We're all political armchair quarterbacks. We like to think we know the routes and the timing, but more times than not we're unable to read the coverage.

On Nov. 30, I posted a blog on the recent shift of Governor Sean Parnell's preferred route for Alaska's natural gas pipeline. The piece also discussed the challenges the state would have trying to extricate themselves from AGIA.

As part of a content sharing agreement, the blog was also posted at Alaska Dispatch.

As with many of my pieces posted at the site, I attracted the usual team of armchair quarterbacks who've been under-throwing the receiver for years.

However, one comment was right between the numbers.

A reader pointed out I missed a key provision in the 'out clause' contained in AGIA:

While most of Halcro's analysis is solid, he misses one critical point. Halcro says "some oil & gas armchair quarterbacks say we should just invoke AGIA's viability clause," but the "out clause" requires that both TC and the state agree. Wrong. AS 43.90.240(b) says, if the parties disagree,"the disagreement shall be settled by arbitration," and if the state wins, it "no longer [will] have an obligation." Just do it.

I'm well aware of the arbitration provision in AGIA's out clause but didn't address it because it's so highly unlikely that it would actually be used.

This is where the law and politics will huddle up together on defense.

TransCanada isn't going to invoke the arbitration clause.

In April, Tony Palmer of TransCanada testified they strongly opposed a finding of economic viability before the agreed-upon timelines in AGIA have been exhausted. In addition, Palmer pointed out that the state agreed to the timelines, and any attempt to truncate those timelines by prematurely calling the project uneconomic would be viewed as a serious violation of their contractual agreement.

In short, TransCanada would have a legitimate legal argument that the state signed up for four quarters, but is now trying to quit at halftime.

The state is also not going to invoke the arbitration clause.

If you have any doubts, remember what the Parnell administration said just a few months ago regarding HB142. The legislation proposed by House Speaker Mike Chenault, would force a finding of economic viability years before AGIA's agreed upon go/no go decision date. The Parnell administration issued an opinion saying cutting the process short would violate the contract and would expose the state to damages.

But more importantly, from a political standpoint does anyone honestly think the same policy makers who supported AGIA will be willing to stand up and take responsibility for its failure?

Does anyone actually think that policy makers, who promised Alaskans that AGIA would get them to the promised land, are going to want to tell Alaskans they were wrong and this four-year, $500-million goose chase was all for naught?

If the Parnell administration did invoke the arbitration clause, both the governor and lawmakers who blindly supported AGIA would be subject to harsh criticism from the public and possible political opponents about committing taxpayers to such an expensive folly.

In addition, declaring the project is uneconomical before reaching AGIA's legally prescribed go/no-go day of decision would damage the state's credibility. Remember, the state spent tens of millions on experts who told us that AGIA would be profitable regardless of the economics.

All of these factors make it clear; running a down-and-out pattern on AGIA will be a difficult play to complete.

Andrew Halcro is the publisher of AndrewHalcro.com, a blog devoted to Alaska issues and politics, where this commentary first appeared. He is president of Halcro Strategies and Avis/Alaska Rent-A-Car, his family business. Halcro served in the Alaska House of Representatives from 1999 to 2003, and he ran for governor in 2006 as an Independent.

The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch. Alaska Dispatch welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, e-mail commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.