Single Page
Alaska's no closer to gasline, despite talk of 'alignment' among oil chiefsThe heads of three huge and powerful companies, who don't much like each other, met with the governor of Alaska and some select invitees Thursday to talk about how to put together the deal of the century for the 49th state. Afterward, nothing had officially changed as regards a long-discussed, long-stalled pipeline to move stranded natural gas from the North Slope to markets anywhere. And yet everything had changed. Or maybe not. The significance of the parley was dependent, in large part, on who was reading the tea leaves. The cynics, and there are no shortage of those in Alaska, saw the Anchorage visit of Exxon Mobil Corp., BP and ConocoPhillips chief executives as nothing but a big show. All three companies have been whining about taxes since former Gov. Sarah Palin and state Democrats saddled them with Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) back in 2007. Since then, ACES has netted the state $15 billion more than the previous oil tax, which was already providing more than enough money to cover about 90 percent of the cost of government in the state. The companies contend that Alaska's oil taxes are so high they stifle further investment on the North Slope. Gov. Sean Parnell, who in the past worked for one of the oil companies and for the law firm that lobbied for another, pushed for lowering those taxes to encourage investment. What better public relations, in the cynic's view, than to have the leaders of the biggest oil producers in the north show up to make like they're the state's newest best friends and champions? Many of Alaska's leading Democrats, in fact, appeared to have tossed their invites to Thursday's spectacle into the circular file. State Sen. Hollis French, a former Democratic contender for governor, admitted to being a little miffed at getting his invitation only the day before the lunch-time gathering. It conflicted, he added, with the regular and long scheduled meeting of the Bartlett Democratic Club at the Denny's on Debarr Road. French opted for Denny's and noted many of Anchorage's other top Democrats were there. French said he did talk to people who attended the governor's hootenanny, and they told him nothing new happened. Or at least nothing much new to French happened. He, like others in the know, has long recognized that the once-heralded Alaska gas pipeline to the Lower 48 is dead. That's the pipeline Palin announced was under way back in 2008. "I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history, and when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence," she told a cheering Republican National Convention as she accepted the party's nomination for vice president, based on, among other things, her alleged energy policy credentials. Another nail in TransCanada's coffin?In reality, nothing ever began. One of the most telling moments at Thursday's luncheon and subsequent, brief press availability, was that no one even talked about Palin's pipeline as a remote possibility. An official of TransCanada Corp., the foreign pipeline company with which the state still has an agreement for construction, said the paperwork needed to obtain permits from the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will be filed in October, but other than that Tony Palmer, vice-president of projects development, sounded pretty downbeat. "I would love to build this pipeline," he said, which is a long way short of Palin's reassuring claim in 2008 that "we began a nearly $40 billion gas pipeline to America." And if Palmer was downbeat, the heads of the companies holding the contracts for most of the proven reserves of North Slope gas -- about 35 trillion cubic feet -- were simply dismissive. Where once they were talking about gasline construction, Thursday's talking points, from the chieftains and from Parnell, were all about how to "commercialize natural gas." Does anyone know about the comment that was made at one of the legislative hearings by a rep from Yukon Territory talking about bringing Canadian oil and gas to the Port of Skagway to ship to Asia? What is the biggest threat the oil companies have on us right now - the pipeline might go empty. What is the best way to take this threat off the table? The state promotes and/or invests in a gas-to-liquids plant on the slope that will create diesel to put in the pipeline. At the same time plow in the propane line to Fairbanks to get rural Alaska off the diesel teat. Let's move forward on something we can actually accomplish, that will do significant good. Oh yeah, and pay attention to who you vote for. If someone is on the "give them incredible amounts of our money, and they might build it" team, vote for the other guy. Thanks for the promo 4 propane-in-polypipe.. It's not just about building a gasline in Alaska.. Monetizing Alaska's gas is much less important than using Alaska's Gas to clean up Japan's FukushameonU and all the other NukePuke mess worldwide, including Hanford, Chernobyl, and 1000 other NukePukes including several in Alaska. I have a problem with Fischer/Tropsch GTL gas-to-liquids as it's currently proposed.. it's much better to sweeten the heavy-crude in-situ with activated hydrogen derived from electrolysis of water. http://www.the-get.com/ Nslope GTL if done wrong can be horribly inefficient and expensive to install. BigOil is still making most of our goofy-gasoline with old-tech stripping hydrogen from methane using dirty energy-hog steam reformers. The two best things to do to Nslope methane is make LNG right there in Prudhoe on FLNG FPSO's mounted on shallow-draft barges made in Ketchikan.. and, convert methane to ethane/propane+H2. Yeah, TAPS can be converted to a gasline a heck of a lot cheaper and quicker than you'd think.. everything you make out of CRUDE can be made out of GAS & Asphalt much better. Why stay in the mindset that Alaska get's only one chance to build just one big fat overpriced gasline ??? Why not start by plowing in a dozen little polypipe product lines all over the place.. these little gaslines will amortize/payback themselves in less than a year of operation, and they have a 100year service life... it's a much better investment than any 100mile steel pipe anywhere. The Best Market for Alaska's Gas is: Alaska!! I only have a couple of things to contribute: I believe the dirt farmers in North Dakota are a whole lot smarter than Alaska lawmakers. You see in ND they have a law which requires the oil companies to limit the maximum production on any well brought into production to 100 barrels per day while it flares off its produced gas before it is connected to a flow-line. A new well begins its life in what is referred to as a "satellite well", which is one not connected to a tank battery and/or a gas processing plant via flow-line. WHEN a ND well is brought online (flow-line) to a tank battery which then sends the separated gas on to a gas plant for processing, the oil to a refinery and the heavy salt water to a disposal well. Then and only then is the new oil well be allowed to flow at its max potential production which might be as much as 2000 barrels a day and attaining maximum profit. In other words, there is a lot of incentive to get every new well online quickly as a 2000 barrel a day well is far more profitable than the same one limited to 100 barrels a day. Additionally I believe that in ND the oil company pays for the initial gas that is flared off during the 100 barrel per day restriction. They also pay for the gas once the well comes online at a greater volume. Why isn't Alaska doing this?, because we were initially foolish I think. The other thing is, while it was unique to have these important oil company officials in Alaska for a meeting, I feel they have no intention of allowing the gas they produce from their Alaska wells to be put into a gas-line to the lower 48 at this time. The reason being that it would cause the price of natural gas to decline in the States along with their profit margins.(remember, theirs is not a business about reducing costs to consumers) On the other hand if an Asian market were to be developed and a gas pipeline built to accommodate such I don't think that would be such a bad thing UNTIL we start running out of low cost heating fuels and yet might have to abide by a poorly written and cruel Asian supply contract that would leave Americans and perhaps even Alaskans without heating fuel. Now here is a thought. If the oil companies would like us to reduce their tax burden, then maybe we could negotiate a deal like North Dakota has to produce the production gas which would mean a pipeline...maybe? Plowing propane in polypipe to railbelt is the same thing as plowing drain-tile into soybean fields in the Dakotas.. https://gas4alaska.info/Propane.html No matter who builds another pipeline south from Deadhorse, they are an idiot if they don't plow in a propane line first, because it will save billions in construction fuels costs.. ..how do I know this to be true ?? Everybody has had 30years to install this $100million essential piece of infrastructure.. and still the only thing I hear is circus music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_QAywKP-jE Much ado about nothing. And more ado about nothing. And STILL MORE to do about nothing. For only $19.95, you, too, can be fleeced $500 million by the oil companies! Just call AKA-Gov-Juno in the next five minutes, and we will throw in a FREE---ABSOLUTELY FREE!---Fifth Generation Gas Cap Snaffler! If Sean wants a second term, he'd better figure out that this ISN'T a "private sector" project and never has been. He'd better come to BELIEVE in his heart of hearts that the oil companies have NEVER had the least little bit of an intention of developing Alaska's gas. I'm a Republican and I voted for Ethan Berkowitz last time in the General Election. Get the message? When Phony Knowles shows up you know it is phony deal It was about is getting parnell reelected. Second to sow confusion Boobus Alaskanus, the igorant, stupid and gulible Alaskans who still belive in a gasline. third, to coverup for the intramurle warfare that has been going on for a decade over who get how much of the additional oil when the additional gas injection and recycling infrastructure is added for not only higher rate of oil production but also a much greater total oil recovery. Alaska biggest stumbling block in North Slope development is you Boobus Alaskanus, the boobus press and you Boobus Legislativeous who are still chasing an illusional gasline. If Alaska lowered oil taxes, oil companies would have higher profits. What would they do with this money? A few years ago the Wall Street Journal published an article on what oil companies were doing with their profits. Not much went to capital costs-- more went to dividends and stock buybacks. At that time there was a lot more interest in developing projects overseas and very little was invested in U.S. operations. The challenge for Alaska would be to lower taxes in a way that would actually benefit Alaska. Regarding shipping natural gas, it will be ironic when we start seeing Russian LNG tankers traveling from the Russian Arctic through the Bearing Strait to deliver LNG to Asia. Perhaps we'll start buying LNG from them for our own needs in Southcentral Alaska. "...Reynolds is among a significant number of experts, including those at the Energy Department, who believe the world is near "peak oil," the point at which production plateaus..." This claim has been supporting outrageous prices since the 1930s. More "experts" fishing for some Big Oil CONsulting CONtracts. The fact is the world is awash with oil far beyond the needs. The only actions or non-actions preventing steep pricing declines are the pricing manipulations by the same Big Oil Monopolists completely outside of "supply and demand" false market claims. No "free market" for oil has existed since the Standard Oil Trust and the invention of the automobile. It has all been controlled by the giant monopoly aided and abetted by the bribed government officials from local to state to federal governments. From the 1930s "oil depletion allowance" to the ongoing "subsidies" installed by Bush/Cheney, Big Oil receives a yearly pass in paying its equitable share to maintain a functioning society. The companies control and share in the profits included at every step from the well head to the local pump. They call it "consortiums" which is nothing more than the same "monopoly" operation. At the same time, all "expenses" over the course of the same steps reduce the "tax liability" to virtually nothing. Weep not for the "poor" CEOs as they travel the world in their Corporate jets and bask in their gated estates reaped from the looting of the rest of the populace. Nothing much has changed since 1911..... http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8HIk9gCUdmU/TwcWr49uMZI/AAAAAAAAka8/UM5XYF0PFlA/s1600/iww_pyramid_poster_lowresproof.jpg Tony Knowles,.. these guys want two billion a year from our side of the table to theirs, FOR NOTHING! THAT`s why they showed up. And the rest of that half a billion to study the Canada route. ...at least they admitted it was no sense in pressuring Alaska on taxes for a CANADIAN line.. all they did here was estab;osh the pressure and eelay will be through withholding action on LNG to Valdez this time. Unless, under AGIA, they are serious about the milestones and must haves enshrined in AGIA. There is no good reason why the state and transcanada and these three majors could not get things built to Fairbanks, or even down to Southcentral while they argue about taxes. Any energy company will tell you fiscal conditions do not drive a project. It is the size and quality of the resource, and the projected demand price for it. With the state taking on 51% of the "risk" of a gasline, there should even be MORE incentive to get going on a gasline to the growing ASIA market.. We only need one good "anchor" customer for our gas to insure a low tariff for ALL in-state users both private and commercial.. These three didn`t tell Alaskans anything new except they will "study" things. I don`t need to remind you they implied that a gasline and LNG would be advanced as well as a line to Canada. That implication is in AGIA but was tossed to the side from the git-go because these guys wanted the gas for Canada as well as the valuable gas liquids. They certainly did not say or imply that they would cease wasting effort on a lower 48 gasline. When it comes down to it they implied nothing other than they agree the market "may have changed". You`d think they would have realized that from all the projects to EXPORT LOWER $* GAS TO ASIA. The way this old Alaskan see`s it, we`rte still being extorted for Alaska`s fair share of profits at higher prices, even as we cover half their nut on the exploration drilling side of the equation. These three cowboys are as bad as Bush when he landed on the carrier back in 2001 and proclaimed; "Mission Accomplished". WE all know how that worked out for THAT Texas oilman. If I lived in Fairbanks or the bush I would be very disappointed in the "lack of alignment" displayed. Parnell recently said (January 11`) there would be "NO DISCUSSION" of fiscal terms until "a project" had been agreed upon by all concerned. We don`t have "a project" until buyers and sellers sign on the dotted line. Until that happens.. this is just another publicity stunt to try to keep Pt. Thomson and other leases safely ensconced and tied up, producing or not. These fellows have all the time in the world from their lack of any enthusiasm. Just as well for Alaska. We`ll keep ACES as-is, and keep taking our fair fiscal share of the OIL these guys are sucking out of their old legacy leases. Meanwhile the many NEW players in Alaska are drilling a record number of new exploration wells since the discovery well, 34, all scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012. I hope Parnell keeps to what he said last January, and doesn`t "fold" while he`s holding "ACES!. In fact the highest number of them since Prudhoe was first tapped! Nothing really changed with this meeting. Certainly nothing in writing. As long as that condition exists we should leave ACES alone. Just how this old Alaskan see`s it. |
Comments