AGPA's LNG export application response to DOE

APGA's response can be found on DOE's website under Docket No. 12-75-LNG.

Items of note - Good summary of Korean and Japanese interest in Alaska LNG including copies of letters of intent.

Lots of other good background data and history.

Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act Amended

Read it HERE

Resource Development Presentations

No real news to report (again). No evidence of a sense of urgency.  All the projects are years out from project approval as all the players creep forward.

Link to presentations from the Resource Development Council.

Presentations worth reading:

• Oil & Gas: Kara Moriarty, Executive Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Association

• Alaska Gas Pipeline Project Tony Palmer, Vice President, Alaska Development, TransCanada

• ASAP

• Stan Foo, President and General Manager, Donlin Gold LLC

Vladivostok LNG or Alaska LNG - You're doing it Wrong

Vladivostok Gas Line

Alaskans have again proven they are less nimble in the marketplace and less capable than than other stranded natural gas owners.  Gazprom has announced their plans to build a 2000 mile long gas pipeline (over twice the length of the proposed North Slope to Valdez gas line) to feed a planned LNG plant in Vladivostok.  The LNG plant capacity will be between 10 and 20 mmtpa compared to 25 mmtpa for the Alaska LNG project.  The "all in" cost for field development, pipeline and LNG plant is $44 Billion.

The field development cost is $13.9 Billion and the pipeline cost is $24.8 Billion leaving $5.3 Billion to build the LNG Plant plant.   Assuming a capacity range of 12.5 to 15.0 mmtpa the Gazprom investment equals $2.93 to $3.52 Billion per mmtpa of LNG capacity compared to $2.00 to $2.56 Billion per mmtpa of LNG capacity for Alaskan LNG.

The Gazprom LNG plant cost may be understated, but there is no good reason for Gazprom to bring LNG to market for less cost than the Alaskan project.

The clear message: Alaska LNG - You're doing it Wrong.  Alaskan gas is developed, the distances are less. The customers are the same.  The steel, the talent, the jobs are headed out for projects in all locations outside of Alaska.

Good Luck Gazprom - your investment is safe as long as Alaskans keep kicking the can down the road on the Alaska LNG project.

Alaskans need to learn from this, pick apart the numbers and figure out how to get in the game before the game is over.

Here's the winning formula: Fiscal Certainty + Customer Equity Participation - Taxation Gluttony - Sound Bite Populism = Alaska LNG success.

This Week In Alaska Gas

Items of note from the past week:

Fiscal Certainty: Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski met with North Slope producers (LINK1) (LINK2).Quotes from Oil & Gas Journal:

Alaska North Slope producers say the biggest hurdle facing construction of a natural gas pipeline across the state to a planned liquefaction and export facility on its southern coast is the state’s uncertain fiscal regime, US Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alas.) said following meetings in Houston with the three largest ANS producers. 

“Alaskans have waited 4 decades to see some benefit from their [ANS] gas,” Murkowski observed. “While Lower 48 markets may be oversupplied because of the shale boom, places like Japan and South Korea are willing to pay a premium for long-term supply contracts. But that window of opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.”

Good job Lisa.  I remember Ted Stevens attempted to make the same point when he said:

The right climate for this investment in our State must exist. Originally considered a $20 billion project, recent financial analysts’ comments indicate the cost will be $40 billion. No entity will commit that kind of money – whether $20 or $40 billion – without certainty in the financial aspects of the project’s economics.

 Good luck getting the point across now that the price tag is about 50% more.

Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) News: The Final Environmental  Impact Statement on Alaska Stand Alone Gas Pipeline (ASAP) Released (LINK1) (LINK2).  Somehow the economic principles of economy of scale won't work for a big pipeline, but somehow we can build a much smaller one?  Where's the "alignment". In about 2 years ASAP will hit the fiscal certainty wall too.

The $65,000,000,000 Question

Can we build a pipeline project that will make all of Alaska's natural gas dreams come true for $65 Billion?  Dermot Cole doesn't think much of the recent letter sent to Governor Parnell, he says the letter doesn't show much enthusiasm.  To a certain degree Mr. Cole is right.

The $65 Billion price tag is a reality check.  If Alaskan LNG is priced to compete in the global market the project may move forward.  I estimate the base price of Alaskan North Slope gas LNG at around $12/MMBTU before operation cost and taxes are added. At current oil prices, oil indexed LNG trades in the $16/MMBTU range.  The global LNG consumer community want to de-link LNG from crude oil or discount LNG from crude. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Japan and Korea currently pay about $13.80/MMBTU for LNG - the highest rates in the world.

The reality check shows that there is no wiggle room for pricing in excessive profits or taxes.  The whole project is at the ragged edge of feasibility.

Having said that Alaskan LNG has huge benefits that few other projects offer:

• Short Stable Shipping lanes .  The shipping lanes between Alaska and Asia don't have a Strait of Hormuz to deal with.  Asian LNG buyers need the diversity of supply the Alaska LNG project offers.
• Political Stability.  LNG from second and third world sources is always at risk of political disruption, especially in the new world of tweeting community organizers.
• Jobs for Equity Partners. You don't hear much about this but a project of this size will generate a massive amount of commerce in the Asian countries that build modules and pipe for the project. It's possible that equity partners could spend 100% of their project cost within their own borders.
• Conventional Gas. I support shale gas development, but investing in a large, developed conventional gas resource is more predictable than investing in an undeveloped shale gas resource. 

Project alignment is good and it's good to get the scary reality check estimate out in the open. The Governor, Dan Sullivan and Senator Lisa Murkowski are all out in force saying the right things and engaging with potential LNG customers.

With a bit of luck, more will detail will develop and the project will move forward.

Project Progress Report posted on line

Here's a link to the progress report letter.

More analysis to follow.