Friday, March 6, 2015

Governor Walker responds to HB132

HB 132 seeks to constrain the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) and prevent them from any planning activities related to expanding the size and scope of the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP).



Governor Walker responds to HB132 from Alaska Governor Bill Walker on Vimeo.

Gov. Walker makes good points and  and defends his objective to develop the big gasline project (AKLNG) and work in parallel to make the ASAP option economically viable.

Watch this press conference video - I was real happy to hear the Governor mention competition, the marketplace and potential customers.  This guy understands the trade offs and risk.  He also understands that the neighbors next door are poised to win the LNG race.


Speaking of Canada, they recently came up with a brilliant way to boost the economics of LNG projects. (Globe and Mail Link).  The Canadian approach is to allow LNG projects to depreciate the projects more quickly.  We 'Mericans could benefit from this idea and I don't know why Alaskan politicians aren't taking the hint.  Accelerated depreciation is absolutely the best idea I've heard yet. The idea mitigates the financial risk of spending tens of billions of dollars on a mega project.  I don't agree with the term tax break - it's more of a way of shifting the time the taxes are collected.

Redefining the timing of tax collection is the best idea ever because the government won't collect any taxes from un-built projects.  I hope Senators Lisa Murkowski, Dan Sullivan, Representative Don Young, and Governor Walker warm up to this idea and take note of what Canada has done - it's truly a project enabling action that is 100% in the hands of the politicians. Aside from Gov. Walker exactly what are the rest of Alaska's politicians doing to more the project forward?


Friday, February 13, 2015

Data Dump and Walker Talk

This week the Alaska LNG project submitted a series of draft environmental and socioeconomic reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  FERC is responsible for conducting the environmental review of the project.

You can find the files at the FERC elibrary site (FERC LINK) and search docket number PF14-21:


I'm still downloading and sorting through the documents - so far I don't see anything shocking or new but I'll post any snippets of interest.

Other project news of interest: Gov. Bill Walker  and his team are in New York explaining how they will manage through the current dip in oil revenues. (LINK to Alaska Journal of Commerce).  Whatever misgivings Gov. Walker may have about the project it is now his job to promote the project and represent the project as a source of future revenue.  We should all wish him good luck on his mission to protect the State's bond ratings.  Those ratings play a huge role in the cost of capital to build the project.  At today's low interest rates no one talks much about financing the project, but stay tuned - the day will come when interest rates matter a lot and the date of first revenue matters a lot. 

Speaking of Gov. Walker's misgivings, this week the Governor spoke to lawmakers and indicated in a conditional sort of way that he would drop his Point Thomson lawsuit  (Alaska Dispatch Link) and quote from Alaska Dispatch story: 
Walker said he will move to dismiss his lawsuit after introducing legislation Friday intended to address his concerns.
We'll see what he expects to get out of this legislation but the story in Juneau should flange up with the story in New York. (LINK TO GOV. WALKERS COMMENTS

Finally here's a link to an editorial from my favorite Okie Boone Pickens (FORBES LINK) "To Kill A Pipeline...Or Two: The Sad Reality Of Obama's Energy Thinking"  Boone may be an Okie but understands that Obama's Alaska wilderness plans can will kill Alaska oil.  It's off topic for this Alaska LNG project blog, but what's bad for TAPs is bad for LNG too. 

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Project FERC Filings and More

The sleepy AK LNG project is generating a flurry of FERC filings.  None are monumentally interesting or overly informative, but if you are following the project take a look and enjoy the filings:

1) Summary of the 10/29/14 telephone conversation re  Alaska Gasline Development Corporation's Alaska LNG Project under PF14-21

2) Summary of the 10/28/14 Telephone conversation re Alaska Department of Natural Resources' Alaska LNG Project under PF14-21

3)   Summary of the 2014-January-2015 conference call between FERC Staff, Alaska LNG Project Staff et al re the Bi-Weekly Pre-filing Process conference call for the Alaska LNG Project  under PF15-21.

4)  Summary of the 10/27/14 Interagency Meeting re laska Gasline Development Corporation's Alaska LNG Project  under PF14-21.


5) Summary of the 10/30/14 Telephone conversation re Alaska Gasline Development Corporation's Alaska LNG Project under PF14-21.


This sounds chilling (i.e. what fresh regulatory horrors are brewing?):

  • In addition, the project will require an Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act section 810 evaluation. (BLM and the DOI)
  •  There is a new arctic policy, which this project will be the test case for its development. This policy is an integrated approach to approving development or projects in the arctic region. This group is wondering how to integrate its process into the National Environmental Policy Act process. (DOI)
 6) Alaska LNG Project Monthly Pre-Flining Status Report No. 4 (December 2014)by Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, BP Alaska LNG LLC,ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG Coompany, ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC, & TransCanada Alaska Midstream LP under PF14-21.

7) Alaska LNG Project - Community Meetings Summary Letter by Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, BP Alaska LNG LLC, ConocoPhillips Alaska LNG Company, ExxonMobil Alaska LNG LLC, TransCanada Alaska Midstream LP under PF14-21.


Other News: H.R. 351, The LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act  passed the House of Representatives with a vote of 277-133.  Bill Link

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Dream Killer?

I guess we're all waiting for the new governor to show some sign that the Alaska LNG project is still on track.  Early indications are not good:

Amanda Coyne Link

Monday, January 12, 2015

This Just In..................

No (productive) Alaska LNG news these days so here's some news of a North Slope producer with plans to build 15 - 30 MTPA of capacity in British Columbia:

Globe and Mail Exxon plans to spend up to $25-billion to export B.C. LNG

Project Description

It's early days, but Alaskans need to take note and let this one soak in. The investment and project magnitude is on par with Alaskan LNG, but Exxon / Imperial are moving forward in B.C.

Early days, but British Columbia may beat Alaska in the LNG race.

Friday, December 5, 2014

Parallel Universe - Canadian LNG Blues

Canadian LNG projects are similar to The Alaska LNG effort with some upstream and climatic differences. (LINK TO LNG-N-BC)

A week ago I would have predicted success for the Petronas led Pacific Northwest LNG project but apparently the project economics are not meeting client expectations (Globe and Mail Link). 

At 19.2 MMTPA, the PNW LNG project has about the same capacity as the Alaska LNG project. Gas is supplied to the PNW project via the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project which is 560 miles long (240 miles shorter than the Alaska LNG project).  Unlike Alaska, significant upstream development is required to provide gas to the PNW pipeline.

A final investment decision was due this month.


LINK to Map of BC Gas Pipelines

LINK to BC LNG information (BC Environmental Assessment Office website)

LINK to PNW Data

PETRONAS statement regarding LNG development in British Columbia

Quote: PETRONAS and its partners have decided to defer the project’s $36 billion Final Investment Decision (FID) pending further clarity on substantive items of importance to ensure that critical project components align with economic viability of the Project and competition from other LNG producing countries. Costs associated with the pipeline and LNG facility remain challenging and must be reduced further before a positive FID can be undertaken.