“TransCanada's inclusion of an LNG option throws a curve into Alberta's hopes to expand its petrochemical industry, which is relying on Alaska gas volumes, especially the liquids contained in the gas stream, for feedstock. According to the Industry Canada website, there are currently insufficient volumes of feedstock to support big new investments in Alberta's petrochemical sector”.—Shaun Polczer, Calgary Herald 1/30/2010
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Alaska+could+bypass+Alberta/2502872/story.html
There it is in black and white from a Canadian source for those of you who still feel that there is any upside to allowing our gas to be transported to Canada.
What does Alaska get out of AGIA to Canada or Denali? SCREWED, THAT’S WHAT!!!!!!!
Any Alaska politician who supports either of the Canadian options should be voted out of office, if not outright impeached!
There is it is, Governor Sean Parnell.
Showing posts with label Denali Pipeline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Denali Pipeline. Show all posts
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Walker Responds to Parnell's State of State Address
Follows is Bill Walker, Republican Candidat for governor's response to the Gov's State of the State address. Parnell's address can be viewed at :
http://www.examiner.com/x-2968-Alaska-Gubernatorial-Examiner~y2010m1d21-Gov-Parnells-State-of-the-Union-Address
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BILL WALKER RESPONDS TO STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS
January 20, 2010
Today Bill Walker released the following statement regarding Governor Parnell’s state of the state address.
“With his support of AGIA, Governor Parnell continues to ignore the economic realities of a changing world. While he recognizes that bringing Alaska gas to market is the biggest opportunity ahead of Alaska, he has committed to stay the course in a process that everyone knows will fail.
As an Alaskan, I am deeply troubled by the Governor’s willingness to place our fragile future in the hands of outside interests and foreign governments. If the State does not take control of the process and construct an all-Alaska pipeline to Valdez there will not be a gas pipeline.
The Governor’s “permit and they will come approach” has repeatedly failed to secure an Alaska natural gas pipeline. Both TransCanada predecessors in the 1980’s for a line through Canada, and the Yukon Pacific Corporation in the 1990’s for an All-Alaska project, expended hundred of millions of dollars securing final regulatory approvals hoping to attract producer participation with that strategy. It failed then and will fail now.
Further, since AGIA passed, the U. S. Department of Energy has estimated that the United States has sufficient gas for the next 100 plus years due to recent proven shale gas reserves. Yet the Governor continues to tell the people of Alaska that there is demand for our gas in the lower-48, even going as far as to suggest we will soon become American’s next great ‘gas province.’ Let me be clear – his misrepresentation of the facts about shale gas is beyond out of touch, it is out of line.
Planned gas import terminals in western Canada have reversed course and are now being developed as gas export terminals (Kitimat, B.C.). Billions are being spent to ramp up production all across North America in the newest energy gold rush, and Exxon Mobil has even acquired the second largest shale gas company for $41 billion. Companies, states and countries have reacted around the globe, yet we continue to pursue the AGIA process knowing it charts a course into Canada that leads nowhere.
As governor I will keep Alaska’s jobs, gas and future within Alaska, develop a pipeline on our timeline and under our control, and will sell Alaska gas to world markets. Our Gas, Our jobs, Our Future.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-2968-Alaska-Gubernatorial-Examiner~y2010m1d21-Gov-Parnells-State-of-the-Union-Address
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
BILL WALKER RESPONDS TO STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS
January 20, 2010
Today Bill Walker released the following statement regarding Governor Parnell’s state of the state address.
“With his support of AGIA, Governor Parnell continues to ignore the economic realities of a changing world. While he recognizes that bringing Alaska gas to market is the biggest opportunity ahead of Alaska, he has committed to stay the course in a process that everyone knows will fail.
As an Alaskan, I am deeply troubled by the Governor’s willingness to place our fragile future in the hands of outside interests and foreign governments. If the State does not take control of the process and construct an all-Alaska pipeline to Valdez there will not be a gas pipeline.
The Governor’s “permit and they will come approach” has repeatedly failed to secure an Alaska natural gas pipeline. Both TransCanada predecessors in the 1980’s for a line through Canada, and the Yukon Pacific Corporation in the 1990’s for an All-Alaska project, expended hundred of millions of dollars securing final regulatory approvals hoping to attract producer participation with that strategy. It failed then and will fail now.
Further, since AGIA passed, the U. S. Department of Energy has estimated that the United States has sufficient gas for the next 100 plus years due to recent proven shale gas reserves. Yet the Governor continues to tell the people of Alaska that there is demand for our gas in the lower-48, even going as far as to suggest we will soon become American’s next great ‘gas province.’ Let me be clear – his misrepresentation of the facts about shale gas is beyond out of touch, it is out of line.
Planned gas import terminals in western Canada have reversed course and are now being developed as gas export terminals (Kitimat, B.C.). Billions are being spent to ramp up production all across North America in the newest energy gold rush, and Exxon Mobil has even acquired the second largest shale gas company for $41 billion. Companies, states and countries have reacted around the globe, yet we continue to pursue the AGIA process knowing it charts a course into Canada that leads nowhere.
As governor I will keep Alaska’s jobs, gas and future within Alaska, develop a pipeline on our timeline and under our control, and will sell Alaska gas to world markets. Our Gas, Our jobs, Our Future.”
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Concoco-Phillips Denali Project
The decision by BP and Conoco Phillips to build a pipeline to take North Slope NG to Canada is a definite change of heart for two out of the three Producers on the North Slope.
I believe the reason for this change is not because all of a sudden BP and Conoco want to get NG off the North Slope, but rather because the alternatives are lacking for another high priority project.
Between unstable tundra along the proposed route due to permafrost melting to legal challenges by Deh Cho and other Native groups, and as yet unsettled right of way regulatory issues, the NG from the MacKenzie River Delta that was intended to fuel the separation of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands is not going to be available within the time frames originally envisioned for the MacKenzie River Delta pipeline project. An alternative had to be found, and Alaska’s North Slope gas reserves is that alternative.
The increasing price of oil is driving the recovery of oil from Alberta Tar Sands at an ever increasing pace. A supply of cheap NG is necessary to the economic viability of the separation process.
The only long term viable source of NG without rights of way issues at least to the Canadian border is found on Alaska’s North Slope. The rights of way and other issues would still have to be worked out to get the NG to Alberta, but, undoubtedly, BP will wield considerable influence in dealing with the Canadian side, given the Crown’s interest in BP along with the imperative to get the Tar Sands oil to market.
It is unlikely that Exxon will seek its own means to transport NG off the North Slope, especially with the promises made regarding development of the Pt. Thompson NG reserves made in order to retain those leases. Exxon is in a market it or else situation with the Pt. Thompson NG reserves. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, that although unannounced, Exxon will eventually join with BP and Conoco Phillips.
Exxon was a player in the MacKenzie River Delta pipeline project, and a major advocate of taking Alaska’s NG over the top and plugging into the anticipated MacKenzie River Delta pipeline system.
Through a subsidiary, Exxon is also a major player in the Alberta Tar Sands project.
A major concern of those who live in the Mat-Su Valley is whether or not there will there be a provision for a spur line from Big Delta down to the Palmer Enstar NG Hub to provide NG for south central?
It is already a fact from the last round of this game under Murkowski that Alberta was all too willing to provide a ready market for Alaska’s NG liquids, such as propane and butane.
Will the Governor and the Legislature allow these valuable NG liquids to be transferred to Canada without proper consideration given to the long term benefits of value added processing in Alaska?
Stripping them out and using these gas liquids here would provide the building blocks for a petrochemical industrial base. A benefit with economic benefits far beyond just resource extraction that the pipeline represents.
Obviously, value added development of our NG resources would allow Alaskans greater opportunity beyond just the construction of a pipeline. Once the last pipe is welded into place, the pipeline jobs go away. Value added industrial development would be a lingering base upon which to ensure that the benefits from our NG resources go beyond fueling bloated, growing, and ever greedy state and local governments.
If the money goes directly to government, we all lose. If there is value added development, then we the people will benefit along with the Producers and government through jobs and infrastructure upon which to build industry.
The challenges for the Palin Administration, the Legislature and the Producers will be to balance the interests of all parties against the imperatives of the looming south central NG crisis, the economics of the proposed pipeline, and the constitutional requirement of the State to gain maximum benefit from the exploitation of this nonrenewable resource versus the interests of the Producers with respect to their profit motive.
Until there is a NG pipeline from the North Slope generating revenue, our responsibility as citizens will be to see that our elected officials do not spend revenue that is not there. And, to see that maximum benefit is exactly what is bargained for across the board.
Another blog dealing with this subject is to be found at http://www.blogged.com/about/denali-pipeline/
I believe the reason for this change is not because all of a sudden BP and Conoco want to get NG off the North Slope, but rather because the alternatives are lacking for another high priority project.
Between unstable tundra along the proposed route due to permafrost melting to legal challenges by Deh Cho and other Native groups, and as yet unsettled right of way regulatory issues, the NG from the MacKenzie River Delta that was intended to fuel the separation of oil from the Alberta Tar Sands is not going to be available within the time frames originally envisioned for the MacKenzie River Delta pipeline project. An alternative had to be found, and Alaska’s North Slope gas reserves is that alternative.
The increasing price of oil is driving the recovery of oil from Alberta Tar Sands at an ever increasing pace. A supply of cheap NG is necessary to the economic viability of the separation process.
The only long term viable source of NG without rights of way issues at least to the Canadian border is found on Alaska’s North Slope. The rights of way and other issues would still have to be worked out to get the NG to Alberta, but, undoubtedly, BP will wield considerable influence in dealing with the Canadian side, given the Crown’s interest in BP along with the imperative to get the Tar Sands oil to market.
It is unlikely that Exxon will seek its own means to transport NG off the North Slope, especially with the promises made regarding development of the Pt. Thompson NG reserves made in order to retain those leases. Exxon is in a market it or else situation with the Pt. Thompson NG reserves. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, that although unannounced, Exxon will eventually join with BP and Conoco Phillips.
Exxon was a player in the MacKenzie River Delta pipeline project, and a major advocate of taking Alaska’s NG over the top and plugging into the anticipated MacKenzie River Delta pipeline system.
Through a subsidiary, Exxon is also a major player in the Alberta Tar Sands project.
A major concern of those who live in the Mat-Su Valley is whether or not there will there be a provision for a spur line from Big Delta down to the Palmer Enstar NG Hub to provide NG for south central?
It is already a fact from the last round of this game under Murkowski that Alberta was all too willing to provide a ready market for Alaska’s NG liquids, such as propane and butane.
Will the Governor and the Legislature allow these valuable NG liquids to be transferred to Canada without proper consideration given to the long term benefits of value added processing in Alaska?
Stripping them out and using these gas liquids here would provide the building blocks for a petrochemical industrial base. A benefit with economic benefits far beyond just resource extraction that the pipeline represents.
Obviously, value added development of our NG resources would allow Alaskans greater opportunity beyond just the construction of a pipeline. Once the last pipe is welded into place, the pipeline jobs go away. Value added industrial development would be a lingering base upon which to ensure that the benefits from our NG resources go beyond fueling bloated, growing, and ever greedy state and local governments.
If the money goes directly to government, we all lose. If there is value added development, then we the people will benefit along with the Producers and government through jobs and infrastructure upon which to build industry.
The challenges for the Palin Administration, the Legislature and the Producers will be to balance the interests of all parties against the imperatives of the looming south central NG crisis, the economics of the proposed pipeline, and the constitutional requirement of the State to gain maximum benefit from the exploitation of this nonrenewable resource versus the interests of the Producers with respect to their profit motive.
Until there is a NG pipeline from the North Slope generating revenue, our responsibility as citizens will be to see that our elected officials do not spend revenue that is not there. And, to see that maximum benefit is exactly what is bargained for across the board.
Another blog dealing with this subject is to be found at http://www.blogged.com/about/denali-pipeline/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)