Public is being misled about 'in-state' vs. 'all-Alaska' gas line plans

Here we are in 2010, another election year, with our gas still stranded on the North Slope.

Previously, the candidates who have declared for the office of governor could be characterized in one of three camps:

1. No declared pipeline preference;
2. AGIA or Denali;
3. The 2002 Prop. 3-mandated all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez.

Now the Legislature and Ralph Samuels have added to the confusion.

HB 369, introduced by Rep. Mike Chenault, describes a pipeline from the North Slope to tidewater. However, the language of the bill clearly refers to the need to accelerate permitting. Therefore, the pipeline unstated is the bullet line championed by then-Palin pipeline czar Harry Noah. This pipeline would come down through Denali Park, cross 12 fish streams and parallel the Parks Highway to Port McKenzie.

We now have four projects to consider when we hear the pols speak, two of which use similar descriptions: all-Alaska or in-state pipeline. This confusing language is purposeful and misleading. The intent is to confuse the public over the two in-state options: the all-Alaska pipeline to Valdez and the in-state bullet line to Port McKenzie.

Why is there a big push to build the bullet line in the face of not less than three major pipeline proposals being proposed by the Parnell Administration; Bill Walker of AGPA, a gubernatorial candidate; and BP/Conoco? One needs only ask Rep. Jay Ramras, Sen. Charlie Huggins, Rep. Mark Neuman, Sen. Lesil McGuire, Rep. Bill Stoltze, Rep. Mike Chenault, former Rep. Ralph Samuels and ... Enstar.

Ignoring AGIA and Denali, the "support Canadian petrochemical industry, tar sands recovery, and Canadian pipeline contractors" options, how do the all-Alaska pipeline to Valdez and the bullet line options compare?

Bullet line:

1. In-state route
2. Permits have yet to be applied for
3. Capacity is 500 million cubic feet per day
4. Start of construction date: unknown due to lack of permits, potential litigation, financing
5. Environmental issues with route: crosses two parks and 12 fish streams
6. Will result in an increase in consumer gas prices due to low volume transported
7. Estimated cost in 2009: $4 billion
8. Unstated impact upon Cook Inlet gas exploration and development
9. Market: Southcentral Alaska
10. State financing: up to 100 percent risk assumption by State

All-Alaska natural gas pipeline mandated by voters in 2002:

1. In-state route using trans-Alaska oil pipeline corridor to Valdez
2. Permitting completed, including permits for 250 million cubic foot per day spur from Glennallen to Palmer
3. Capacity is 3 billion cubic feet per day
4. Start of construction date: ASAP
5. Environmental issues with route: none, all permits have been issued
6. Consumer gas prices will not be increased due to spur line benefiting from higher volume of mainline
7. Estimated cost in 2009: $25 billion to $26 billion
8. No demonstrated impact upon Cook Inlet gas exploration and development
9. Market: Asia, with all gas liquids and some gas being used in-state for fuels and industrial feed stock
10. State financing: 5 percent risk assumption by State
11. Mandated by the voters in 2002, as demonstrated under AS 41.41

Rep. Chenault's bill is designed to increase the size of state government to no good purpose and to give Enstar a virtual monopoly on natural gas distribution in the state. His goal of the bullet line being in service by 2015 is simply election year hype.

Clearly, the voters were correct in mandating the all-Alaska gas pipeline in 2002. Now, it is time to build it, and to remember by voting out those who ignored our will when we mandated the building of this pipeline. We the voters were correct then, and we are now vindicated by the economic realities of North American shale gas development and the higher prices of liquefied natural gas in Asia.

Larry Wood has been living in Alaska for 55 years, and works in the business of environmental reclamation.