Posted on 10/08/2013 5:25:36 AM PDT by thackney
The companies seeking to advance a multibillion dollar natural gas pipeline project in Alaska have a leading contender for the terminal site where gas would be liquefied and shipped to Asia, signaling that a decades-old dream could still become a reality.
Exxon Mobil, BP, ConocoPhillips and TransCanada Corp. announced Monday that the Kenai Peninsula town of Nikiski is the leading contender. Senior project manager Steve Butt said there are three or four other sites are still being considered — he declined to identify those — but said Nikiski has the land needed for the plant and the companies know they can route a pipeline there. Land acquisition work is underway.
A liquefied natural gas plant operated in Nikiski for decades and provided exports to Japan. But ConocoPhillips and its then-partner announced plans to close the plant in 2011, citing market changes. Sporadic shipments continued until ConocoPhillips decided earlier this year not to renew its export license. The state has asked ConocoPhillips to reopen the mothballed site and apply for a new license to provide an incentive for petroleum companies to explore and invest in Cook Inlet.
Butt said the liquefied natural gas plant envisioned as part of the pipeline project would be 16 or 17 times larger than that plant.
(Excerpt) Read more at rigzone.com ...
I found a source that doesn’t require excerpting.
Producers name Nikiski as lead contender for LNG plant, export terminal
http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/Breaking-News-2013/Producers-name-Nikiski-as-lead-contender-for-LNG-plant-export-terminal/
North Slope producers and TransCanada Corp. have selected a site at Nikiski on the Kenai Peninsula as the proposed terminus for a 42-inch North Slope gas pipeline and a large liquefied natural gas project.
Nikiski is also the location of a smaller liquefied natural gas plant owned by ConocoPhillips that suspended operations when its export license expired in 2012 because of lack of gas supplies from Cook Inlet fields.
North Slope producers ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips and TransCanada, a pipeline company, selected Nikiski as the preferred site after evaluating 20 possible locations, the companies announced in a press released issued Monday.
Although numerous sites were being studied, Nikiski and Valdez were considered the lead contenders for the LNG plant.
Valdez is the terminus of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and location of the Valdez Marine Terminal, and many Alaskans had expected Valdez to be chosen because of the existing terminal infrastructure and navigation advantages of Prince William Sound over Cook Inlet, which has winter ice and strong tides.
The companies had a different conclusion, however.
“The work we have put into the site selection process gives us confidence that the Nikiski site is the lead location for the LNG plant and terminal,” said Steve Butt, an ExxonMobil manager who is senior project manager for the gas pipeline and LNG project, in the release.
“The Nikiski site also results in a pipeline route that provides an access opportunity to North Slope gas by the major population centers in Fairbanks, the Mat-Su valley, Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula.”
The announcement raises questions as to the future of the Alaska Gasline Development Corp.’s plan to develop a state-led pipeline project along a similar route to Southcentral Alaska. The AGDC, a state corporation, is pursuing its project as an alternative to the larger industry-led pipeline, in case that project is delayed.
ADGC is studying a possible 36-inch gas pipeline that would move 500 million cubic feet of gas per day, a smaller project than the industry pipeline, which would move about 3.5 billion cubic feet per day.
Meanwhile, several engineering and technical, commercial and regulatory issues remain to be settled for the industry group, Butt said. Fiscal terms for gas production, on production tax and royalty, also need to be settled.
“While Nikiski is the lead site, the project team continues to consider other, secondary locations. Pipeline routing definition work also continues based on the summer field work activity, which will be extended south of Livengood,” in the Alaska Interior, Butt said.
The companies are continuing to refine the agreed project concept that includes a gas treatment plant on the North Slope, an 800-mile, 42-inch gas pipeline with up to eight compressor stations, and at least five gas take-off points for in-state gas delivery, and a liquefaction plant and terminal.
The pipeline would transport about 3.5 billion cubic feet of gas daily to the LNG plant, which would manufacture and ship 16 to 18 million tons of LNG yearly primarily to markets in Asia, the companies have said previously.
Construction costs are estimated from $45 billion to $65 billion, and possibly more, the companies have said.
——— 3.5 billion cubic feet of gas daily———
Incomprehensible number
It is beyond my capacity
There are several US pipeline systems that move that much and more every day.
Thanks for the list.
It still doesn’t help me to grasp the enormous numbers though.
There are several US pipeline systems that move that much and more every day.
...and so one could surmise the daily pipeline movement would be somewhat or considerably less than the daily production, which must be huge. Though I would have reservations about putting too many eggs in the NG basket.
For comparison, approximately 1/3 all the Natural Gas Texas consumes.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_STX_a.htm
or 1/6 all the Natural Gas Texas produces.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_stx_m.htm
Essentially all US produced Natural Gas moves through some pipeline somewhere to get to the consumer, so these numbers would be nearly the same, except for the relatively small portion consumed at the production site.
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.