Posted on 02/07/2011 11:03:16 AM PST by thackney
Law makers in Alaska called on TransCanada Corp. to fish or have their state-sponsored bait cut, introducing a bill Friday to abandon backing the massive project unless the company proves it has firm shipper commitments.
The bill introduced by four Republican representatives Friday, raises questions about the future of the massive $30-$40 billion line that would ship natural gas from Alaska's North Slope to Alberta.
An open season, where pipeline companies seek commitment from shippers to fill up their lines, came back without formal agreements last year, leading to the bill being introduced by disgruntled state representatives.
TransCanada said it remains confident discussions with shippers will lead to a positive outcome.
"We've made good progress on the project but do we have precedent agreements, we do not, but we're working hard to achieve them," said Tony Palmer, head of TransCanada's Alaska project. "There has always been a provision for either party to indicate that they thought the project was uneconomic. If that's the will of the state, they can certainly ... indicate that."
The state under former Governor Sarah Palin promised TransCanada and its partner ExxonMobil Corp. $500 million US to advance the project through the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. The partners have been reimbursed $36.7 million so far toward expenses incurred preparing for the pipeline project.
Jointly TransCanada and ExxonMobil have invested $125 million US in the project.
Analysts have been increasingly leery of the Alaska pipeline project as waves of shale gas volumes much closer to markets started flooding the U.S.
Take away the AGIA incentive and there's little to keep the project from falling apart, said analyst Lanny Pendill, with Edward Jones.
"Without support of the state, you're not going to get the fiscal certainty," Pendill said. "And without the fiscal certainty, you're not going to get the producers to buy in. And if they don't buy it, the pipeline is not going to get built."
If the bill is passed, TransCanada has until July 15 to show it has enough firm shipper commitments to make the pipeline economical.
Cynical yes I am, this is the one big thing that Sarah did that really shows her leadership in Energy and also pointed us towards a "green" fuel that works, not a bunch of hocum that doesn't pass a High School Phyics Exam by breaking the rules of Physics..
The Murkowski type RINO's and the rest of the Dem's in the Senate need to get if off the table and have it as a failure to maintain the status qou and to continue to feed at the "K" Street trough.
Very suspicious. Actually, Exxon-Mobil was sitting on the rights and doing nothing, and Sarah told THEM to fish or cut bait. The story is told in her first book.
It could very well be that Exxon-Mobil is again working with the resurgent Republican Corrupt Bastards Club in Alaska to cancel that arrangement. That way, they get to sit on these resources for a few dozen more years and maybe get more money for it in the end.
Who knows? It’s at least a possibility.
First I like Sarah so my feelings about he pipeline are not a reflection of anything to do with her. I believe when she was involved with the pipeline development the idea had merit. The gas scene has changed today to the point where the cost to transport it can’t compete with all the gas coming on line with the product from the lower 48.
If I were in the gas business I wouldn’t invest a huge amount of money when my return was being watered down daily.
But from the consumers standpoint and for the overall economic well being and defense of the nation, every proven source of the product must be maximized, parallel transportation, redundant systems all provided. We must get these foreign hands from around our necks asap!!!
“The gas scene has changed today to the point where the cost to transport it can’t compete”
But the gas line will be part of the fix to that problem.
Opposition to Palin’s energy policy will only increase energy costs. Clearly, her political opponents don’t want the pipeline to happen, because it will show that Palin knows how to fix our energy problem.
Because the large amount of Shale Gas coming into production in the lower 48 has driven the price too low to make the massive Alaskan Pipeline economical. It is also making most LNG projects uneconomical. Several companies that built LNG import terminals in the past decade are now seeking to use them to export Natural Gas from the US.
You should try getting your information from sources other than environmentalist trying to shut down everything.
You would drink it?
If we were talking about oil I would have no argument with your supposition. NG is not the same.
Suggest you do a bit of digging on how gas and oil wells are built and cased before accusing the industry of destroying drinking water.
Some of the responses to the post show a complete lack of any knowledge of what the word profit means and how it’s made.
Can't wait for the translation, son. Did you go to Faber?
But saying ANYTHING that some of the posters here on the board view as anti-Palin will earn you nothing but attacks -hard and well published facts notwithstanding. The level of ignorance of some on all things Alaskan is mind boggling.
Otherwise, how are things going for us?
Nearly 90% of all oil/gas production wells will have fracturing done on them sometime in their lifetime.
The Shale formations are a mile or two below the drinking water supply. I wouldn't drink ethane or butane either but they already exist in these formation and are far separated from the drinking water.
If you want to translate that into meaningful adult language, I will be glad to respond.
If you mean about the Alaskan Natural Gas Pipeline, I am not hopeful it will move forward in the next decade because of economics. I think it would take either a fast increase in demand, or regulations shutting down shale gas production to justify the pipeline.
The competing Canadian Mackenzie River pipeline received its government approval and is considered dead already due to the cost versus competition from the lower 48 shale gas supplies.
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.