Northern Gas
Pipelines, (Alaska Gas Pipeline, Denali - The Alaska Gas Pipeline, Mackenzie
Valley Gas Pipeline, Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, Northern
Route
Gas Pipeline, Arctic Gas, LNG, GTL)
is your public service, objective,
unbiased 1-stop-shop for Arctic
gas pipeline projects and people, informal and rich with new information,
updated 30 times weekly and
best Northern Oil & Gas Industry Links on the
Internet.
Find
AAGPC, AAGSC, ANGTL, ANNGTC, ANGDA, ANS, APG, APWG, ANGTA, ANGTS, AGPPT,
ANWR, ARC, CARC, CAGPL, CAGSL, FPC, FERC, GTL, IAEE, LNG, NEB, NPA, TAGS, TAPS,
NARUC, IOGCC, CONSUMER ENERGY ALLIANCE, AOGA,AOGCC, RCA and more...
2009
LINKS: FERC Reports
to Congress, 1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7....;
USGS Arctic Gas Estimates;
MMS hearings:
RDC,
Our NGP,
AJOC,
DH,
ADN,
KTUU;
Enstar Bullet Line: Map and News Links;
ANGDA;
Alaska Energy Forum;
Prosperity Alaska
2008 LINKS:
Shell Alaska OCS Study;
Mackenzie Gas Project EIS;
Join the
Alaska Gas Pipeline Blog
Discussion;
Governor Sarah Palin's AGIA Links;
2007 ACES tax bill links;
Department of Revenue 2007 ACES
tax documents;
2007 ACES tax Presentations;
2007 ACES tax news;
Alaska Gas Pipeline Training and
Jobs;
Gas Pipeline and Economic
Development; Andrew Halcro;
Bjørn Lomborg;
FERC's Natural Gas Website Links
WASHINGTON:
Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act;
History of H.R. 4;
DOE Energy Bill Position, 6-02;
Daschle-Bingaman Energy Bill
(Alaska, Sec. 1236 & tax credit, Sec. 2503 &
H.R. 4 Conferees),
Tax Credit;
See amendments, "Energy
Policy Act of 2002";
"Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act
of 2001 (Draft)" &
Background Paper,
8-9-01;Alaska
Legislature Joint Committee position;
Governor's position;
Governor's 10-Point Plan;
Anadarko Analysis;
U.S. Senate Energy Committee
Testimony, 10-2-01 -
text version; U.S.
Senate Energy Committee Testimony, 9-14-00;
Report on the Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Act of 1971, prepared by staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 1-18-01
ALASKA:
1-23-03,
Governor
Frank Murkowski's State of the State Speech;
2002 DRAFT Recommendations to 2003
Legislature;
'02 Alaska Legislation;
Alaska Highway Natural Gas
Pipeline Policy Council;
Joint
Legislative Gas Pipeline Committee; 9-01 Alaska Models:
Canadian Routes,
LNG,
GTL;
HR 4 Story;
Cook Inlet Supply-Demand Report:
AEDC;
Commonwealth North Investigation
&
Our Article;
Report: Backbone;
Legislature Contacts;
State Gas Pipeline Financing Study;
5-02 Alaska Producer Update;
Kenai: "Oil & Gas Industry Issues
and Activities Report, 11-02";
Alaska Oil & Gas Tax Structure;
2-27-02 Royalty Sale Background;
Alaska Gas Pipeline Office
opens, 7-01, and
closes, 5-02;
Betty Galbraith's
1997-1998 Chronology.
Our copy.
CANADA:
1-10-03, "Arctic Gas Pipeline
Construction Impacts On Northern Transp."-Transport Canada-PROLOG Canada
Inc.-The Van Horne Institute;Hill
Times Reports, 8-30-02;
9-30-02, Cons. Info. Requirements;
CBC Archives, Berger Commission;
GNWT Economic Impact Study,
5-13-02;
GNWT-Purvin & Gertz Study, 5-8-02;
Alberta-Alaska MOU 6-02;
Draft Pan- Northern Protocol for
Oil and Gas Development;
Yukon Government Economic Effects:
4-02 &
PPT;
Gas Pipeline Cooperation Plan
Draft &
Mackenzie Valley Environmental
Impact Review Board;
Mackenzie Valley Pipeline MOU
Draft, 6-01;
FirstEnergy Analysis: 10-19-01;
Integrated Delta Studies;
National Post on Mackenzie
Pipeline, 1-02;Northern
Pipeline Act;
Haida
Nation v. British Columbia;
Indian Claims Commission;
Skeena Cellulose decision --
aboriginal consultations required, 12-02;
Misc. Pipeline Studies '02
COMPANIES:
Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team
Newsletter, 7-27-01;
APG Newsletter: 5-02,
7-02
&
9-02;
ArctiGas NEB PIP Filing Background;
NRGPC Newsletter: Fall-02;
4-02 ArctiGas Reduces Field Work;
BP's Natural Gas Page;
Enbridge Perspective;
Foothills Perspective;
Williams Perspective;
YPC Perspective, 7-02
MEDIA
REFERENCE: Alaska Journal of
Commerce; Alaska Inc. Magazine; Anchorage Daily News; Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation; Fairbanks Daily News Miner, Juneau Empire; Northern News Services;
Oil & Gas Reporter; Petroleum News Alaska; Whitehorse Star, etc.
EXTENDED CONFERENCE NEWS:
Alaska
Support Industry Alliance,
Anchorage
Chamber of Commerce,
Canadian Institute,
Insight Information,
Inuvik Petroleum Shows,
International Association of Energy Economists,
Resource
Development Council for Alaska,
Ziff Energy Group
LEST WE FORGET!
| |
Northern Gas Pipelines: Liquefied Natural Gas Projects
(LNG)
Extended News: 2002
Leave gas line to private sector
COMPASS: Points of view from the community
By Larry Houle
Commentary
(Published: December 8, 2002)
Measure 3, the All-Alaska Gas Line Initiative that passed by a 60
percent majority, now presents state policy-makers with the decision whether
to fund a state-owned Gas Development Authority. Policy-makers must be aware
of the time and resources that such an investment would require as well as
the significant financial risks to the state.
Alaska does not have a long-range fiscal plan. The state needs to
identify new revenue sources and immediate budget reductions. This all must
be done before any gas line generates revenues.
Unfortunately, Measure 3 had nothing to do with the commercialization of
North Slope gas to Lower 48 markets. In fact, creation of the new
state-owned Gas Development Authority is now the very distraction that could
kill the Alaska Highway gas pipeline project.
Measure 3 was a cleverly crafted 11-page statute that sets up a
state-owned corporation authorized to purchase permits and engineering
studies that "have been pledged to the Alaska Natural Gas Development
Authority." Who has pledged the permits and how much are they going to cost?
One company has allegedly spent more than $100 million on permits and
engineering studies for the very project identified in Measure 3.
Hopefully, Measure 3 is not just another company bailout. Alaska's past
participation in government subsidies gone awry deserves mention: the Delta
Barley Project, the Point Mackenzie Dairy Project, the MarkAir bailout,
Alaska Seafood International, and that granddaddy of them all when the 1978
Legislature awarded a 27-year contract to the Texas-based Alaska
Petrochemical Co. to sell nearly all the state's North Slope royalty oil.
Three years later, a bankrupt Alaska Petrochemical walked away from its
contract, still owing the state nearly $60 million.
Even if buying the permits and taking over the project were a good idea,
it should be done by the private sector -- not government. People talk a lot
about running government like a business, the truth is government is not a
business. It has rules and regulations and procedures and public access laws
that present formidable challenges when government signs on as a partner in
a private venture. Speed and decisiveness are essential to running a
multibillion-dollar construction job; unfortunately government is neither
speedy nor decisive.
The new state-owned authority must do what at least two private sector
independent groups could not do and that is acquire and sell gas; build,
own, operate and transport gas to markets.
Twenty times the North Slope gas reserves are known to exist in the
Pacific Rim; these reserves are at or close to tidewater and are not
burdened by an 800-mile-long pipeline to get to market. Asian utility
companies are not entering into long-term contracts but purchasing gas in
"spot-markets" at prices close to marginal cost of production. An
All-Alaskan LNG pipeline owned by the state would deliver the highest
marginal-cost gas in the Pacific Rim, thereby making Alaska gas
noncompetitive.
High-risk projects costing $12 billion are not financed at 100 percent as
proposed in the initiative. The standard is a 30 percent owner equity
contribution. Alaska's Permanent Fund becomes the only viable source for the
state's owner equity.
The risks of construction cost overrun and low market prices to the state
are significant. Unlike large corporations, the state does not have cash
reserves for such risks. In addition, the state-owned pipeline proposed
would be exempt from all local property taxes.
If the message behind the passage of Measure 3 is that the majority of
Alaskans want to see a gas pipeline project succeed, then we are encouraged.
If building a gas pipeline is a priority for Alaskans, the single biggest,
most important thing the state can do is to create clear and predictable
rules on taxes and royalties for the petroleum industry. Alaskans should
demand that from their elected officials. To spend energy and resources on
any other activity to promote an Alaska gas pipeline is simply wasteful.
Larry Houle is the general manager of the Alaska Support Industry
Alliance, a statewide nonprofit trade association whose members derive their
livelihood from Alaska's oil and gas industry. |
Voice of the Times
(Published: November 10, 2002)
STATE-OWNED PIPELINE WOULD BE A ...
Gas nightmare
THE BALLOT INITIATIVE on a state-owned gas pipeline won approval
by a wide margin, but we suspect many voters were unfamiliar with the
measure and thought they were supporting the motherhood issue of a gas line.
The state's mainstream media reported on the state-ownership question
before the election and most recommended against it as a proposed
boondoggle. But the public had many more immediate problems to consider
during the political season -- such as who would be the next governor -- so
much of the commentary was missed by a significant portion of those who
voted.
The initiative, approved 61 percent to 39 percent, would move the state
toward building and owning an LNG pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Prince
William Sound, presumably Valdez. The measure was championed by an Anchorage
longshoreman and political activist, Scott Heyworth.
Among the negatives of such a plan -- which include putting government
into the pipeline business -- is that it would be a financial bust. It would
take the liquefied gas to tidewater, where LNG tankers would carry it to
market.
THE PROBLEM is that Alaska gas would compete with cheaper sources
of gas around the Pacific Rim, a competition it would lose unless Alaska
sold its gas below cost. That could create fiscal problems for the state
unlike anything it has seen before, putting it on the road to bankruptcy.
The real market for Alaska gas, the place where it could compete
successfully and earn a profit, is in the U.S. Midwest. The best and most
practical way to bring North Slope gas to that market is a pipeline along
the Alaska Highway and through Canada to the Midwest. That routing could
also involve a spur line to Southcentral.
Unless Scott Heyworth knows something about market economics that the
energy companies don't, his line to Valdez sounds good but doesn't make
economic sense. The companies own most of the gas and stand to profit most
if a profit can be made. But, if you believe Heyworth is onto something, we
have some domed-city property to sell you; and we'll throw in a
half-interest in Rampart Dam for free.
The ballot measure calls for establishment of an authority to acquire and
condition the gas and build the pipeline to Prince William Sound. The
project would include a spur line from Glennallen to Southcentral Alaska. It
would be financed by sale of state revenue bonds to investors, though any
sensible investor would undoubtedly run away from a salesman offering such
bonds.
The authority would require funding from the Legislature. Let's hope
common sense will prevail, that the Legislature will look at the project's
economics and refuse to fund it.
An all-Alaska, state-owned gas pipeline may sound good, but it would
almost certainly be a financial nightmare. |
| |
Natural Gas & Oil
Prices
Upcoming
Conferences:
IOGCC, 5/11 -13;
Newspaper Front Pages--WORLDWIDE
Our view of South Central Alaska's imminent Energy Crisis
Linking
to Us!
Founding
Publisher's 2002 Editorials
and
2001;
magazine & newspaper articles;
Seattle Chamber of Commerce Speech, 5-8-02,
CBC Interview
|