Posted on 06/19/2009 7:16:19 PM PDT by Al B.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- It is called Alaska's natural gas pipeline, but it's also Canada's and the United States' pipeline.
And the heavy lifting on this $27 billion project has to start way before the first shovel hits the ground.
"We are dealing with the largest commercial-private project in North America," said Tom Irwin, Department of Natural Resources commissioner. "The detail of engineering and planning and design is huge."
ExxonMobil's participation announced last week, while not a commitment, is a step closer to making this project a reality.
The project will require 2.5 million tons of steel, and much more. Railroads will carry more, ports will be busier and highways, too, once the natural gas line gets moving.
"What gets lost on people, too, is there are other pieces of work that need to go with this to build this," said Tom Barrett, the deputy federal gas line coordinator, Alaska natural gas transportation projects. "You'll have to have more activity and infrastructure."
It is Barrett's job to think about these things. The retired Coast Guard admiral will work with more than 22 federal agencies in Alaska to coordinate the pipeline project.
[...]
One of the tasks is making sure that information about this project is transparent and available, both to individuals and communities in this state as it goes forward," Barrett said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ktuu.com ...
Sometimes I wish Canada was next to North Korea because we really are better neighbors than they give us credit for.
If that many federal agencies need to coordinate on one thing, there’s a problem.
Where would you invest in this project?
I'm no expert but I would say Alaskan infrastructure, Canadian oil sands extraction, Exxon Mobil itself, etc.
If you believe cap & trade will proliferate around the world, sell short anything related to coal and bet on natural gas. Long-term, natural gas prices should go way up. JMO. Caveat emptor on all of this.
Don't bet on windmills...LOL.
ROFLOL, those are state agencies playing at building a pipe line over land that belongs to the federal government where they don't have a right of way. LOL,
$27 billion for a 1700 mile natural gas pipeline.
That's $16 million a mile.
$3,000 per foot.
Building one mile of four lane Interstate highway in rural America averages less than $20 million.
Plus, the original cost estimate is always low, so we're probably talking about a $35-$40 billion final number.
You could build 4 ultra-modern nuclear power plants for $40 billion, which is enough electricity for 2 million homes, or about 5 million people.
Does anybody know how much electricity will be generated from the gas that is transported?
Good piece on the scope of the work involved. Lots of jobs for Alaskans.
Just think of how many rolls of duct tape it will use.
The biggest hold up right off the bat will be the competing interests. Each energy sector or player wants to do things their way, and someone is going to have to give up a little. We will see.
some interesting stats. Much of the gas will be used to heat homes and water as well as cook.
Does anybody know how much electricity will be generated from the gas that is transported?
Have no idea but the capacity of the pipeline is 4 billion cf per day.
Ping me when the eco-freaks allow another nuke plant to be built.
Al,
Believe it or not, there are about 6 USA nuclear power plants now working their way through various stages of the approval process.
If the owners make a competent public defense for nuclear power, I think a majority of people will vote with their light switches.
Hardly staggering - it's not far away from the cost of a rural highway (cheap, compared to a suburban or urban highway), even though it's going through a wilderness. And unlike a highway, it's going to produce a lot of money once it starts operating, and a lot of power that has a direct effect on reducing our our foreign oil dependency.
In addition, you can't get permission to build a modern nuclear plant. So that comparision is bogus. Hell, if we could build nuclear plants, Alaska wouldn't be an issue. But without them, this is a very big deal, and putting it together has been excellent executive work by Palin.
i.e. they've been stalled for years by the liberals because they infringe on everything in the liberal playbook, and they aren't going to get approval in our lifetimes.
I disagree with two of your points.
(1) The Alaska natural gas pipeline will have almost no impact on our foreign oil dependence.
In 2009, almost all electric power in the USA comes from our own coal, our own nuclear power, and our own natural gas.
America has the coal and nuclear resources to generate all of its own electricity for at least two centuries.
Almost all of America's imported oil is used for gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and for oil based products like plastics.
(2) In 2009, approximately 6 nuclear power plants are at various stages of the approval process.
As I wrote in an earlier comment, I think a majority of Americans will vote with their light switches.
Just saw your second note.
All of the new nuclear power plant applications were submitted within the last 5 years.
Before that, there had been zero applications for the previous 20 years.
Referring to (1), at the very least a shift could be made from the Alaska pipeline energy against any foreign energy imports for any reason. But also, the more access to our own reserves that we have, the more robust (and thus safer) our energy needs are. We are locked out of massive oil shale reserves in our own country due to Clinton mandates. We desperately need to refocus our energy needs back onto our own soil, and this is a big step in that direction.
As for (2), I agree that they are "at various stages of the approval process." I just don't think they're ever going to get out of that process. If they do, great - I just don't see it happening in the current political environment. Liberals go insane when nuclear energy is brought up (which is often hard to differentiate from their normal insanity, but still...).
I do not oppose the natural gas pipeline.
I want to see a cost-benefit analysis against coal power and nuclear power, that's all.
I chose the example of building 4 nuke power plants since nukes don't emit CO2.
I would be just as happy to see 4 coal power plants built.
The Hard Left political rational for using natural gas is that it emits less CO2 than coal and has no long term risks like nuclear.
Thus, according to Hard Left political theory, it's OK to spend huge sums of money to bring in natural gas from a distant source, and ignore the cheaper coal and nuclear power we already have.
I disagree with that.
Financially, the natural gas pipeline will not be viable unless private owners are CERTAIN that the US government will block the construction of new coal and nuclear plants.
I do not agree with that, either.
Transport costs are of course prohibitive, all things included. But the problem is the massive left-wing attack against coal and nuclear, precisely because it's so locally cheap. They aren't attacking them for the reasons they state - they're attacking them because they solve our energy problems efficiently. So they've made them a focus for destruction, to empower their political takeover. Thus, as goes the Left, so goes these options. Without their destruction, the Left loses all their energy strangholds on the country. That's why I don't see these things opening up anytime soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.