where were they 2 or 3 years ago?

The majors have been hiring companies like the one I work for for many years, comparing the options to determine the most economical method of bringing this gas to market.

The project description on ConocoPhillips Alaska's web site pushing this project is a couple years old.

ConocoPhillips and Alaska North Slope Gas (PDF 980 kB)

In 2001, evaluation of the gas pipeline’s potential intensified when the three North Slope producers began a detailed study of a gas pipeline system from Prudhoe Bay to Alberta, Canada and then to Chicago. The studies included the conceptual design of all elements of the system, as well as an extensive evaluation of the potential route attributes.

We have maps on the walls in my office from several studies years ago comparing routes. $20 Billion does not get spent on the first option discussed without a lot of evaluation.