News over the weekend that BP could be selling some of its Alaska assets has the political and business communities buzzing. But it's largely white noise -- neither BP nor other oil companies are commenting, and that's leaving a lot of people with little more to do than speculate.

Still, there's one thing people agree on: Any substantial sale of Alaska assets by the longtime North Slope operator would be an important development at a critical time in the state's economic situation, especially in light of the state's effort to get a natural gas pipeline in the works.

News outlets reported in recent days that, forced to spend billions of dollars on response, cleanup and economic fallout from the April 20 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, BP is in talks with the independent oil company Apache Corp. of Houston, Texas to take over at least some of BP's Alaska assets. Neither company will comment on the reports, although BP did say Monday Exxon is not involved in any sale, as had been reported in some stories.

BP is the biggest oil and gas producer on the North Slope, operating 14 fields with ownership interest in six others. In 2009, BP production averaged about 180,000 barrels a day, down from about 200,000 barrels a day in 2008. It owns and will operate the state's newest field, Liberty, but has recently put off initial drilling until after the first of the year while state and federal reviews of ultra-extended reach drilling technology is underway along with closer scrutiny of blowout preventers and other oil spill prevention concerns.

BP is the largest single owner of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and its Valdez facilities, holding just under 47 percent ownership interest in Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. among the five owner companies. BP has provided the Alyeska president for much of the time the pipeline has been operating. BP also owns 25 percent of the Alaska Tanker Co., which operates tankers in the North Slope trade, and currently is the interim chair of the Alaska shippers group.

Gov. Sean Parnell and other state agency officials say they don't want to comment on simple rumors and are reserving thoughts about the impact on the state until any deal actually materializes.

"It's certainly gaining momentum in the press, but until I feel something's filed ... than that's all it is in my book, just a slow day in the newsroom," said Rep. Mike Hawker, an Anchorage Republican who's been closely involved with oil and gas issues in the Legislature.

He cautioned that there are many scenarios that could develop and that BP owns many properties in Alaska that could come into play individually -- if at all.

Rep. Les Gara, an Anchorage Democrat, says any change of ownership in a major way on the Slope would have significant effect on the state, any way you look at it.

"It could be good news if what you want is a company that wants to produce in Alaska," said Gara, who has been critical of the North Slope producers' reluctance to offer up large gas reserves to get a natural gas pipeline off the ground.

He also noted that BP's financial troubles relating to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill could keep the company from moving forward with a gas line or spending cash on more expensive development projects, like heavy oil prospects.

"It could be very good news and help break the logjam" on the gas line, Gara said. "In the end what you want is a company that wants to produce its leases."

Gregg Erickson, a longtime Alaska economist, said any sale of BP assets likely would take a long time and be thoroughly scrutinized, especially in light of the merger of BP and ARCO Alaska in 1999.

"That was a major issue in Alaska and I would think any kind of changeover from BP to anybody would be of concern," he said.

If BP is considering selling assets in the state, Erickson added, "One thing is certain, and that is it's important for Alaska and a big deal."

BP assets in Alaska: (from BP's Fact Book)

North Slope oil fields operated by BP