What did NO on Prop 1 do for Alaska . . . NOTHING.

SB21 brought industry commitments.
So say T.J. Presley and Nick Moe, the two who pushed the SB21 Prop 1 NO campaign.
Industry commitments?
 What industry commitments?
 What did Alaska trade with SB21? Another one-way deal brokered by Hawker and Chennault, Conoco's boys.
BP is laying people off.
The work being done is maintenance that was ignored for many years. Now, maybe, in 2016, there will be a favorable Congress elected and a President who just might open ANWR and allow offshore oil and gas development. Makes sense to spend the money, just in case.
How will offshore development help or benefit Alaska? Alaska does not get a cut of those royalties. Aside from whatever village becomes the staging area, there is no benefit.
Then, there is the idea of upping production in a time of 'glut'. How many tankers from Valdez full of Alaska crude are turned away from West Coast refineries, because of the wealth of shale oil being produced?
Is our oil wanted in the market right now?  No.  There is an excess of oil, with surpluses being produced in the Middle East as a hedge against any crisis that might cause a spike in demand.  
Saudi Arabia is trying to produce sufficient surplus oil to cause a downturn below $80/bbl as part of a plan between the Saudis and the Obama Administration to create financial stress on Putin's Russia.  At $80/bbl, Russia can pay for government, at $79.99/bbl, it cannot.  Now, you know why the price of oil has been declining lately.
What happened to the NG from Qatar that was supposed to supply the U.S. domestic needs for 25 years? The first LNG tanker was turned around and sent to Asia last May. That gas now supplies 60% of the Japanese LNG market.
Even though the Japanese are looking for new suppliers, Alaska's governor and Legislature are not interested.
 Our governor and Legislature could have cared less about the Japanese delegations that came to Alaska to secure LNG post the Fukishima meltdown.  The Gov and the Legislature evidently work for Conoco and Exxon. That is clear, otherwise, why would $3B in potential investment into an Alaska natural gas pipeline and LNG train have been allowed to walk to Kitimat and Chenier in LA? Alaska was not interested in the deal, so the money walked and was invested elsewhere.
What did NO accomplish? More money for the oil companies, less for Alaska.
I am a no tax kind of conservative. I believe that Alaska should have stuck with royalties and never bothered with taxes on the oil industry. We would have been much better off, and the oil industry would have thrived here with a vibrant oil and gas service industry instead of the few companies engaged in oil and gas anything in Alaska--fiscal certainty and all of that. However, we became greedy, allowed our gov't to milk the oil companies and now, we play stupid games. Our Legislature and governor studies and studies and studies and we languish wondering if there will ever be any new development in the oil sector and in the gas sector?
People move to Alaska hoping, only to find an expensive place to live with the economy largely being fueled by gov't money.  Eventually, those taillights will be headed south--sooner the better.
The oil companies promised nothing and that's what we received with SB21. Nothing.
There is no leadership in Juneau. The increasing spending is a demonstration that we have devolved from building infrastructure with our oil royalties largess to maintaining and keeping the plebes happy with social entitlements. No leadership, no direction, no commitment to do other than kiss the oil companies' corporate posteriors in the vein hope that they will pull the rabbit of economic prosperity out of the declining oil revenue hat before we use the entire PF to keep the illusion of fiscal solvency alive. That is the problem, has been the problem ever since Sarah Palin was elected, left Alaska, and the boy wonder, otherwise known as Captain Zero, became Governor six years ago. Yeah, six years, we've been blessed with . . . nothing.
Now, we have a $7M per day deficit spending with Governor Parnell's spending excesses.
 SB21 is still the law, meaning less money to the State.
Fine.
Now what?
November will be the 'what'. The Legislature will not change. The same "me toos" will be back in Juneau to do what Hawker and Chennault say.
Hopefully, Bill Walker and Craig Fleener will have their shot at running the State. At least we will have a governor who has a plan to move forward with economic prosperity and fiscal responsibility as the goals.




http://www.adn.com/article/20140825/defeat-oil-tax-referendum-puts-alaska-win-win-territory

Alaska's eggs are all in the oil basket, like Norway, we have screwed up

Alaska’s Legislature and Governor like to point to Norway’s success with its savings account from Norway’s oil development. Over the last 50 years, Norway has managed to sock away $740 billion in the Norwegian Oil Fund (NOF), Norway’s savings account from oil development royalties. Is Norway’s fund truly the outstanding example of sound fiscal management pointed to by our politicians?

Jerome Vitenburg, an international political analyst, citing a 2011 study by Michael Hudson of the University of Missori, in the Washington Times says no, Norway has not been a good steward of the incredible wealth afforded by the oil boom. Bad investments, a rapidly expanding welfare state, and the failure to invest in Norway’s industry and infrastructure raise serious doubts about Norway’s financial future. Like Alaska, Norway has failed to invest wisely in itself.

Norway has failed to improve its non-oil related industrial infrastructure. Norway has invested heavily outside of Norway. Alaska has done the same.

There is no requirement under Alaska statutes for a percentage of Alaska’s Permanent Fund to be invested into Alaska. (AS 37.13)

Increased production threatens Norway’s oil revenues as oil prices are expected to fall with new production coming on-line in the U.S. and elsewhere from shale deposits and new technologies improving recovery. Alaska faces the same potentially draconian economic future.

Alaska is also particularly vulnerable to such a decrease in oil revenue. This year is expected to be the first year of deficits between spending and revenue, by -$500,000,000, since the precipitous drop in the price of oil in the 1980s and in 1999, when oil dropped to $20 per barrel. Delays in building a natural gas pipeline to tidewater further accelerates Alaska’s coming fiscal collapse, because of the failure of the Legislature to understand the LNG market and Governor Sean Parnell’s insistence in adhering to Sarah Palin’s failed AGIA policy until very recently.

Governor Parnell has finally closed the Alaska Gasline Incentive Act (AGIA) office. Prior to his Natural Resources Commissioner recently announcing that the State would consider a direct investment to secure 20% of the project ownership, Parnell steadfastly stood by Sarah Palin’s Alaska Gas Inducement Act (AGIA) guidelines. Now, it looks as if the Parnell Administration has realized that Bill Walker was correct in his promoting the State’s involvement in a major natural gas infrastructure investment.

Unfortunately for Alaska, Parnell has yet to ask the Legislature to provide the legislative authority to make such an investment and to set a time table for construction. Governor Parnell continues to wait for the oil companies to make that decision. Something that they have been extremely reluctant to do, as they do not want Alaska’s North Slope gas doing other than pressurizing the North Slope oil fields until technology can allow the recovery of most of the 20 billion barrels of oil from oil sands deposits under the surface of the North Slope. The "money" for the oil companies is in oil production, not natural gas production. They have plenty of natural gas from foreign sources and shale plays in the lower-48. They do not need nor want Alaska’s natural gas in the world market competing with these other interests.

There are serious conflicts of interest on the part of the oil companies with their foreign developments, which would compete with Alaska LNG for market share in Asia. TransCanda also has a conflict of interest with its contract with Shell for a natural gas pipeline to Kitmat, B.C., Alaska’s competition as an LNG export terminus. Unfortunately, the AGIA legislation and subsequent contract with TransCanada never required "conflict of interest" as a condition to justify cancellation by the State of Alaska. Only economic conditions are stated as a basis for cancellation by the State. An example of poor business judgement on the part of former Governor Sarah Palin.

Meanwhile, Japanese LNG customers are paying $16 per million British thermal units (MMbtus) for delivered LNG. In 2010, a study by Woodward MacKenzie demonstrated delivery of Alaska LNG to Japan could be done for approximately $8.50/MMbtus. Yet, in the intervening time period since the 2010 elections, the Parnell Administration failed to move any natural gas pipeline proposal forward, preferring instead to seemingly ignore the natural gas issues altogether, putting any lack of progress into the lap of the oil companies. The Legislature was given free reign by this governor to establish policy and direction. Parnell did manage to reduce the oil companies’ production taxes in a modification of Sarah Palin’s Alaska Clear and Equitable Share Act (ACES) of 2007.

What progress has been made on a pipeline proposal has been in favor of the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP), which is the former bullet line. In late 2012, Congress authorized a 7 mile right of way through Denali National Park using the Parks Highway right of way. This surprise on the part of the Obama Administration coincided with the oil companies (Exxon, Conoco and British Petroleum) decision to "study" a pipeline terminus at Nikkiski, rather than use the established TAPS corridor to Valdez for any natural gas pipeline to move North Slope natural gas to tidewater. The economic viability of the ASAP line has been debated since first proposed as the bullet line under then pipeline coordinator Harry Noah appointed by then Governor Sarah Palin. AGIA limits the volume to no more than 500 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/da), making the ASAP pipeline, like the bullet line, uneconomical. The interesting aspect is that the State would have to fully finance the construction.

Bill Walker was heavily criticized during the 2010 gubernatorial primary for suggesting even a partial State buy-in as part of his all-Alaska natural gas pipeline plan. Such a buy-in to control management and to set time lines was termed "socialism", even by Ralph Samuels who was a proponent of the to be 100% State financed bullet line scheme concocted under then Gov. Sarah Palin.

By contrast to Alaska’s lack of measurable new oil and gas exploration/development since the 2010 elections, Texas is now back up to 2 million barrels a day of oil production from shale deposits, doubling its production of two years ago. Texas expects to exceed that production and to see production rise to the levels of the 1960s and 1970s when oil production was well over 2 million barrels per day. As of December, 2012, oil production in North Dakota reached 770,000 barrels per day. North Dakota’s oil production now exceeds Alaska’s oil production. Alaska’s oil production is declining rapidly and is presently at 549,936 barrels of oil and natural gas liquids per day.

Improvements in production technology is resulting in the ability to recover more and more oil from shale plays and oil sands deposits. New technology is also allowing recovery from wells where production was reduced to the point of being uneconomical, because of paraffin impeding the oil flow. Increasing domestic U.S. oil production has led to demands by the oil companies for legislation allowing the export of crude oil from domestic U.S. production for the first time since the 1960s. For the first time in decades, energy independence is being spoken of with certainty in the U.S. The increasing supply should lead to a decline in oil prices.

Norway’s oil fund is limited to investing no more than 4% of its NOF in Norway. The bankers and accountants who consulted to the Norwegian government applied a model of immediate return. Ignored by this economic investment model are the major government-level investments that are designed to facilitate growth in industry, to insure an educated and motivated work force, and to provide the transportation infrastructure needed to support commercial growth. However, the bankers and accountants won out with the argument that to invest in Norway’s small economy beyond 4% would cause inflation that would eventually devastate the local economy. The Alaska Permanent Fund was set up using a similar, shortsighted philosophy.

This same mentality of a quick turn around for money, investment in financial schemes rather than creation of equity through manufacturing and building, resulted in the ponzi schemes of the 80s and 90s of the ".com" stock failures and the sub-prime mortgage disaster, leading to the current recession with the bailouts, quantitative easing by the Fed, and the incredible spending of our Congress and President to no good end.

Europe was doing its own version, and the economic fall out is continuing there like it is here, with high unemployment, currency inflation, and an ongoing recession. Asia, mainly the PRC, is feeling the pinch as well, as the West is the primary beneficiary of its cheap labor and communist controlled economy.

Yet, the historical precedent for the growth of the Western economies was based upon the idea that government facilitated such growth by investing in the public sectors of utilities, transportation, and education to give the private sector the tools necessary to grow the country’s economy. The Tennessee Valley Power Authority is a prime example of a national initiative to increase power production in the U.S. in the 30s.

Instead of growing Alaska, Alaska’s leaders of the time, as had Norway’s leaders previously, decided to grow government as the means of giving the greatest benefit to the people of Alaska. A government that soon tired of public projects, and devoted itself to keeping the ‘hands out’ crowd happy and complacent by increasing welfare gratuities and growing government to do so, thereby directly benefitting fewer and fewer people, largely government employees. "Can’t" has become the new Alaska State Government policy to excuse the continuing lack of infrastructure. The only thing created these days is more welfare spending programs and a bigger bureaucracy at every level of government.

There are people who worked in Alaska for a city government, vested, then vested with a borough government, then did the same with the State, as some local subdivisions required vestments of only five years. Once they retired from the State, they left the State with multiple retirement vestments from three levels of government, full life-time medical, and great retirement benefits. In other words, they raped us, and they are still doing this today.

Former Governor Jay Hammond, the father of Alaska’s Permanent Fund and Permanent Fund Dividend program, never intended that the PFD become an entitlement. It was always intended that either the PFD would be offset by an income tax, or discontinued when the oil production declined beyond a sustainable level for government to justify the payment to the people. The PF was to be used as a ‘rainy day’ fund, similar to the intent for the Norwegian Oil Fund. This flawed strategy is now coming home to Alaska’s current Legislature and Governor Sean Parnell. Neither is doing anything to prepare this State for a post oil economy.

In a 2011 analysis "What Does Norway Get Out of its Oil Fund, if Not More Strategic Infrastructure Investment", economist Michael Hudson warned of impending problems with the Norwegian Oil Fund investment strategy. Norway has been investing its National Oil Fund in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and in questionable real estate in Europe and the U.S. The investments in China, Brazil and India being used to create industry and infrastructure that will compete with Norway’s indigenous industries.

In the current world economic recession, such investments are questionable in the long term, given the economic uncertainties and the current penchant for currency inflation to make products more competitive by the aforementioned countries. The infrastructure investments that are the responsibility of government to keep Norway competitive in a changing global economy remain underdeveloped and ignored, while the social welfare burden continues to increase in the face of declining oil revenues. Even in the face of $740 billion in its NOF, Norway has managed to accrue $657 billion in foreign debt. Norway has borrowed money even with the NOF.

The United States became the economic power house that it did, because the government invested in the infrastructure to facilitate the growth of business and to access natural resources through roads, airports, harbors, schools, utilities, and regulatory oversight. Regulatory oversight at the time was designed to facilitate, not to impede growth. Part of the infrastructure created being necessary to the national defense. The U.S. interstate highway system is a good example of military necessity also serving the needs of commerce.

Mr. Hudson opined that 60% of the Norwegian Oil Fund should have been invested in Norway to build non-oil industry infrastructure to hedge against the competing oil production increases resulting from the U.S. and other foreign shale and normal production and improvements in recovery technologies. With the increased supply in the market, oil prices should decline. Norway’s investment in foreign growth is now paying a negative dividend to the future of the Norwegian economy.

Hudson gave the following example of the shortsightedness of the use of Norway’s oil fund money by comparing how those countries that benefitted from Norway’s investments are using their funds:

"While investing at home to improve their quality of life, China, Singapore and other nations manage their Sovereign Wealth Funds with an eye to shaping their economies for the next twenty, thirty or even fifty years. They are buying control of the key foreign technologies and raw materials deemed most critical to their long-term growth. This broad scope invests export earnings directly to make their economies more competitive while raising living standards."

Norway’s oil wealth has gone to the benefit of other countries through investment in business and in direct investment in infrastructure projects, all of which serves to build their economies at no direct benefit to Norway’s economic future. Foreign investment makes it easier for those governments to make the needed investments in their infrastructure, and to procure foreign raw materials sources for future growth, because the Western investor is paying for the growth of their companies, both private and state owned enterprises, without consideration of the long term impact upon their home countries’ economies.

Unfortunately, for Alaska and Alaskans, our Permanent Fund is largely doing the same: investing outside of Alaska without benefit other than a check once year to each Alaskan, the continued expansion of a bloated self-serving government, and an increasingly demanding welfare state that will collapse with the decrease in oil production in the very near future.

Alaska’s Regional Native Corporations follow the same strategy, which benefits a few, and pays off the many to keep them quiet with respect to seeing any benefit locally. However, they can sell their losses to solvent companies as a tax break to that company.

Norway, like Alaska is a literal one-trick pony, almost completely reliant upon oil for its revenue to run its government, and to meet its growing social welfare state obligations.

Alaska’s Permanent Fund (PF) does not invest in Alaska. Anywhere but Alaska seems to be the strategy. The PF investment goal is an increase of Fund assets by 5% per annum. Our Legislature and Governors have concluded that Alaska is a bad investment: do not use the PF to build roads into the Bush, to improve harbors and airstrips in Alaska to reduce the cost of living and to provide for the defense of Alaska, or to access our natural resources for development, to increase the exploration and development of our hydrocarbon resources, or to provide for the basic services that government is charged to do for all Alaskans. Our budget, State and Federal funds last year was over $10B. Yet, not one mile of new road was built, nor were the current roads improved or repaired. Meanwhile, the PF continues to invest in the stock market, which is literally gambling with Alaska’s oil wealth. As of this year, Alaska’s public indebtedness was $8.2 billion.

Norway is not the standard to be followed. The debt structure alone is enough to dissuade the prudent man from believing that Norway’s government has been a good steward of the benefits of its oil reserves. Norway’s debt of $657 billion is foreign held debt. Meaning, Norway has borrowed money in the face of their oil fund’s wealth.

Alaska is again issuing bonds to finance purchases.

Without diversification of Norway’s economy by government investment to build the infrastructure to support non-oil related industry, Norway is ill prepared to compete in a world market once the oil is gone. Norway will have to compete with those very economies in which Norway’s oil wealth has been invested. China, Russia, India and Brazil continue to garner more and more world market share across industry sectors, while Norway is frozen in the belief that it can continue to expand its welfare state without investing in its economic future.

Sadly, Alaska follows this shortsighted course by our Governors’ (primarily Palin and Parnell) and the Legislature’s refusal to recognize the hydrocarbon market trends and act accordingly to invest in the infrastructure necessary to access and to support development of the tremendous resource wealth of this State. Instead of investing in Alaska, we have invested in our competitors’ economies, and in policies and regulations by a distant federal government through federal bonds that serve only to further restrict Alaska’s ability of self-determination. Alaska’s debt structure is not as far along as Norway’s, but our lack of a viable transportation infrastructure makes much of Alaska as remote and our resources as unreachable as in most of the third world. Only there, they do not have a hostile and interfering federal oversight that serves other interests to deny Alaska its rightful self-determination as a State in the Union of States.

Given Alaska’s $10B budgets of late, $8.2B in indebtedness, how long will our $50B in the PF last? The trend is ever larger State budgets in the face of an average 6% loss of North Slope oil production each year. If there is a drop in the price of oil below $80 a barrel, Alaska will be in serious financial straits. Further, it is doubtful that the TAPS can deliver oil when production reaches 300,000 barrels per day or less. That day is not long off, given the 549,936 barrel per day level of production at present.

The Parnell Administration has continued to ignore the construction of a natural gas pipeline to tidewater that would, with the right governor at the helm, increase State revenues slightly, but have the potential to do much more. The long term benefit of such a project would be to provide any remaining gas liquids for use in Alaska to create a petrochemical industry for the Interior, and use part of the gas transported with the export volume to provide cheap heat and power for Alaska’s communities in the Interior and in South Central Alaska. Such in-state use of North Slope natural gas would impact industry across the board, and enable kilns for timber, refridgeration for agriculture, and the creation of jobs across industry to provide opportunity beyond just building and maintaining a pipeline. There is the true benefit of our resources, not in a mere export scheme to feed a bloated and inefficient State government that benefits a few, and not the many.

Such an in-state energy infrastructure project would further enable increasing the available gas in Cook Inlet, until exploration and development could catch up with increasing demand. The LNG terminal at Nikkiski would continue to export Cook Inlet LNG to Japan, as is still being done after 43+ years, without concerns about shortfalls in supplies for home heating.

A good indication that increasing natural gas supplies will positively impact the State is the December, 2012 air quality permit by Agrium to restart the fertilizer plant at Nikkiski on the Kenai Penninsula. Agrium shut down its Nikkiski plant in November, 2005 resulting in the loss of 230 local jobs.

Long term, well paying jobs would be the benefit of the correct application of governmental responsibility and involvement in large scale infrastructure projects, the natural gas pipeline being such an example of potential State participation. 30% of Alaska’s private sector jobs are oil industry related. Such State support would increase the size of the private sector beyond just the oil/gas industry support and services. The all-Alaska natural gas pipeline proposed by the Alaska Gas Port Authority during Sarah Palin’s campaign of 2006, and again in 2010 during Bill Walker’s run for governor in the Republican Primary was such a project.

High oil prices have kept the wolves of recession away. This keeps a private sector that largely serves government from facing the reality of the current world recession. However, the fires of growth are cooling, contrary to our federal government’s protestations to the contrary. Like Norway, the prospect of lower oil prices, declining production, and an indifferent Governor and Legislature point to uncertain and turbulent times for Alaska’s economy.

In 1999, the price of oil hit $20 a barrel. Today, that would mean the Permanent Fund would have to be used to defray the costs of government until the price of oil returned to sustainable levels. Something that could take longer than the PF would last.

Alaska First must be the only policy on the part of our Legislature and Governor, or Alaska will be the last to the world LNG market party and the loser by virtue of a retiring, reluctant and recalcitrant State government that has failed to see the need to invest in Alaska First. Vision, courage, commitment and leadership must replace the "can’t" in the Governor’s vocabulary. That means a change in governor.

Norway’s example as a steward of its oil wealth for the benefit of its people is not a good example for Alaska. Once again, our leaders have been short sighted in their consideration of Alaska’s future.

For more information:

Alaska Statutes:

AS 37.13.020

http://www.apfc.org/home/Media/investments/20130523InvestmentPolicyD.pdf

Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, Dept. of Natural Resources, SOA

http://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/

Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Risk Vortex:

http://michael-hudson.com/2011/03/norways-sovereign-wealth-risk-vortex/

Alaska Public Debt 2012-2013

http://treasury.dor.alaska.gov/Portals/0/docs/debt_management/debt_book_2013.pdf



Michael Hudson is the President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), Wall Street Financial analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the U. of MO. http://michael-hudson.com/about/

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/05/governments-employ-20-percent-of.html

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/may/15/north-dakota-now-no-2-oil-production/

http://homernews.com/stories/010605/news_0106new005.shtml

http://search.peninsulaclarion.com/fast-elements.php?querystring=%22FERTILIZER+PLANT%22&offset=0&hits=10&hc=y&type=standard&profile=kenai&tags=FERTILIZER+PLANT&addListings=true

http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2013-06-27/agrium-inspecting-equipment-at-its-closed-plant-work-to-continue-through-fall

http://www.alaskajournal.com/Alaska-Journal-of-Commerce/December-Issue-3-2013/Agrium-Inc-applies-for-key-permit-to-allow-plant-restart/

CANCELLED!: Meet Bill Walker and Craig Fleener, Wasilla this Friday 4pm to 7pm at Re/Max in Wasilla!

CANCELLED DUE TO ROAD CONDITIONS!

Please join us, 4pm -7pm, Wasilla Re/MAX building to meet Bill Walker and Chris Fleener, candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor.

Bill Walker will not hesitate, but Parnell just sits and waits for . . . ?

With the oil and gas conversation in Alaska politics focusing on the upcoming referendum on HB21, the Governor’s recently passed reduction in oil taxes, there has been little news on the natural gas pipeline front since the Producers promised further "studies". The last news from the producers was that they had made a preliminary decision with respect to the port of export. They chose Nikkiski, but were again studying the situation further, meaning no decisions to actually build a pipeline until a time uncertain into the future.

The Producers’ had to know of the impending legislation in Congress that would give a right of way through Denlai National Park. S.157 and H.R. 586 were introduced in June, 2013. This legislation allowed a natural gas pipeline to be built along the 7 miles of existing highway right of way that runs through Denali National Park lands. A take-off to the park facilities through an existing utility corridor would extend from the park entrance to the park facilities to allow the Park Service access to the gas. The Secretary of Interior would be required to issue a permit for the line crossing federal park lands if it meets environmental reviews and meets ANILCA requirements. Per Eric Elam of Young’s office, the legislation passed the House and Senate and was signed into law on September 18, 2013. The bill also provided funding for the Kantishna Micro-Hydro Project, a 50kw hydro-power project to provide power to the Kantishna Roadhouse owned by Doyon RNC.

With the signing of the legislation into law, a major hurdle in the construction of any natural gas pipeline down the Parks corridor using either the Alaska Railroad right of way or the highway right of way has been eliminated. This does not mean that litigation will not ensue on the part of the anti-development forces aligned against any development of Alaska’s resources. These forces have had two major victories to date.

The Pebble Mine project is all but history with Anglo Mining pulling out. Usibelli Coal has not been able to move forward on the Jonesville Coal Mine in the Matanuska Valley for the same reason. Therefore, the likelihood that the greenies will let any natural gas pipeline construction move through Denali, even using the highway right of way, without litigation to extract blood money is unlikely. Alaska’s history is rife with opposition to major resource development by Outside groups who have no other vested interest other than using the courts and Alaska as a revenue source.

The only pipeline corridor that is free of any litigation is the TAPS corridor, which is the choice of Bill Walker in both his 2010 and current gubernatorial campaigns.

Legislatively, the way is now clear for a pipeline down the Parks or a pipeline down the Richardson highways. The choice is which way, and most importantly when?

Japan is facing a shortfall in LNG due to interruptions from some LNG suppliers, such as Nigeria. Japan will be facing higher gas prices over the winter, because of the necessity of purchasing LNG spot cargoes rather than receiving LNG as part of a long term contract supply. The situation is rife for potential for Alaska’s North Slope gas. December deliveries to Japan is $17/MMbtus. Last year, the average was $13.25/MMbtus. Qattar will not be able to supply additional LNG to Japan over the winter, with supplies contracted to other buyers. Qatter supplied gas to Japan helping to keep the price down to $13.25/MMbtus.

The Wood-MacKenzie Report demonstrated a delivery to Japan of Alaska LNG North Slope gas of approximately $8.50/MMbtus. Using a 10% inflation per annum figure since the report’s release in 2010, gives an estimated delivered cost of approximately $11.31/MMbtus today, without respect to market considerations, and depending upon whether or not one believes the government’s inflation figures or what is experienced in the rising prices of other commodities. 

October Japan LNG market prices are $15.15/MMbtu. By December, the Japan LNG market prices are already contracted at $17.20/MMbtu. China is competing with Japan for LNG, causing increasing prices for existing supplies.

The specter of Alaska LNG competing with LNG from Kitimat is very real with Shell’s planned LNG terminal. Shell let a $4 billion contract to TransCanada to build a 2 bcf-2.5 bcf natural gas pipeline to 700 kilometers from B.C. shale fields Kitimat. (Yes, the TransCanada partnered with Exxon . . . ) Shell has partnered with Korea Gas, Mitsubishi and PetroChina to build its Kitimat LNG terminal.

Meanwhile, Governor Parnell waits, the oil companies study, and Alaska faces an increasingly uncertain fiscal future.

Either Governor Sean Parnell does not want to remain governor, or he is getting some bad advice with respect to his failure to move aggressively into the Japanese market.

His competition for the governor’s job will not be so hesitant. Bill Walker has been a relentless advocate of moving Alaska’s North Slope to market as LNG before the LNG market in Asia is diminished by other suppliers. Japan has been a primary focal point in his marketing of Alaska LNG. Walker and the Alaska Gas Port Authority have been tireless in their promotion of Alaska’s natural gas to Asian markets. Remember, the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline being promoted by AGPA and Bill Walker was the basis for Sarah Palin’s campaign for governor. If Governor Sean Parnell will not make a decision, Bill Walker and his Lt. Gov. candidate Chris Fleener will.

For more information:

LNG Insight: Utility buyers change buying strategy for winter
http://www.platts.com/videos/2013/october/lng-buyers?video_uuid=ngt147ob

http://www.platts.com/podcasts-detail/spotlight/2013/october/lng-prices

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/15/shells-kitimat-lng-project-gets-boost-from-asian-partners/?__lsa=128e-8da1

Congressman Young’s press release

http://donyoung.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=348902

Bill Walker Valley greet and meet and fundraiser Oct 23, 2013 at Jalapenos in Wasilla

 

Join us for a meet & greet/fundraiser for Bill Walker on October 23rd.  See invitation with details below.  Please forward this on to family and friends.  If you are unable to attend but would like to support Bill, you can donate here.      billwalkerforgovernor.com                                                                 (907) 332-2455                 Paid for by Bill Walker for Governor Campaign 731 N St., Anchorage, Alaska 99501

HB4 is a bad idea and a slap in the voters' faces

HB4 creating the Alaska Gas Development Corporation was passed by the Alaska House on 2 April, 2013 by a vote of 30-9. This bill is the culmination of over 10 years of effort on the part of the Legislature and the Governor to end the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority created by 138,000 votes for Proposition 3 in 2002. HB4 is now before the Alaska Senate, where it will probably pass, given the list of sponsors in the Senate: Senators Dyson, Huggins, Giessel, McGuire, and Micciche. There are only 20 members of the Alaska Senate. Senator Charlie Huggins is the Senate President. Therefore, the likelihood of this legislation failing to pass is nil.

Alaska’s history of attempting to get a natural gas pipeline built to move natural gas from the North Slope to market has been convoluted. HB4 further complicates this confusing and contradictory history.

Prop 3 passed in 2002 mandated the State to create a natural gas development authority (AS 41.41) to build the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe to Valdez, with a 250 mmcf spur to south central. The capacity of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline (AANGPV) to be built was approximately 2.5-3.0 bcf/da with most of the gas converted to LNG and then shipped to market in the U.S. or to foreign markets. Proposition 3 created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA), which was to be have been the vehicle that would oversea the natural gas development potential for Alaska. From the very start, ANGDA was vehemently opposed, disrespected, and diminished by Governor Frank Murkowski, Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Sean Parnell and the Legislature from 2002 forward. With their opposition to ANGDA, the aforementioned belied any intention of respecting the peoples’ will where building a natural gas pipeline was concerned. This disrespect has been amplified in the creation of the Alaska Gas Development Corporation (AGDC) and the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP).

Governor Frank Murkowski rejected the will of the voters with his churlish opposition to ANGDA and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline (AANGPV). Murkowski funded ANGDA with an initial appropriation of $50,000 and the Legislature gave more money later in 2003. ANGDA’s yearly budgets then and since barely covered the cost of the few positions created. Compare this situation with the $400 million that will be shoveled into the AGDC’s Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) by the Legislature under HB4 and the $214 million previously appropriated for the various iterations of the ASAP line. Today, ANGDA’s website lists four on the ANGDA Board and one employee as Executive Director. Harold Heinze, a former CEO of ARCO, was the previous Chief Executive Director until he stepped down on December 8, 2011.

ANGDA accomplished much during its colored history. ANGDA explored moving gas south by truck to Fairbanks, permitting of the 250 mmcf spur line from Glennallen to Palmer’s Enstar natural gas hub, and building a natural gas pipeline from the Kenai Penninsula north to communities along the Parks Highway, which would have provided an incentive for further exploration and development of the Cook Inlet oil and gas fields. Given the dearth of resources and the failure by the Legislature and the Governors, and their opposition to ANGDA, to provide for bonding capacity, as has been done for the AGDC through Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and the Alaska Rail Road, ANGDA’s accomplishments were not insignificant. Under Harold Heinze and Scott Heyworth, ANGDA moved to meet its statutory mandate as was allowed by hostile administrations and an indifferent and, since the 2009, an increasingly hostile Legislature.

During his term, Governor Frank Murkowski had promised a natural gas pipeline and worked diligently on a 4.0 bcf/da pipeline proposal to make his promise reality. His efforts allegedly culminated in a contract with Exxon, Conoco and British Petroleum Alaska to build his pipe dream. The Palin campaign was able to successfully promote the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline in opposition to Murkowski’s efforts. It was revealed that what Murkowski called a contract was nothing more than an intent on the part of the oil companies to study the viability of building a 4.0 bcf natural gas pipeline to Alberta.

The size of any pipeline has also been an interesting side issue, and one often overlooked in any debate. The natural gas pipeline strategy effected under Murkowski, Palin and Parnell has been for a 4.0 bcf/day natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Alberta. The theory being that there must be sufficient volume to replace declining revenues produced by the North Slope’s declining oil production. The all-Alaska natural gas pipeline proposed in 2002 was to be a 2.5 bcf with Bill Walker expanding that to 3.0 bcf under his campaign proposal. The AANGPV would terminate at an LNG train to convert the methane to Liquid Natural Gas (LNG).

Bill Walker’s AANGPV proposal would have provided for use of the gas liquids in-state to grow Alaska’s private sector, whereas Palin/Parnell’s AGIA, both the Canadian route and the LNG proposal under consideration to Valdez, and Murkowski’s proposal intended that the gas and gas liquids be shipped out of state for consumption and use elsewhere with little benefit to Alaskans beyond the in-state pipeline and LNG train construction and a direct infusion of cash at the State level.

The Alaska Oil Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) has set a limit on the amount of natural gas that is available for sale in order to maintain sufficient pressure on North Slope legacy fields to allow production of remaining oil reserves. AOGCC has set a limit of 2.5-3.0 bcf available per day to deliver to a pipeline. Over 8 bcf per day is now reinjected back into the oil fields on the North Slope in order to maintain pressurization of the fields to make oil production feasible. AOGCC has been pretty consistent in its requirement that at least 5 bcf of the 8 bcf of gas produced per day be reinjected. The priority is in maintaining the State’s oil revenues.

During her 2006 campaign, Sarah Palin supported the mandate imposed by Proposition 3 and the construction of the AANGPV. Upon taking her oath of office, then Governor Sarah Palin turned her back on her support for that mandate and project, and moved forward with her Alaska Gas Inducement Act, which, to date, has produced nothing. AGIA was almost a mirror of Murkowski’s proposed pipeline plan. Instead of relying upon the Producers (Exxon, BP and Conoco), AGIA granted an exclusive to the winner of the competition promoted by the Palin Administration. Unfortunately, there was only one competitor, and that was TransCanada. Her successor, Governor Sean Parnell has not been able to move the proverbial natural gas pipeline football forward one inch towards a commitment for construction, a timeline to do anything, or even claim a successful open season.

During the 2010 campaign for governor in the Republican Primary, Bill Walker championed the AANGPV in his bid for the Republican nomination for Governor. Walker added a new dimension to the pipeline conversation that has been ignored since Parnell’s victory in the Republican Primary. That new dimension was the idea of value added resource development in the use of some of the gas to provide cheaper energy for the agriculture, timber, and mineral industries. Walker’s proposal would have seen take offs to communities down the Richardson Highway and at Glennallen. There was discussion regarding another spur across the Denali Highway to Cantwell. Fairbanks would have benefitted from the pipeline as the pipeline would have gone through with the gas liquids stripped at Fairbanks. The propane and butane would have been used as alternative fuels, with the ethane, hexane and other components being used to provide the building blocks for a plastics and petrochemical industry, giving a benefit to Alaska’s economy well beyond just the construction of the AANGPV. Walker’s proposal was the only proposal for a natural gas pipeline that went beyond just exporting Alaska’s gas to a foreign or domestic market.

The ASAP proposal was previously known as Harry Noah’s pipeline under Sarah Palin/Sean Parnell. The economics were never viable, but $14 million in State funding was appropriated to Noah’s pipeline study group for what was then known as the Bullet Line. Rep. Mike Hawker and Rep. Mike Chennault brokered deals to create the Alaska Gas Development Corporation by creating a frankenmonster of an entity to end the public’s mandate represented by ANGDA, but doing what the Legislature never did for ANGDA: providing for the ability to bond to finance any gasline projects using the resources of the Alaska Rail Road and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation.

The Republican Primary in 2010 saw three competing natural gas pipeline projects: former Rep. Ralph Samuels promoted the ‘Bullet Line’ (ASAP), Governor Sean Parnell promoted AGIA, and former Mayor of Valdez Bill Walker promoted the AANGPV.

For some reason, it was fine by the Republican legislative majority and voters to support the Bullet Line, even though it was to be 100% state financed, and limited to a maximum volume of 500 mmcf/da under AGIA, but having the State of Alaska buy into the AANGPV for a 20% interest in order to control the timeline for construction was ‘socialist’ and a subject of great controversy. The estimated cost of the Bullet Line was $4B-$7B at that time, and the estimated cost of the AANGPV was $20B-$24B. Since, the ‘Bullet Line’ cost estimates have grown to almost $8B, but the AGIA version of the AANGPV costs have increased from the 2010 AANGPV estimates to $45B-$65B according to the October 1, 2012 letter to Governor Sean Parnell from Exxon, BP and Conoco.

Note the disparity in cost increases between the two pipelines. Does it make sense that the estimated costs of the AANGPV should increase by three times over the cost factors of the ‘Bullet Line’/ASAP pipeline? Is this a case of TransCanada/Exxon, BP and Conoco inflating the AANGPV to reinforce their reluctance towards moving North Slope natural gas to market?

The upswing in shale gas production has eliminated the domestic U.S. natural gas. A projected 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves in continental U.S. shale deposits made the idea of shipping Alaska natural gas to a U.S. market moot. Now, Alaska natural gas will have to compete with domestically produced U.S. shale gas on the world market, given the export permits applied for to move shale gas as LNG to Asian markets.

One of the greatest errors on the part of the Parnell Administration was ignoring the needs of Japan after the 2011 earth quake. A delegation came to Alaska seeking an audience with our governor. They did not meet with him. Another delegation came last year in June and met with DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan. After leaving Alaska, the delegation comprising four Japanese companies, including Mitsubishi, travelled to British Columbia and Louisiana where they invested almost $4 billion between Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass LNG export expansion project and in Shell’s LNG export facility at Kitimat, B.C.

Alaska has a long term (43 years) relationship with Japan with respect to LNG exports. Conoco’s LNG train at Nikiski has been producing LNG for export to Japan since before the completion of the TAPS.

It certainly appears that AGIA has cost Alaska in lost business opportunities.

The ASAP’s primary purpose is no longer just the idea of supplementing Cook Inlet/Kenai gas production until storage and new exploration and development activities eliminate the specter of natural gas shortages that saw the closure of the Agrium ammonium nitrate fertilizer plant in Nikiski several years ago with the loss of 65 jobs. The ASAP will provide natural gas for Conoco’s LNG train at Nikiski for export to Asia. Given that the ASAP will be constructed at State of Alaska expense and its operation subsidized by the State, that is a very good deal for Conoco. At lease some of Alaska’s natural gas will make it Asia’s LNG market.

Cook Inlet has approximately 19 trillion cubic feet of estimated reserves remaining to be discovered. Exploration and development has picked up over the last two years, with more drilling planned this year. Unfortunately, there needs to be an upgrade in transportation infrastructure and storage to get the natural gas from the producing field to sufficient storage to carry south central’s demand through increasingly colder winters. It is not a declining production that is the issue, it is the lack of a suitable intra-field pipeline system to get the gas to the storage facility. As a result, Alaska may see the first importation of natural gas from Russia later this Spring.

With the 2014 gubernatorial elections looming, Governor Sean Parnell is in much the same situation as former Governor Frank Murkowski was at the time of his reelection bid against Sarah Palin. Under Parnell, the AGIA 4.0 bcf pipeline option to Canada is dead. The only viable option is the AGIA LNG option similar in size and scope to the AANGPV, excepting for no spur to Palmer and no in-state use of the gas liquids. Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon, BP, Conoco and TransCanada, LNG from Alaska is unwelcome in the Asian market, because of competing developments on the part of the aforementioned.

Given that his administration cannot state any firm date for the construction of a pipeline, could it be that Governor Sean Parnell is exploring the possibility of running against Senator Mark Begich with the intent of bailing from the Governor’s office before the house of cards that is AGIA falls in on itself?

Such could be inferred from the remarks made by Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell today. Treadwell commented on the recent upheavals in the Alaska Republican Party and its ability to promote and support the campaign against Democrate Senator Mark Begich. Treadwell stated that it may not be him running against Begich, but possibly Governor Sean Parnell. Treadwell had previously announced his intent to explore a run against Senator Mark Begich on November 30, 2012. If so, Treadwell will certainly run for governor in Parnell’s stead.

Bill Walker may have another shot at the Governor’s mansion if Parnell runs for the U.S. Senate. Under Parnell, Treadwell has not been terribly prominent in the public eye.

It should be noted that Governor Sean Parnell has not opposed theAGDC/ASAP proposal of Rep. Mike Hawker and Rep. Mike Chennault as demonstrated by HB4, nor did he oppose the previous iteration of that project proposed by Harry Noah under then Governor Sarah Palin. This lack of opposition leaves him in a position of being able to claim some degree of success with respect to moving Alaska’s North Slope natural gas to market. Ignoring of course, the fact that the ASAP project is limited to 500mmcf under AGIA, meaning the cost of transport to market will have to be subsidized by the State for the life of the pipeline. The cost of constructing the pipeline would also be borne by the State of Alaska.

Bill Walker’s AANGPV was the best option to date, as his plan provided for instate use of the gas liquids and natural gas to provide for cheap energy for agriculture and industry, alternative fuels for the Bush, and a petrochemical industry for Alaska. TransCanada and Exxon will send the gas and the gas liquids to Asia, if they bother to build a pipeline at all. Further, the AANGPV provided for a 250 mmcf/da spur into the Enstar Hub at Palmer to help mitigate the anticipated storage shortfalls from Cook Inlet natural gas production. A spur from Paxon west to Cantwell was also anticipated providing for a spur feeding to Nenana and connecting to any ANGDA pipeline from Nikiski north to Cantwell.

Competing with any potential Alaska LNG exports, Exxon has several large scale natural gas development LNG projects in the Pacific (Australia, Indonesia, New Guinea), and also needs a market for its portion of Qatar gas with the loss of the U.S. domestic natural gas market to domestically produced shale gas.

TransCanada is part of the Foothills Pipeline Company, which is involved in the Kitimat LNG port project. TransCanada was recently awarded a contract by Shell for a 2.4bcf pipeline to Kitimat, B.C.

Conoco has its portion of Qatar natural gas to move to market, now in Asia, because of the loss of the domestic U.S. market to shale gas. Conoco also has two Australia LNG projects that will compete with Alaska LNG for the Asian market.

Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips and TransCanada, is it any wonder why there has been no forward movement on AGIA?

Given the conflicts of interest on the part of Exxon and TransCanada, Governor Parnell has to be either totally brain dead, or simply ignoring reality, given his insistence on pursuing AGIA in the face of competing projects on the part of the TransCanada, Exxon, Conoco and BP. There is no provision under AGIA to declare breach of contract based upon a conflict of interest.

Given the increasing availability of natural gas in the world market, it may be better for the State to pay $500 million to $1.5 billion in penalties get out of AGIA. The lost opportunities will cost the state several orders of magnitude of any penalty under AGIA.

What are the differences between the ASAP natural gas pipeline and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline option to Valdez?

Cost of construction is borne by the State: ASAP–100%; AANGPV–20% State ownership interest

Capacity: ASAP–500 mmcf/da; AANGPV–2.5-3.0 bcf/da

Benefits: ASAP will increase south central consumer gas costs by up to 13%; AANGVP will reduce or maintain present consumer costs, provide for growth in the private sector, because of in-state use of gas liquids, benefit beyond Alaska for growth in Asian customer’s economies

Cost of construction: ASAP–$8B; AANGPV–up to $45B-$65B (oil companies’ estimate) with LNG train and harbor improvements

Route: ASAP–North Slope to Nikiski across several salmon streams, Denali National Park and Denali State Park, but will not go through Fairbanks with no spur for consumers down the Richardson Highway south to Valdez; AANGVP–TAPS corridor from Prudhoe to Valdez covering all communities along the route through Fairbanks, with a 250 mmcf/da spur from Glennallen to Palmer and passing through Fairbanks down the Richardson Highway with a potential spur across the Denali Highway, LNG route--Valdez to Asia

Permitting status: ASAP–no permits issued; AANGVP–existing permits from Yukon Pacific Corp.

Estimated completion: ASAP–2019; AANGVP–two-three years from funding

Cost of gas to delivery per million cubic feet: ASAP–$9-$11.25/mmcf for Anchorage consumers (p13 of ASAP Project Plan); AANGVP–<$10/mmcf from the North Slope to Japan, including TAPS, LNG conversion costs, and LNG tanker costs (p15 of Wood-Mac study)

Gas liquids: ASAP–stripped at North Slope and reinjected; AANGVP–stripped at Fairbanks for use in Alaska

Testimony on HB4 was heard before the Senate Finance Committee today. HB4 is expected to pass out of the committee.

For more information:

ASAP Project Plan, Dec. 20, 2011–Joint In-state Gas Caucus

http://housemajority.org/neuman/pdfs/27/Gas_Caucus_New_Scenario_20121220.pdf

Wood MacKenzie Alaskan LNG Exports Competitiveness Study

http://www.arcticgas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/11-07-alaska-lng-competitiveness-study.pdf

Exxon Mobil LNG:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_production_lng.aspx

Conoco Phillips LNG:

http://lnglicensing.conocophillips.com/EN/lngprojects/Pages/index.aspx

British Petroleum LNG:

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015376&contentId=7028020

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015513&contentId=7043288

TransCanada:

http://www.transcanada.com/coastal-gaslink.html

Other related articles:

http://www.examiner.com/article/agia-transcanada-s-conflict-of-interest

http://www.examiner.com/article/agia-exxon-s-conflict-of-interest

http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-lisa-murkowski-is-selling-lng-to-japan-when-parnell-will-not

http://www.examiner.com/article/support-for-the-all-alaska-natural-gas-pipeline-appears-local-campaigns

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-legislature-and-the-governor-neither-of-whom-can-make-a-decision

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/denali-is-dead-now-what

Parnell catches up

These are interesting times for Alaska politics. Even though, we have a governor who is about as colorless as his snowman alter-ego. I named the snowman pictured here Gov. Sean Parnell as he is the same bland visage as the governor.

Gov. Parnell has been moving things forward a bit, to try to give his administration substance and an identity of its own in the aftermath of the Palin resignation.

Parnell has put forth a program to fund higher education scholarships for Alaska’s high school students who maintain a B average. Gov. Parnell has recognized that not all go to college, so the program will include technical or vocational school scholarships as well as collage scholarships. What was not made clear was whether or not the collage scholarships will be focused on the University of Alaska, or will allow a student to go to Outside institutions. The former head of U of A had a similar program. It looks like Parnell decided to expand upon it.

This is a good move on Parnell’s part, as it demonstrates a desire to provide a trained workforce and management potential for Alaska resource and business development. Unfortunately, it is also a fact that most of the students will probably not return to Alaska, once they graduate from an Outside institution. That aspect was not addressed in his education initiative. What was not made clear, was whether or not this program is part of a genuine Parnell agenda or something left over from the Palin administration, and Sean is just finishing Sarah’s desires.

The Governor’s recent commitment to address the State’s unfunded maintenance of buildings and transportation infrastructure is a welcome attempt to fix something that vexes a lot of Alaskans. Parnell wants $100,000,000 set aside for this purpose.

With the Prudhoe revenue largess over the years, the focus went from maintaining what the State was responsible for in terms of our schools, roads, harbors, and airports, to a “we can afford to let it go and completely replace” philosophy. This attitude was reflected in the requirements for a community to completely replace all fire engines every 5 years, which has now changed to every 10 years due to the costs. Schools maintenance went by the wayside, except what was required to keep the building functional. Roofs and other costly repair items were ignored, as the attitude was “we will just build a new school”. Yet, maintenance was included in the >$7,000 per student that the State funds every year. Those monies allocated for maintaining the schools were allowed to be spent for other than maintenance by the school districts.

For example, the Matanuska Susitna Borough School District turns back to the Borough every year $1,000,000-$1,500,000 in contingency funds appropriated every school year as part of the district’s budget. This is money that could go to the maintenance of the district’s schools, instead of letting a roof become a hazard requiring emergency funding from the State to fix. After all, the money that goes back to the borough came from the State appropriations for education to begin with.

Governor Parnell finally confirmed BG Thomas Katkus as the new Commissioner and Adjutant General of the Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA). Katkus was Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell’s pick for that post and his former no. 2. Katkus is a retired Anchorage Police Officer and a life-long resident of Wasilla. Given that DMVA is a rat’s nest of musical chairs for retired brigadier generals, hopefully the next administration will have the courage to conduct a thorough review of DMVA policies along with a legislative audit to bring to light how DMVA spends its money. I doubt Parnell will have the political courage to address DMVA anytime soon.

One of the interesting items is the recent resignation of Pipeline Czar Harry Noah. Noah has championed the idea of a bullet line from the North Slope to Pt. McKenzie on Cook Inlet, just north of Anchorage. This route was heavily favored by Valley legislators Sen. Charlie Huggins, Rep. Bill Stoltze, and Rep. Mark Neuman.

Now, another supporter of this route, Lt. Gov. hopeful Rep. Jay Ramras of Fairbanks, is calling for an investigation by the Governor over Noah’s resignation. Ramras is a supporter of the Enstar bullet line that Noah championed.

The association of the aforementioned Valley legislators and Ramras in their favoring a monopoly by Enstar for any natural gas delivered to south central is something that should be questioned by the Parnell Administration.

The competing line to the North Slope Enstar bullet line was the ANGDA spur line off of any big pipe to be built under AGIA or another competing pipeline proposal.

Gov. Sean Parnell may be a lackluster guy, but he is finally doing something. Whether his “somethings” are an expression of his desires or Sarah’s have yet to be made clear to Alaskans.

As the coming year quickly approaches, will this governor distance himself from Sarah in time to meet the challenges from Republicans Rep. John Harris and Bill Walker for his job?

Who knows, only the raven knows for sure, and he/she (I did not look that closely) ain’t saying, er rather, squawking. . . .

Sarah Palin--she's baaaack!

FINALLY, OUR GOVERNOR IS BACK IN ALASKA ACTING LIKE A GOVERNOR!

The Road to Nome, a long overdue improvement to the State's overland infrastructure is now being proposed by Gov. Palin. This is the first time there has been support by any administration since Walter Hickle in the late 60s.

Even more telling is the beginning of a thaw between Exxon and the State with the approval by DNR for Exxon to drill two gas wells at Pt. Thompson this year, along with building necessary pad and ice road support infrastructure. Granted, a long way to go to settle the State's angst against Exxon for delaying and setting upon gas leases when Alaska and the United States could use the royalties and natural gas. The natural gas would offset Middle East sources, meaning less money to the terrorists and cheaper gas for Americans.

The progress towards the start of a 24 inch natural gas in-state pipeline from the North Slope to Palmer or Anchorage is positive with a potential completion in 2014. That's cutting it too close for my liking in terms of completion before Cook Inlet reserves are depleted, but at least it is a date.

The Healy coal power generation plant sale to Golden Valley Electric is another good decision. The new power plant will reduce costs to central Alaska power consumers and demonstrate that a clean coal generation facility is a necessary and viable power generation technology for Alaska and the U.S. That plant has set idle for better than 10 years after a tremendous investment by the Dept. of Energy and the State of Alaska.

Now, if Sarah will get spending under control and show us the "fiscal conservative" side of the Palin Administration, the Sarah Palin I voted for and supported will be occupying the Governor's office.

The next item should be a vocal and public challenge by our Governor to the ANILCA restrictions regarding rights of way. The Izembek NWR land swap is an indication of unfairness in ANILCA. The State of Alaska should be allowed to build roads as it needs them and where it deems fit, just as every other State has been allowed to do so. To deny Alaska is to impose a restriction that is bad faith with respect to the intent of our Statehood Compact.

WELCOME BACK, SARAH, AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!

Alaska needs the 24 in NG pipeline to south central, NOW!

Last session (2008), the Legislature appropriated $4M to ANGDA to perform additional studies regarding early delivery options for the proposed ANGDA “bullet” NG pipeline, which, I hope, anyway, will provide NG for the Mat-Su Valley, the Kenai Penninsula and Anchorage.

Man oh man. When you want something screwed up, let government get involved.

First, the Governor asked for $8M for ANGDA for the study, and I assume other uses.

The Legislature cut that amount in half.

Normally, I would say, good job on cutting costs.

Then, one finds out what the money is to be used for, which is just another study on top of hundreds of millions spent on studies over the last 10 years regarding moving our NG from the North Slope to market.

Why is it necessary to reinvent the wheel in the face of a 2005 study undertaken by DNR that focused on a bullet line to south central?

ANGDA focused on the immediate--and I mean immediate, as it is 2008, folks--NG crisis in this area. ANGDA’s solution was a 24 inch diameter bullet line to remedy the shortsightedness of the Murkowski Administration’s Canadian give away to the exclusion of the impending NG shortage in this area.

The Conoco Phillips-BP NG pipeline announced a few weeks ago is no solution, as that will not start construction for at least another 10 years.

What good does another study do, when the estimated time when Alaska will have to start importing NG is around 2012, and, if the line were started today, we might have NG flowing down here by 2012, if the environmentalist will allow Alaskans to meet their energy needs with this pipeline.

Of course, we all know, that the second construction is announced, every greenie organization in the nation will jump on the litigation bandwagon to raise money. Alaska has always been a cornucopia of issues for fund raising for these organizations.

Remember TAPS and the years of litigation to halt or slow the construction?

Therefore, why is our Governor and Legislature acting to delay the only solution that promises to provide NG from Alaska before we run out in this area?

I have to ask our Legislators and our Govenror, what’s the point of any appropriation that does not culminate in an immediate start in construction of the ANGDA pipeline?

The permits are in place, the studies have been done, let’s get on with it!


I am puzzled by the need to study additional means of delivering NG to south central or elsewhere for that matter.

Delay, delay, delay and do nothing, but more studies?

In 2012, and at the latest, 2014, we will be buying imported NG from the Producers. NG that will come from a very high priced foreign source--the Middle East, Sakhalin Island or from Indonesia. NG that will cost far more than the local source from the North Slope. And, joke of jokes, imported by LNG tanker.

Remember, it was just too expensive to transport Alaska NG to a U.S. market by LNG tanker.

Conversely, the Producers have already stated that LNG transported by LNG tankers will be means to resolve the Cook Inlet NG shortage if there is no pipeline built by then.

Interesting how in that case it will not be too expensive to import foreign NG to Alaska.

Couple a dramatic increase in the cost of NG to our homes, the rapidly increasing cost of motor fuels—if you think it is expensive now, just wait!—and the ever increasing burden of local government run amuck, who will be able to afford to live here?

Between property taxes and fuel costs, life as we know it now will be considerably degraded, as everything comes by ship, airplane or truck, which means food, clothing, and anything on the store shelves will be ever increasing in price.

Remember the Carter years with 18% inflation?

We can at least mitigate the home heating bill, if ANGDA can get started on a gas line.

To put Alaskans to work immediately, and to provide relief for an impending crisis requires our Governor to direct ANGDA to get to work, and for the Legislature to have the courage to underwrite the project.

Instead, our elected officials did what elected officials always do in the face of impending crisis, they called for another . . . study.

State employees had better not get any cost of living increases or other benefit increases until there is a solution to the NG crisis. They need to feel the pain just like the rest of us peons.

Looks like natural gas to diesel conversion for home heating is going to get a big boost, if the State does not give the ANGDA proposal impetus and money, instead of lip service. Time is something that is running out.

Already, Agrium has closed the ammonium nitrate plant at Nikkiski due to there being no natural gas available for the projection of ferilizer for Alaska's agricultural industry. Not only did that closure cost the State 60 jobs, but will drive the cost of our agriculture up, as fertilizer must once again be . . . imported.

The natural gas LNG plant that is being used to export natural gas to Japan is now scheduled to be converted into a receiving plant for LNG imports INTO Alaska. A minimum of 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the North Slope of Alaska, and Alaska may have to import natural gas if we cannot get a small pipeline built by 2014. Now, that's just wrong.

ANGDA needs a very serious priority. Now.

Otherwise, some legislators and a governor will go down in history as seeing the importation of LNG when a solution was immediately at hand.

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/